Posted on 11/07/2019 6:25:35 PM PST by bitt
Disparaging comments. Demeaning jokes. As the mogul reportedly considers a 2020 presidential run, it remains an open question whether his long-alleged history of undermining women will affect his chances.
If you find yourself seeking, in these turbulent times, evidence of steadiness among the chaos—proof that even as the seas rise and the winds whip and the world that was gives way to the world that will be, some things will remain the same—here is a fact that seems always to be true: Mike Bloomberg is considering a run for president.
The newest version of the old truth comes from an article published this week in The New York Times: The billionaire former mayor, the paper announces, validating the rumors, is again considering a presidential run—this time, however, as a Democrat. It would not be an easy candidacy. “Mr. Bloomberg,” the Times points out, “is plainly an uncomfortable match for a progressive coalition passionately animated by concern for economic inequality and the civil rights of women and minorities.” Indeed: In an interview with the paper, Bloomberg defends stop-and-frisk. And, voicing “doubt” about some of the revelations that have been made in the course of #MeToo, Bloomberg mentions as an example Charlie Rose, who had broadcast his show from a space in Bloomberg’s corporate offices. He declined to say, specifically, whether he believed the many allegations against Rose. “Let the court system decide,” the former mayor said.
What is not fully addressed in the Times article, however—and what is not fully explored in the many similar pieces that consider the current iteration of Mike Bloomberg’s presidential ambitions—is a series of stories about him, accumulated over decades, that suggests in the aggregate a distinct pattern when it comes to his treatment of women:
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
See my previous. I understand locker room talk. But he is speaking as though women are things. I find that to be evidence of a sick mind, not just a titillating locker room chat.
All USA alpha males currently IMHO seem to be in the process of being ground down into beta males by the court system and feminists.
It therefore follows that feminists and women in general should not complain if all cisgender males “take precautions” to avoid the threat of lawsuits which in a sane universe would be regarded as frivolous or otherwise without merit.
A cultural shift in morality has already occurred, and many current new trends are the aftermath. Hoo rah for feminism! It is indeed liberating, though not just for females.
[There is a difference between typical locker room banter and talking about all women as if they exist as your sex slaves only. If you can’t hear the difference, you might need to check your own attitude. Every woman you have sex with at least deserves you to consider her as human as you.]
The litigious harpy who sued Bloomberg has been out of work for 4 years. It would not surprise me if nobody wants to hire her because of concerns about what innocent banter might be deliberately misconstrued for the purposes of generating a big legal settlement. I find it amusing that Andrea Dworkin’s view of male-female interactions has become the conventional wisdom even among some female Freepers.
[Bloomberg “alpha male?”
He’s a sniveling little pipsqueak with a Napolean complex. A butt pirate mommas boy. He had the little violin in the shiny leather case and waited for his mom to pick him up after school - or I mistake him for some other dweeb from my childhood. He would have had to shine my shoes to get on the bus with my crew of “alpha males.”]
A number of people have conflated the way some alphas spend their time - skirt-chasing, with alpha status itself. Now that alphas no longer have life-and-death power over the pack (i.e. the feudal system is dead) in the way alphas in wolf packs do, good-looking and/or charismatic men can always get tail. But unless they command sizeable packs, they are betas in alpha clothing. And they will almost never be able to marry and sire children with intelligent, good-looking and high status women.
He stumbled into some money somehow. I assure you it was not by thinking that 32 oz sodas were an existential problem. But, admire whomever you want to.
I pretty much agree with you. My point was that it’s possible to express admiration for good looking females without being crude or graphic, and you’ll find that habit of mind more common in the South where boys are taught to be respectful.
Thank you for calling, "Ask the Expert!"
Wow, the Atlantic is already doing a hit piece on Bloomberg, and he hasn’t even announced.
Guess the Deep State is really worried about ANY unapproved, outsider candidacy ...
Eh a year before announced...2018
There was a photo in a mag (some rag from Conde Nast) in a barbershop; can't find it, found others taken at the same time, probably has been scrobbed; Mike was at some event, meet and greet I think, his companion for the evening was Mena Suvari. The photo showed her looking a bit to her left, and he was giving her a long full-length look. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I’d do her.
Laz would hit it, but he’s probably booked up for the next few years.
Can you send this to all the idiots who are calling Bloomberg gay?
And get the word out that true "alpha males" don't call themselves "alpha males"?
I usually express it as "Men are pigs, and women deserve no better," but yours works, too.
that’s gonna leave a mark
Bloomberg and others like him are regarded as hott by many women because many women are instinctively hypergamous.
IMHO there is probably some stone age inherited behavior involved.
Oh,yeah. Probably pre-stone age. One of those things that moral codes of societal behavior try to weed out. Ultimately, there may be some biological benefit, but it gets pretty messy, at times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.