The Groper of the Moment?

It's become dizzying, all these claims and charges of sexual harassment, abuse, and rape.  How are we to keep any of it straight?  It's reaches the highest levels of the political, entertainment, and communications industries, if not others.

I will never discount or demean any of the claims and charges.  I can't imagine the psychological scars sexual abuse and rape leave.  Abusers and rapists deserve the harshest of penalties--and public shame.

Why, now, all of a sudden, are all of these claims and charges?  OK, I am not naive enough to that there is no political motivation in some of these cases.  After all, for instance, in the case of Roy Moore, didn't he run for office before?  If the claims are enough to bring now in his race for the US Senate, weren't they also enough to bring up while seeking a seat on the Alabama supreme court?  I think, though, that number is very small.  The overwhelming majority are not politically motivated, regardless of what the parties may claim.

Surely such harassment, etc. has gone on, well, forever.  Maybe not to the extent of the past few decades, but it's been there.  Perhaps it's because of "social media."  (Oh, I still dislike that term!)  People, men and women, feel more comfortable or at least safer in their revelations.

Maybe there has been more because more women have entered the workforce, esp in jobs that had been shut to them.  As they had opportunities to rise, the animals have seen opportunities to mistreat women; that is, if women wanted to get ahead, the abusers thought they could take advantage of the situations and women.

Maybe, too, it's been our decline in morality since the '60s.  "If it feels good, do it!"  So, why wouldn't some person then, "do it if it felt good?"  I don't condone "it," either the abuse or the decline in morality.  Our entertainment industry, both television and movies, have glorified sex (and drugs and violence).  Remember the cry, "Free sex!?"  Well, maybe the gropers took the moral relativists at their word, "free" in this instance.  I hesitate to use this saying, for obvious reasons, but apparently "the chickens have come home to roost."

This is not to condone or accept any of this.  It's just an attempt to comprehend all of it.  And I'm having a difficult time doing that.

One thing that really bothers me is the attitude of some, mostly those in the political sphere.  So and so might have done this and that, but we need his seat/vote against the other side.  Conservatives say, "We have to support Moore, even though he may have committed these acts, because he'll stand with us in the Senate against the progressives."  Liberals say, "We have to overlook Franken's misconduct because he'll support abortion, er, women's rights."  Do these defenders, both sides, realize what they are saying?

Of course, I believe in the equality of the sexes, legally, intellectually, etc.  Yet, count me as one who doesn't like hearing ladies use foul language.  I can't stand it.  Oh, some guy can curse and, esp if in a small crowd, it doesn't bother me.  In a larger crowd, I don't like it.  But even in smaller conversations I don't like women to swear.   And I know I make my displeasure known if I hear it.  Does that mean I really don't embrace "equality?"  I think it's more a matter of "sameness."  I don't think the sexes are the same.  Men and women are different--the old "Mars" and "Venus" thing.  Women still don't get the Three Stooges.  Men still don't get tear-jerker movies.  That doesn't mean that the two sexes aren't equal; it's just that they aren't the same.

On a different tack, a newspaper headline this AM read, "Manson endured 50 years as the face of evil."  No kidding!  OK, I understand our fascination with mass murderers, with pure "evil."  I don't particularly share it, but I understand.  But this headline was disappointing, esp the use of the word "endured."  It's as if it was a cross to bear, a heavy load that poor Manson had to carry all those years.  Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's what I thought as soon as I read it.

Last, but not least, another headline this AM cited the new stadium in Detroit, Little Caesar's Arena.  I know some folks who have been there and marveled about the place.  It's supposedly just a great venue, not just to see games or concerts.  I suppose, sometime in the future, I'll attend some event there.  But it, LCA, still irks me.  What's bothersome is that some billionaire had the public, with taxes and bonds, pay for much of the arena.  I think it came to about 40%.  Why do people who aren't billionaires have to subsidize them?