The Dead Dogma of Trans Rights Advocates

index

Living on a campus where the student body is always brimming with ludicrous outrage, a second-year student should be resigned to the fact of life that a protest is never far away. In recent weeks, the American University (AU) populace has focused its white-hot spotlight of rage onto Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) and its upcoming spring speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos.

For the purposes of full disclosure, it’s important for my reader to note that I serve as Treasurer for the YAL chapter here at AU, and I was a part of the decision-making process that led to Yiannopoulos’s speaking arrangement. I’m writing of my own accord and my views do not necessarily reflect those of any other members of the executive board, or YAL as a whole.

Much of the controversy surrounding Yiannopoulos revolves around his various statements concerning the transgender community. He recently penned an article entitled, “I Am So Done With The Trans Outrage Brigade: Why I’m Supporting ‘Drop The T’” and included some admittedly inflammatory statements such as, “If you ask me, when a guy says he needs to cut part of himself off for the world to make sense, we should start with his head.”

Understandably, this has generated a lot of anger from the trans community at AU. They have used this sentence to justify banning Yiannopoulos from appearing on campus, in that he is an advocate for violence against trans people. However, not more than a couple sentences later, Yiannopoulos explains, “I say all this in language designed to provoke the self-appointed arbiters of speech.” The politically correct student base obliged and played right into his hands.

Yiannopoulos does not advocate for violence any more than any person who has hyperbolically said, “I’m gonna kill you” in an argument. The Left’s focus on the extreme nature of his language represents a clear attempt to dismiss him without having to address some of the real arguments he makes. This is a disturbingly popular trend within the community at AU, and is most common when transgenderism is injected into an argument.

One of the most common arguments I have heard when trans people are discussed is that any skepticism directed towards trans people is transphobic and that, as a cisgender person, I cannot possibly understand anything about the decisions trans people make and the issues they face. Any intermediate school debater will notice that this is not, in fact, an argument, but a line of attack.

Even to the most well read Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies (WGSS) major, is it really so incredible to believe that some people might be confused about these theories? They are proposing that sex and gender are completely different and that people can be biologically male, but identify as a female. They also propose that gender is not a question of male or female, but a nebulous cloud, or spectrum, of various options. However, trans advocates will meet skepticism with epithets despite the obvious outlandish nature of the claims.

If I were to ask a trans rights advocate what it meant to “identify” as a woman, and I have numerous times before, I would be met with the claim that I should not deny the experiences of trans people, just because I do not understand them. They will ignore the obvious irony that my question was, in fact, to try and better understand the experience. This is a fairly basic question at the heart of all this, and I have not once received a direct, specific answer.

Another question that should be fairly basic for trans advocates is that if gender is not a binary construct, then what are the other options, and what does it mean to identify as a non-binary option? Again, I will be told that I am narrow-minded for thinking in binaries, without, of course, any concrete argument as to why binaries are inherently wrong. Even if I wanted to think outside of the binary, I have not been given any semblance of a justification for doing otherwise. Claiming that binaries are bad does not answer a single question about why that is so, and conveniently cloaks a fundamental lack of logic.

The trans advocates on this campus have risen to the epitome of arrogance with their tactics. Their refusal to directly address the claims of their political opponents echoes the warning that English philosopher John Stuart Mill issued in his book, On Liberty, where he proclaims that refusing to hear out a “devil’s advocate” is to mistake one’s personal certainty for absolute certainty. This is arrogance in its purest form.

However, the social tyranny stretches beyond mere dismissal. Not only is not believing what trans advocates believe incorrect and bigoted, it is also, in their minds, akin to promoting violence. They say that standing idly by to allow people like Yiannopoulos to express his opinion is to condone the murder of trans individuals. Opponents of trans rights advocates cannot merely be wrong. They have to be accomplices to murder. Otherwise, trans advocates would have to address the arguments point by point, and they know they simply cannot do it.

Let’s say, however, for the sake of argument (because America is built on dialogue and argument) that there may be some merit to this argument that trans skeptics condone murder. After all, there were a record number of trans people murdered in 2015. How many, you might ask? Twenty-one. For perspective, more people were killed by being bitten by ants, and over twenty times as many people dies from rolling out of bed. There is simply no epidemic of trans murders, and the assertion is both ridiculous and lazy.

The assertion, unfortunately, was furthered by the presence of a group called Dark Matter on campus a few short weeks ago. They are a South Asian transgender duo of poets, and they made much the same claim in their performance. They also ridiculed the white, cisgender community for “stealing the gay movement from non conforming Black and Brown people.” They also asked that people interested in being allies to their cause “get the hell out of their way.”

The arrogance to think you solely own a movement, unrelated to race, because of your race rivals that of claiming dissidence is complicity in murder. However, no one publicly took issue with their arrival out of fear of being labeled any number of bigoted terms by the leftist thought police that set up the event. Their sentiment also echoes some of Yiannopoulos’s claims that the transgender community is attempting to phase out members it does not deem fit from their movement, (as Yiannopoulos is a gay man) and is why he advocated “dropping the T” from the LGBT acronym. Dark Matter continued their arrogant tirade by asking, “What the hell are you going to do to fight to make sure that trans people are no longer murdered?” While, the truth is, there is not much anyone can do, because they’re not actually being murdered very much at all. These claims that that they fear constantly for their safety are utterly ridiculous and meant to intimidate others from voicing opposition.

An aside, once again, for full disclosure: I am currently romantically involved with the author of the article I hyperlinked concerning Dark Matter’s performance at AU.

The suggestion that trans people may suffer from some sort of mental illness is met with the same vitriolic attitudes. The argument I have heard most commonly is that transgenderism is real, because these people kill themselves because they aren’t accepted for who they truly are and it is not because of a mental illness, but because of a deeply held identity. To be frank, regardless of whether or not the suggestion of mental illness has any merit, to offer mass suicide as proof that mental illness is not in play would be laughed out of almost any other discussion on mental illness.

The Leftists who like to claim they are the side of science rebuff renowned psychiatrists like Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and Dr. Joseph Berger, a life fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, who both suggest that trans people suffer from a form of mental illness and are removed, in part, from reality. I suppose, though, that they too must be transphobic, and must not know anything about psychiatry. Again, regardless of the merits of the claim, there is a substantive discussion to be had, that trans rights advocates don’t want to have.

Trans advocates turn their hatred not only to the cisgender community, but to members of their own movement as well. I have heard various assertions that Caitlyn Jenner (formerly Bruce Jenner) has internalized transphobia for her endorsement of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the presidential race. The same claims have been made about Yiannopoulos, that he must be internally homophobic to believe what he does as a gay man.

I am hard pressed to think of anything more conceited than believing that anyone who disagrees with your perspective must hate themselves inside. Of course, if you confront the Left and challenge their claim on principle, and ask them about members of the Jewish community who support Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction measures against Israel, the Left will rail against you. They will put down your experience and hastily, lazily, and incorrectly redefine Zionism to fit their narrative, even though it conflicts with the principle of their previous arguments.

The argument over Israel and Palestine is one better left for another time, but it illustrates a key point that has been demonstrated throughout this article. Trans advocates have no principles. Their attacks drip with arrogance and are caked with vitriol. When they do try to make an argument, they often lack substance and will quickly and undoubtedly resort to personal attacks to divert from the real point.

As absolutely miserable as it has been trying to deal with all this butchering of civilized debate and free speech, I am oddly okay with this. As Mill warns in On Liberty, a point must be held up for debate or “it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth.” The repeated attempts to dodge discussion on this issue will render the Left’s position worthless, if it has not already, and I very much look forward to that day, so I can focus on more important issues like the future of our economy or the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

However, in the interest of civility and dialogue, I invite each and every reader who has hated everything I have had to say to this point to come to hear Yiannopoulos speak on April 21st when he comes to campus. Don’t try to drown him out with screams or fake blood. Listen, and come prepared with substantive, challenging questions to preserve the continued discussion of this issue you apparently hold so dearly. Only then, will you have proven me wrong.

 

 

The author can be contacted by email at ds1383a@student.american.edu and for comments related directly to this article, please title the subject line, “Milo Article”.

Saying “No” to Syrian Refugees: Conservatism or Xenophobia?

As of today, 31 governors in the United States oppose sheltering Syrian refugees. All but one them are Republican governors. Based on this alone, it seems as though conservatives in general are opposed to helping other human beings who are in need. The rationale behind this opposition appears logical at first glance. By preventing Syrian refugees from entering the United States, the government would protect people from terrorists posing as refugees. This would somehow ensure national security and protect the American people and their values from the onslaught of radical terrorists. What can get more conservative than that? However, in truth, this is far from conservatism. This is pure xenophobia that actually tarnishes the sacred values of conservatism.

You’ve probably heard of this cliché but true statement: America is a nation of immigrants. From the first and second waves of immigration in the early and mid 1800s that brought in the Germans and the Irish to the third and fourth waves of immigration in the late 19th century and throughout the 20th century that brought in Asian and Latino immigrants, America has been allowing individuals from other countries to come in, seek refuge, make good use of opportunities, advance as a people, and give back to their “new home.” It’s almost like it is an American tradition! If conservative principles were to uphold tradition, then wouldn’t welcoming refugees from Syria be doing just that?

Secondly, conservatives believe in empowering the individual no matter who they are. Conservatives do not believe in hand-outs, but they surely believe in providing opportunities for people who will make the most of them for their self-growth and the greater good of their community. Allowing Syrian refugees to come in will be doing just that. Sure, they will probably need some government assistance during the first few months of their arrival, but that won’t be for long. According to International Business Times, Syrian refugees are more likely than refugees from other countries to come from professional backgrounds. Therefore, they are the kind of people who would be able to quickly take the opportunities provided to them in America to better themselves and give back to the nation. Immigrants are twice as likely to start a business than native-born individuals. Immigrants contribute more per capita through taxes compared to native-born Americans. That is what empowered individuals look like! If that does not suggest making the most out of opportunities and giving back to the nation, then I don’t know what does.

Finally, conservatives respect the dignity of all life whether it is the unborn or the elderly. Why can’t we then extend that dignity to Syrian refugees whose livelihoods were shattered into oblivion as war broke out in their home? The majority of refugees, if not all, are innocent victims of human cruelty. Refusing to help them because there is a slim possibility of pathetic inhumane terrorists posing as needy refugees is absurd. I’m not saying that the government should blindly accept anyone claiming to be a Syrian refugee. There needs to be systematic measures taken to ensure that the people who come in as refugees are legitimate and that they pose no threat to national security. But to blatantly prevent innocent human beings from acquiring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is surely immoral and un-American.

Although accepting refugees aligns with conservative appreciation of life, some reason against it due to our inability to address domestic problems. There are domestic problems such as veteran homelessness and many others that are affecting our nation. Those issues, of course, should not be ignored. However, we don’t neglect a dying man just because we are sick. Throughout history, we have combatted multiple issues at once. Having existing problems doesn’t always impact our ability to multitask. Also, I understand that America shouldn’t be the only nation helping refugees. After all, why aren’t some of the most peaceful and prosperous Arab states not letting Syrian refugees into their countries? Shouldn’t they be helping out too? Of course, they should! But their inactivity does not give America the reason to follow their ways. Let’s be an example to others as we’ve always been. We’re a world leader, and leaders lead by example.

If we truly believe in upholding traditions that make America great, if we truly believe in empowering individuals with opportunities, if we truly believe that life begins at conception and that it is sacred until death, then why are we opposed to exercising these beliefs? Let’s distinguish ourselves from xenophobes. Let’s be conservatives who truly understand what their values are and use them for the good of humanity.

When Identities Collide: The Case of Minority Conservatives

I’m an Asian immigrant. I’m a minority in the United States. And I’m a conservative. But most of all, I’m proud of all of these identities. Every time my liberal friends discover my conservatism, their eyes widen and their faces explode in disbelief. Some liberals tried their best to be polite, but in their glances I could sense their surprise and confusion over my identity as a conservative. Some liberals thought I was joking because they couldn’t fathom that an Asian man or an immigrant can be conservative. Some went as far as accusing me of being on the wrong side solely because my heritage doesn’t align with conservatism, at least in their opinions. While I believe that the aforementioned individuals and others have the right to hold their own judgments on who I am and how I identify myself, I want to stress that conservatism shouldn’t be reduced to one’s gender, race, sexual orientation, status, religion, or other social factors.

Being a minority is not an antonym of conservatism. Take for example, Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina. She is a woman[1] who holds conservative values. Instead of being considered as a strong candidate in her own might, she is criticized for her pro-life views and often unfairly labelled as anti-woman or anti-feminist. Men can either identify as pro-life or pro-choice, and no one bats an eye. Fiorina, a woman, believes life begins at conception, and as a result, she becomes the subject of scrutiny for “betraying women.” If anything, Fiorina is actually empowering women through her conservative values by asserting that women can be pro-life if they so choose.

Similarly, there are similar ideological stereotypes involving race. For example, Senator Marco Rubio is a Cuban American, and he falls into the racial minority category. Rubio’s conservative views on immigration are often attributed as backstabbing the Hispanic electorate. He is criticized for turning his back on his “people.” However, he is not turning his back on anyone. He was not elected because of his racial identity. He was elected because the people of Florida believe that his conservative abilities, ideas, and values aptly represent the state. If a white man can identify as a liberal without anyone telling him that he betrayed the Republican Party, which apparently is the party of rich white males, then a Hispanic man can hold conservative values despite being a minority.

Let the following examples remind you why it’s completely normal to be both a minority and a conservative. Former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, is a known conservative. Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court, is a black man. Former Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona is a homosexual Republican. And here’s the best part: while all five major Democratic presidential nominees for 2016 are white, the Republicans have two Latino-Americans (Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz), one African-American (Ben Carson), and an Indian-American (Bobby Jindal).

Being a minority has its difficulties; it gets frustrating and even disheartening. So, let’s not further frustrate the lives of minority conservatives through judgment, scorn, and slander. Let’s not crucify individuals for holding conservative values that epitomize their identities and much more. Let’s not compartmentalize ideology by race or gender. For fellow minority conservatives out there: do not let society’s idea of the “norm” define you. Do not let society strip you off of your conservative values. Wear your identities with pride and your heads held high. We may be few in number, but we are more than a percentage. Beneath the numbers are our unique stories and complex identities that are deserving of being heard and respected. It’s 2015. Let’s grow up and revere each other’s views.

[1] Women are a majority in terms of population in the United States. However, unfortunately, they are considered a minority population by sociologists because “they tend to have less power and fewer privileges than men” in today’s society.

The Destruction of Discourse on Campus

This article relates to recent events involving free speech on campus.

Last week, a heinous attack against conservatism, perpetrated by a group using the handle “@AUJusticeLeague,” ignited on Twitter. Responding to students posting pro-life flyers promoting the message #DefundPlannedParenthood, the “Justice League” tore down the flyers, vandalized them, and posted a picture displaying a middle finger towards conservative leaders on campus.

While I do respect the “Justice League’s” right to voice its concerns against the flyers, I resent its forceful silencing of others’ opinions. As I stated on Twitter in response to the creation of the account, “The way to voice your own opinion is not to tear down others but to build yourself up.” With a legitimate argument, we all could engage in civil discourse. Unfortunately, some students on campus won’t engage in a respectful conversation.

AU Justice League tweeted at The Conservative Conscience Blog Editor, Andrew Magloughlin, stating, “Your ideas are complete shite.”

The theme of intolerance is not exclusive to American University, for it seems to be an emerging trend at universities across the nation. Near my home in Nevada, a similar instance occurred at the University of California-Santa Barbara. In 2014, a feminist studies professor at UCSB assaulted a young woman who distributed anti-abortion literature in a free speech zone on campus. Dr. Mireille Miller-Young, the violent professor, justified her attack by claiming that anti-abortion signs were “disturbing” and “offensive.” She claimed that “her actions were in the defense of her students and her own safety.” Regardless of theft and battery convictions stemming from the incident, Miller-Young remains a professor at UCSB.

In another occurrence at the University of Michigan, outraged students attacked Omar Mahmood for his satirical column against trigger warnings and political correctness on campus. He sarcastically sneered in a late 2014 edition of the Michigan Review:

“The University of Michigan does literally nothing to combat the countless instances of violence we encounter every day. Whenever I walk into a classroom, I can hardly find a left-handed desk to sit in. The University cannot claim to be my school while it continues to oppress me.”

In response to Mahmood’s comments, a different campus newspaper, the Michigan Daily, for which Mahmood also wrote, dissented furiously. Michigan Daily demanded that Mahmood issue an official apology because a member of their staff felt “threatened” by his words. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an organization committed to defending free speech through legal methods, led the battle against Michigan Daily to defend Mahmood’s refusal to apologize.

Across the nation’s college campuses, a growing animosity towards civil discourse is emerging. It exists in the disguise of trigger warnings, speech codes, and free speech zones. As intelligent and educated adults, we as an AU community must allow free speech in discourse. We would not have the freedoms with which we have been blessed in the United States in the absence of an open dialogue. Without free speech, I fear that more groups like the AU Justice League will attempt to silence alternative opinions instead of debating them. Our society cannot allow differing opinions to be hushed.

As George Orwell famously declared in 1984, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

A Modest Proposal: Addressing Marriage Equality

Republicans recurrently headline the media with their stark opposition to same-sex marriage. Claims refuting same-sex marriage typically involve references to the Christian faith, religious freedom, and the pollution of traditional family values. Republicans believe that the “definition of marriage,” one man and one woman, must describe all American families. While Republicans harangue the American people regarding the sinfulness of same-sex marriage, Democrats, and liberals alike, label the GOP as bigoted and unaccepting to “the extension” of the civil rights movement. The same-sex marriage debate is a heated social conflict drawing more personal libel than solutions. In fact, the marriage debate is so incendiary that its most solvent decisions derive from the judiciary. But realistically, what is the government’s role in marriage?
Every day, men and women request marriage licenses from the government. A marriage license is a certificate authorizing a couple to marry, which provides a slew of benefits. Most notably, marriage licenses offer couples tax breaks and efficiency in tax returns. Married couples can mix-and-match employment benefits to their advantage. Marriage also protects the estate: if one spouse passes away, his or her survivor inherits their estate without taxation. Basically, marriage is an economic asset for Americans. This economic asset encourages the formation of family units, which are essential to the productivity of American society.

As previously mentioned, twelve states still don’t recognize same-sex marriage contracts. Christian stigma prevents same-sex couples from enjoying the economic liberties granted to heterosexual American families. Same-sex marriage, to some, is seen as counterproductive to American society; its opposition claims that marriage benefits exist to incentivize reproduction, a capability same-sex couples lack. Regardless of the sterility of same-sex marriage, no conservative argument will cease homosexuality. Homosexual couples will continue to copulate and love each other regardless of philosophical arguments.

To liberals, the panacea ending the marriage debacle is federal legislation enforcing that all states recognize same-sex marriage contracts. While the idea of guaranteeing all Americans the right to marry sounds pleasant, such legislation is both dangerous and unconstitutional. A federal enforcement of same-sex marriage will breach the religious freedom of the churches that provoked the Bill of Rights over two-hundred years ago. It’s both illegal and immoral to force religious institutions, which maintain predetermined stances on same-sex marriage, to recognize contracts that violate their doctrines. This First Amendment violation destroys America’s renowned religious freedom, essential to the greatest nation on Earth. Regardless, it’s equivalently immoral to bar homosexual Americans from their pursuit of happiness in marriage. That’s why I propose a solution: let’s remove government from marriage.

A simple solution finishes the marriage “debate.” Instead of authorizing the government to issue “marriage licenses,” reform the bureaucratic service to issue “civil union licenses.” The term civil union abridges the “definition of marriage” from influencing debate. Civil union contracts will recognize any partnership, including same-sex couples. Therefore, the government will provide the economic benefits of current day marriage to same-sex couples. On the other hand, marriage will be the responsibility of religious institutions. Each religious institution will have the autonomy to interpret the definition of marriage. If an institution wishes to acknowledge same-sex marriage, it certainly can. At the same time, an institution that disavows same-sex marriage can rightfully do so, ensuring religious freedom. This compromise combines the desires of both religious freedom patriots and gay-rights activists, ensuring constitutional protections for America’s religious and the pursuit of happiness for homosexuals.

In hindsight, compromise isn’t impossible. Republicans need to recognize the best interests of all Americans; Democrats need to respect the constitutional privileges of all Americans. Sometimes the best solution for a heated conundrum is to address the means by which the conundrum is addressed, instead of the conundrum itself.

LGBT Not Welcome: Legalized Intolerance or 1st Amendment Right?

No-Gays-Sign-Sized

Indiana found itself in a national firestorm after Governor Mike Pence (R) signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. RFRA is perceived as granting religious business owners the right to refuse service for members of the LGBT community, but other laws similar to RFRA have not had that result. LGBT advocates believe the law legalizes discrimination similar to that which African Americans faced in the segregation era. LGBT advocates use phrases like, “We decided everyone could sit at the counter 50 years ago,” and, “No hate in our state!” Interestingly, many economic conservatives opposed the law because they believe it will deter businesses from locating in Indiana. So far, the RFRA hasn’t boded well for Indiana.

In response to LGBT advocates, social conservatives expressed their approval of the law. Backers of RFRA are ecstatic that a baker or florist with strong religious convictions aren’t required to offer their wedding services to homosexual couples. Essentially, when a service itself violates someone’s religious beliefs, a business owner doesn’t have to provide a service. RFRA advocates also point to a federal RFRA law signed by President Clinton in 1993 and an Illinois RFRA law that President Obama supported during his Illinois state legislature tenure. RFRA exists in a total of 19 states. However, this last argument overlooks the fact that the Indiana law is stricter than other aforementioned laws. Indiana’s RFRA explicitly states that businesses can assert their, “free exercise of religion,” which is rare language only found in South Carolina’s version of RFRA. Ultimately, the Indiana’s RFRA may be overturned by the courts.

Here’s my two cents: should companies refuse service to members of the LGBT community? Of course not. Businesses should open their doors to any patrons willing to spend their hard earned dollars. To not do so is both morally wrong and unprofitable. However, should the government force business owners to serve people if those owners believe that providing the service violates their religious beliefs? Once again, no. We do not need big government stepping in and telling businesses who they must serve. Also, why would a member of the LGBT community want someone that is fundamentally opposed to their right to marry baking their wedding cake or snapping photos at the reception? People should want to take their business somewhere they are appreciated for who they are, rather than giving their money to someone who does not support their community.

Being Biden or Being Inappropriate?

Joseph Biden. Former Senator. Two-term Vice President. Everybody’s good ol’ Uncle Joe.

Let’s be honest, we all secretly love JB. Some love him for politics, and some love him for his antics. But lately America’s sweetheart has picked up a new habit; he’s becoming a serial whisperer. While generally creepy in concept, his victims subjects victims of his whisper-attacks show an uncanny correlation.

Let’s see if you can spot the pattern in these three photos:

17-joe-biden-dilma-rouseff.w529.h352   17-joe-biden-mary-mcaleese.w529.h352   17-joe-biden-mcconnell-bikers.w529.h352

SOURCE                                       SOURCE                                           SOURCE

Having some ideas? I’m seeing short hair, but I don’t think that’s quite the one. Maybe three more will bring out the pattern..

17-joe-biden-mcconnell-nieces.w529.h352   17-joe-biden-stephanie-carter.w529.h352   enhanced-24448-1392409593-13

SOURCE                                            SOURCE                                  SOURCE

Okay definitely seeing something here. And it seems like his serial whispering is starting to move into something creepier. I think three more will definitely confirm any suspicions.

17-joe-biden-maggie-koons.w529.h352   B6sMF6oIIAAx6c9   B6sRsA3IMAEQiEy

SOURCE                                   SOURCE                                      SOURCE

Now this is just downright creepy. Biden’s funny whispering habit includes grabbing the women. And not just women, but young girls too. And in completely inappropriate situations.

“Oh no!” So many exclaim and laugh, “It’s just Biden being Biden!” But here is my question, since when did grabbing women become okay?

The most recent example here is with Stephanie Carter. Last week at her husband Ashton Carter’s swearing in ceremony, Creepy Uncle Joe thought it was appropriate to grab and massage Mrs. Carter’s shoulders and whisper in her ear.

1424223956623.cached

SOURCE

I know that this is not the face of a woman who is enjoying having her shoulders massaged and being whispered to. There is not one thing about this picture that doesn’t make me uncomfortable just looking at it.

Between this incident with Stephanie Carter and with Sen. Coons’ daughter in January, this isn’t the first nor, I fear, will it be the last time we see this behavior from Mr. Vice President.

What I find interesting is that Joe Biden (debatably) second most powerful man in the United States and potentially an influential figure when it comes to setting an example for the citizens of this country. And yet, this man, constantly in the spotlight, has not been reprimanded for his behavior. This obviously unwelcome and honestly, creepy behavior is not something that should be ignored or passed over by the media and what seems to be a majority of people.

In this Washington Post article, they call say the incident “hardly seems worth commenting on.” WP writer Nia-Malika Henderson passively describes the Carter incident, as well as two other incidents of Biden being “the world’s most powerful close-talker.”

Passive behavior on Biden “Being Biden” not only sends a message to everyone that we as a people are okay with this sexual threat, but it send a message to men that it is okay to touch or grab women (or anyone for that matter) without permission.

What I find most interesting about this issue, is that the lack of liberal and/or feminist attention. I think that we all, regardless of affiliation, can agree that if this was a Conservative behaving in this manner, not only would liberals and feminists and the media be all over the story, it would be blown up so large, who could imagine the result. And yet, here we are, pretending that this behavior is okay, just because Biden is a Democrat.