The following opinion is based on facts that the climate change crowd just do not want anyone to know. And most "ordinary" people who fear climate change do not even know these facts.
The Earth is over 4 billion years old. Of that, 87% of that time the average mean temperature of the globe was at least 4-7 degrees HIGHER than it is now. We know this because SCIENCE has proved it, as shown by the Paleomap created by a conglomerate of experts in the Earth sciences. According to the climate change crowd, just 2 degrees would be devastating. (What they determine to be "devastating" will be discussed further on.)
Fact: At the end of the last Great Ice Age 10,000 years ago the Sahara was a lush, fertile plain. Around 6000 BC the Earth's temperature had raised, turning it into the desert it is today. The residents were forced to move and settle in the fertile valley of the Nile, whice gave rise to the Great Egyptian Empire.
Another fact: up until around 1200 AD the Earth was substantially warmer than now. We know this from geological and archeological data. Grapes were grown as far north as England.
That is when the "Little Ice Age" (LIA) began. Go ahead - look it up and read about it. LIA lasted through the mid 19th century. Likely caused by a series of active volcanoes around the globe, LIA was responsible for the decimation of some civilizations, and causing others to pull up stakes and move to friendlier climes. Mankind suffered - food grew scarce as seasons were short. Rats, too, were hungry and began contaminating food sources stored by humans. It is believed this may have indirectly caused the Black Plague from all the fleas the rats harbored. One-third of Europe's population died.
The Vikings, until then were agrarian - they farmed the lush lands of Greenland. With the ice age, their farms could no longer feed them, and Greenland, until recently, became fields of ice. To survive, the Vikings became marauders of the British Isles, giving them their reputation of terror.
With the end of LIA around 1850, the Earth began to return to "normal". As with any post ice age, the warming began slowly, then steadily increases until the norm returns. We are STILL far below Earth's norm.
The climate change crowd, like Chicken Little, are crying that the sky is falling. It isn't. Will the Earth continue to warm? Unless something drastic happens like a series are large volcanoes or a super volcano blowing its lid to cause a "nuclear winter", yes, it will continue to warm. And it will do so no matter what we do or don't do.
But that is not even the point. The real point is whether or not Mankind will suffer a terrible fate because of it.
History shows that is not likely. In the past, civilizations flourished during the warmest cycles, and came to a virtual standstill during cold periods. And what if we are successful at stopping the warming? What if our efforts actually contribute to the start of an ice age? If the average mean temperature drops even 1 or 2 degrees, it creates a domino effect that brings more cooling until an ice age is upon us. Which would you prefer - perpetual spring & summer, or perpetual fall and winter? As the planet warms, there is more arable land for growing food, and for settlement. There is far less need for burning fossil fuels for heating. Melting glaciers increase fresh water supplies which is sorely needed.
So, if civilizations thrive during warm spells, why are the Chicken Littles so fearful? It's simple, really. While there are many factors involved, one that points it out quite well is that most of the climate crowd that fear the consequences are the elitists and liberals, most of whom have expensive properties on or near our ocean shores. And large populations live in port cities, and they don't relish having to pull up stakes and move.
If we want to really make a difference in the health of the planet, we would put our efforts into replenishing the rain forests, as they are literally the lungs of the planet. The amount of oxygen in our atmsphere is down nearly 40% over a hundred years ago, as the forests, which produce virtually all oxygen (and use up carbon dioxide) are cut down on a grand scale. Now THAT is something we really CAN do something about, and it would make a huge difference. The drastic increase in asthma and other breathing issues since the '50's is no accident. We need oxygen and fresh water. Global warming and a replenishment of rain forests can provide both.
Mankind will survive warming quite well, and in general will thrive. Thank God we're not facing global cooling...yet!
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Republicans REALLY Lost The House Because...
The 2018 midterms had the highest voter turnout in history for a midterm election. And in spite of how well the country is running under Republican leadership, they lost the House. But if you really think about it, you can see why...
Republicans spent a lot of ad time touting their tax cuts that has been one of the foundational legs under the booming economy. But they forgot something very important - virtually one-half of all Americans do not pay ANY income taxes - so the tax cuts mean nothing to them. They are still saying "Where's mine?"
Republicans spent millions in ad dollars pointing out the raging stock market, and everyone's 401K is filling up with cash. But again they did not stop to realize that a large portion of the population has zero dollars invested in the markets.
And Republicans pushed on the fact that they have appointed great Constitutional justices to SCOTUS. But they overlook the fact that millions of people don't see how that puts food on the table, or gets them affordable health care.
More important - Republicans just do not know how to "sell" their agenda or accomplishments. Democrats are much better at that, because liberals are "right brain" thinkers, and tend to be creative, where Republicans are "left brain", analytical, logical thinkers. So, while Republicans are making valid, logical points, Democrats are creating entertaining narratives that capture the attention - and then the thoughts - of the audience.
That is what the greatest salesman in the world did. One man - Jesus - sold His idea, and ideals, through parables - stories that were entertaining while teaching a point, resulting in half the world's population His followers. Aesop did the same with his parables. Both men knew that in order to sell an idea, you must first get the attention of the audience, and then captivate them with interesting, entertaining and visual content. Here's a test - try creating a good ad without those things. You won't sell a thing!
Long before 2020 gets here, Republicans need to hire people who know how to sell the sizzle and not the steak. They need to appeal to the imaginations and emotions of the people whose votes they seek. While it's great to have made accomplishments, it is also necessary to make people FEEL them, THINK about them, and REMEMBER the visuals, like "pushing Grandma over the cliff". And they must offer equal accomplishments for ALL people, not just those with money in the markets.
As an important side note - Republicans would have swept the elections if, in addition to tax cuts for the half the country that pay taxes, they had actually kept their promise to pass a good replacement for ObamaCare. And if, in addition to lowering unemployment and raising wages they had passed a plan to help single mothers raise their children. And if they had kept their promise to build the wall.
But Republicans did none of those things. And they did not sell the things they did accomplish.
And that is why they lost the House. And if they don't wake up - fast - next time they could lose the rest.
One last point: if the Republicans were actually SMART politicians, the House would race to put together and pass a good health care plan and send it to the senate before the House turns over control to the dems. Then, in January when the Republicans have a bigger majority in the Senate, they could (hopefully) push it through. In this way, it would be Republicans who fixed and get credit for health care, not democrats, and that would take it off the table in the 2020 election. And they should fund the wall at the same time - last chance before the purse strings go to the Democrats. But hey! Asking Republican politicians to do something smart may be wishful thinking...
Republicans spent a lot of ad time touting their tax cuts that has been one of the foundational legs under the booming economy. But they forgot something very important - virtually one-half of all Americans do not pay ANY income taxes - so the tax cuts mean nothing to them. They are still saying "Where's mine?"
Republicans spent millions in ad dollars pointing out the raging stock market, and everyone's 401K is filling up with cash. But again they did not stop to realize that a large portion of the population has zero dollars invested in the markets.
And Republicans pushed on the fact that they have appointed great Constitutional justices to SCOTUS. But they overlook the fact that millions of people don't see how that puts food on the table, or gets them affordable health care.
More important - Republicans just do not know how to "sell" their agenda or accomplishments. Democrats are much better at that, because liberals are "right brain" thinkers, and tend to be creative, where Republicans are "left brain", analytical, logical thinkers. So, while Republicans are making valid, logical points, Democrats are creating entertaining narratives that capture the attention - and then the thoughts - of the audience.
That is what the greatest salesman in the world did. One man - Jesus - sold His idea, and ideals, through parables - stories that were entertaining while teaching a point, resulting in half the world's population His followers. Aesop did the same with his parables. Both men knew that in order to sell an idea, you must first get the attention of the audience, and then captivate them with interesting, entertaining and visual content. Here's a test - try creating a good ad without those things. You won't sell a thing!
Long before 2020 gets here, Republicans need to hire people who know how to sell the sizzle and not the steak. They need to appeal to the imaginations and emotions of the people whose votes they seek. While it's great to have made accomplishments, it is also necessary to make people FEEL them, THINK about them, and REMEMBER the visuals, like "pushing Grandma over the cliff". And they must offer equal accomplishments for ALL people, not just those with money in the markets.
As an important side note - Republicans would have swept the elections if, in addition to tax cuts for the half the country that pay taxes, they had actually kept their promise to pass a good replacement for ObamaCare. And if, in addition to lowering unemployment and raising wages they had passed a plan to help single mothers raise their children. And if they had kept their promise to build the wall.
But Republicans did none of those things. And they did not sell the things they did accomplish.
And that is why they lost the House. And if they don't wake up - fast - next time they could lose the rest.
One last point: if the Republicans were actually SMART politicians, the House would race to put together and pass a good health care plan and send it to the senate before the House turns over control to the dems. Then, in January when the Republicans have a bigger majority in the Senate, they could (hopefully) push it through. In this way, it would be Republicans who fixed and get credit for health care, not democrats, and that would take it off the table in the 2020 election. And they should fund the wall at the same time - last chance before the purse strings go to the Democrats. But hey! Asking Republican politicians to do something smart may be wishful thinking...
Saturday, November 3, 2018
On Election Night Republicans Win Either Way
There's a lot of angst among Republicans as election night nears and there is a distinct possibility the Democrats will take the House. But I don't believe it matters much, because the Reublicans win either way.
How would Republicans win even if the Democrats take the House? Think about it. They would validate the violent protesters. While they would not have any real power without the Senate and the White House, they would act in ways that would damage America further. They would completely stop the growth created by the Republicans. They would initiate numerous investigations and scandals. They would try to impeach Kavanaugh, and perhaps Trump. They will try to raise taxes and renew burdensome regulations. The economy will slow once again. Unemployment would begin to rise. And illegal immigration will grow. This is exactly what they are saying they will do.
And all Americans, everywhere, would see once and for all the true, radical colors of the new Democratic party; a party that no longer represents democrats - or even Americans - but only the elitist globalists and malcontents. Boil that all down and in 2020 what you get is the greatest tsunami of red this country has ever seen, with huge majorities in both houses to insure the "Trump agenda" actually gets done - including the wall, ending chain migration, merit-based migration, reduced regulations, rebuilding our infrastructure, clean out MS13, deport criminal aliens, bring world leaders to the bargaining table and finally get a comprehensive, market-based health care system...
In short, if the Democrats take the House, it will be their death knell. And if you think they are angry now, just wait until 2020...
How would Republicans win even if the Democrats take the House? Think about it. They would validate the violent protesters. While they would not have any real power without the Senate and the White House, they would act in ways that would damage America further. They would completely stop the growth created by the Republicans. They would initiate numerous investigations and scandals. They would try to impeach Kavanaugh, and perhaps Trump. They will try to raise taxes and renew burdensome regulations. The economy will slow once again. Unemployment would begin to rise. And illegal immigration will grow. This is exactly what they are saying they will do.
And all Americans, everywhere, would see once and for all the true, radical colors of the new Democratic party; a party that no longer represents democrats - or even Americans - but only the elitist globalists and malcontents. Boil that all down and in 2020 what you get is the greatest tsunami of red this country has ever seen, with huge majorities in both houses to insure the "Trump agenda" actually gets done - including the wall, ending chain migration, merit-based migration, reduced regulations, rebuilding our infrastructure, clean out MS13, deport criminal aliens, bring world leaders to the bargaining table and finally get a comprehensive, market-based health care system...
In short, if the Democrats take the House, it will be their death knell. And if you think they are angry now, just wait until 2020...
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
About Those Caravans...
When it comes to the "caravan" heading toward our border, there is a mighty big fact that the liberal media and pundits are either ignoring intentionally, or are just plain ignorant of it. While they claim the people "just want the American Dream", they neglect to ask whether they DESERVE the American Dream.
No, I am not without compassion. It is not about that. Americans fought their English ruler and the greatest military on the planet (at the time) to create this county. They fought for it. Sacrificed for it. Died for it. Worked hard and endlessly to make it what it is. These caravan people, however, are unwilling to do any of that for their own country
Numbering in the tens of thousands in the last year alone (and several million over the years), they COULD have torn down their corrupt governments and created something much like America. But no, they just want to take ours because we have already done the heavy lifting.
I ask this question: if they are unwilling to fight for themselves or their country, and choose, instead, to run away, what makes us think they will fight for the American Dream? What makes anyone think they DESERVE it?
Another question, for clarity - if you bust your butt and sacrifice all your life to build a great home with a pool and all the amenities, would you let a bunch of people come in off the street and just make themselves at home? Setting up little camps in every room? If you say yes, then I would have to call you a liar. They did nothing to build it, they sacrificed nothing, so you darn well know they will not treat it very well. People do not appreciate that which is handed to them on a platter.
Every American would do well to read the little children's Golden Book, the story of "The Little Red Hen". None of the other farm animals wanted to help plant, water and weed the garden, or even harvest the crop, but they ALL wanted to eat the pie the little red hen baked from the crop. But she said, No!", and ate it all by herself, for only she deserved it.
As the old adage goes, "Everyone gets the government they deserve". Those people in the caravan(s) deserve the government they have, because they did nothing to change it. Instead, they are simply choosing to run away.
No, they do not deserve the American Dream unless and until they do everything in their power to make their own country right. And I don't want to hear about how dangerous that would be for them - it was just as dangerous for our Founding Fathers, all of whom were on King George's "hit list". Had they been caught, they would have been hanged.
That is the price paid for the American Dream. When they are willing to pay that same price, then they, too, will deserve it.
No, I am not without compassion. It is not about that. Americans fought their English ruler and the greatest military on the planet (at the time) to create this county. They fought for it. Sacrificed for it. Died for it. Worked hard and endlessly to make it what it is. These caravan people, however, are unwilling to do any of that for their own country
Numbering in the tens of thousands in the last year alone (and several million over the years), they COULD have torn down their corrupt governments and created something much like America. But no, they just want to take ours because we have already done the heavy lifting.
I ask this question: if they are unwilling to fight for themselves or their country, and choose, instead, to run away, what makes us think they will fight for the American Dream? What makes anyone think they DESERVE it?
Another question, for clarity - if you bust your butt and sacrifice all your life to build a great home with a pool and all the amenities, would you let a bunch of people come in off the street and just make themselves at home? Setting up little camps in every room? If you say yes, then I would have to call you a liar. They did nothing to build it, they sacrificed nothing, so you darn well know they will not treat it very well. People do not appreciate that which is handed to them on a platter.
Every American would do well to read the little children's Golden Book, the story of "The Little Red Hen". None of the other farm animals wanted to help plant, water and weed the garden, or even harvest the crop, but they ALL wanted to eat the pie the little red hen baked from the crop. But she said, No!", and ate it all by herself, for only she deserved it.
As the old adage goes, "Everyone gets the government they deserve". Those people in the caravan(s) deserve the government they have, because they did nothing to change it. Instead, they are simply choosing to run away.
No, they do not deserve the American Dream unless and until they do everything in their power to make their own country right. And I don't want to hear about how dangerous that would be for them - it was just as dangerous for our Founding Fathers, all of whom were on King George's "hit list". Had they been caught, they would have been hanged.
That is the price paid for the American Dream. When they are willing to pay that same price, then they, too, will deserve it.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
DACA - A Fair Way to Deal With Dreamers
The ongoing "battle" as to what to do with the "dreamers" of DACA, President Trump and Congress only need to use their heads and do what is best for America, and not to be concerned with political power. There are lives and futures at stake here.
To that I would propose the following:
Any DACA recipient who has not, since DACA was instituted, managed to become a productive, self-supporting member of society, or has committed any crime, would be deported. Any other Dreamer who has worked hard to to contribute to society and the economy, and is self-supporting may be issued a permanent VISA. If the Dreamer who is issued a permanent VISA desires to become a citizen, he/she may APPLY, just like any other potential immigrant, and must from that point jump through all the same hoops as a new immigration applicant, thereby not "jumping to the front of the line". In other words, the only difference between a Dreamer with a VISA and a new immigartion applicant from Asia, for example, is that the Dreamer jumps through all the hoops while already residing and working in the U.S.
If, at any point prior to citizenship a Dreamer should screw up, or stop supporting himself for a period of more than 120 days or commits a crime, he would lose his VISA and be deported.
This, then, is a fair and sensible way of dealing with DACA.
/
To that I would propose the following:
Any DACA recipient who has not, since DACA was instituted, managed to become a productive, self-supporting member of society, or has committed any crime, would be deported. Any other Dreamer who has worked hard to to contribute to society and the economy, and is self-supporting may be issued a permanent VISA. If the Dreamer who is issued a permanent VISA desires to become a citizen, he/she may APPLY, just like any other potential immigrant, and must from that point jump through all the same hoops as a new immigration applicant, thereby not "jumping to the front of the line". In other words, the only difference between a Dreamer with a VISA and a new immigartion applicant from Asia, for example, is that the Dreamer jumps through all the hoops while already residing and working in the U.S.
If, at any point prior to citizenship a Dreamer should screw up, or stop supporting himself for a period of more than 120 days or commits a crime, he would lose his VISA and be deported.
This, then, is a fair and sensible way of dealing with DACA.
/
Thursday, December 7, 2017
Going Over The Edge on Sexual Harrassment? (A True Story)
This is a true story.
In 1990, a woman whistled at me where I was staying (there's a first time for everything, I guess). She was 30, I was 45. A bit uncomfortable, I just hustled off. Two days later, she whistled at me again. Again I just sped off.
A few days later I was walking down Maple Street. The woman, who was with her boyfriend of sorts at the time, was about a hundred feet behind me. I noticed she started gaining on me, so I sped up, hoping to leave her in the dust, as I was wary of her motives. But the faster I walked, the faster she walked. She caught up to me. Was she stalking me?
I spoke briefly with her, and let her know I was not comfortable with her chasing me like that, and I turned and left.
According to the rules that feminists would have us live by today, this was clearly a case of harrassment and stalking, and I should have filed a complaint with the authorities. But in 1990, the world had not yet become that insane.
That evening, As I was eating in the cafeteria, she came and sat beside me. I was about to get up, really miffed, when she said, "Please, wait - I want to talk with you." I sat down, and she simply said, "I m sorry if I made you uncomfortable, but the first time I saw you I was attracted to you, and I really didn't know how to show it, or get your attention. I just wanted to get to know you better."
We began spending time together, and we grew close. About a month later, in that same cafeteria, SHE proposed to ME, as she did not think I'd ever get around to it.
We have now been married for 26 glorious, fun-filled blissful years. Still very much in love, and inseparable. We remarried on our 10th Anniversary, and on our 25th I showed up at her work and publicly, on bended knee, proposed to her. See? I DID get around to it!
If we had lived by the rules the feminists are putting forth today, we would never have gotten to know each other; we would never have married, and would have missed out on a perfect life that even Hollywood could not have scripted better. In fact, by those rules, Robin (my wife) would have probably gone to jail, or in the very least, lost her job.
CONCLUSION: The "Battle of the Sexes" is supposed to be a fun, yet challenging game, not a "take no prisoners" war. We all are fumbling our way through this thing we call life, and we all have our own ways of trying to attract members of the opposite sex (or same sex, as the case may be). And if we are to survive as a race, we need to be tolerant of the methods used by others, and speak up clearly when we inadvertently attract the wrong people. Otherwise, we end up with a world of misery, like the one we have now begun to create, as people are beginning to fear the consequences of "the mating game".
/
In 1990, a woman whistled at me where I was staying (there's a first time for everything, I guess). She was 30, I was 45. A bit uncomfortable, I just hustled off. Two days later, she whistled at me again. Again I just sped off.
A few days later I was walking down Maple Street. The woman, who was with her boyfriend of sorts at the time, was about a hundred feet behind me. I noticed she started gaining on me, so I sped up, hoping to leave her in the dust, as I was wary of her motives. But the faster I walked, the faster she walked. She caught up to me. Was she stalking me?
I spoke briefly with her, and let her know I was not comfortable with her chasing me like that, and I turned and left.
According to the rules that feminists would have us live by today, this was clearly a case of harrassment and stalking, and I should have filed a complaint with the authorities. But in 1990, the world had not yet become that insane.
That evening, As I was eating in the cafeteria, she came and sat beside me. I was about to get up, really miffed, when she said, "Please, wait - I want to talk with you." I sat down, and she simply said, "I m sorry if I made you uncomfortable, but the first time I saw you I was attracted to you, and I really didn't know how to show it, or get your attention. I just wanted to get to know you better."
We began spending time together, and we grew close. About a month later, in that same cafeteria, SHE proposed to ME, as she did not think I'd ever get around to it.
We have now been married for 26 glorious, fun-filled blissful years. Still very much in love, and inseparable. We remarried on our 10th Anniversary, and on our 25th I showed up at her work and publicly, on bended knee, proposed to her. See? I DID get around to it!
If we had lived by the rules the feminists are putting forth today, we would never have gotten to know each other; we would never have married, and would have missed out on a perfect life that even Hollywood could not have scripted better. In fact, by those rules, Robin (my wife) would have probably gone to jail, or in the very least, lost her job.
CONCLUSION: The "Battle of the Sexes" is supposed to be a fun, yet challenging game, not a "take no prisoners" war. We all are fumbling our way through this thing we call life, and we all have our own ways of trying to attract members of the opposite sex (or same sex, as the case may be). And if we are to survive as a race, we need to be tolerant of the methods used by others, and speak up clearly when we inadvertently attract the wrong people. Otherwise, we end up with a world of misery, like the one we have now begun to create, as people are beginning to fear the consequences of "the mating game".
/
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Sexual Misconduct - Drawing Clear Lines
The "Battle of the Sexes" has been raging since the first man found himself facing the first woman. And from the very beginning it has fallen upon the man to make the first move - it was always considered un-lady like for a woman to chase the man. But that appears to be changing rapidly in this age of "feminism" and "political correctness", when the mere act of letting someone know you are interested can get you in trouble.
Here's the problem - if a man makes a pass at a woman, and she likes it, that can lead to a beautiful relationship. But if the woman does not like it, she can now call it an "unwanted advance" and the man loses his job, and his reputation. In short, "unwanted advance" and "inappropriate behavior" are subjective - what is unwanted or inappropriate to one person might well be wanted or appropriate to another.
Not long ago, a man making the "wolf whistle" at a woman was considered to be giving her a compliment. Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby - yes, even Pat Boone - have all used the whistle to indicate they like what they see. But today, whistling at the wrong woman can be deemed harassment (even though it is not).
It seems the new rules in this Battle of the Sexes are, at the very least, confusing and only blur the lines. And the strange thing is, it is all so unnecessary.
There are only two real rules, and neither should be breached. If everone were to follow these two rules, there would be no issues, and we would easily be able to pick out the people who break them.
RULE #1: Every man has an OBLIGATION to pursue those he is attracted to, but with that obligation comes the OBLIGATION to stop when the other party makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that he is to stop. He can make any pass, whistle or whatever, but if the other party says, "Stop - leave me alone", he must stop immediately. No harm, no foul.
RULE #2: When a man interacts with a woman in any personal sense, and that women wants him to stop at any point, she has an OBLIGATION to let the man know, in clear terms, that she wants him to stop. It is her obligation to inform him of the line or lines he may not cross.
If all persons were to adhere to these two simple rules, there would be no issues of harassment or sexual misconduct. ALL issues of harassment, sexual misconduct and even rape occur when a person violates one or both of those rules.
If a woman does not draw clear lines for the men she attracts, then the fault is hers if he goes too far. And if a woman draws clear lines, and a man crosses them, he is the one at fault. There is a responsibility on the part of both parties, and each must play by the rules if they are to prevent issues of misconduct.
/
Here's the problem - if a man makes a pass at a woman, and she likes it, that can lead to a beautiful relationship. But if the woman does not like it, she can now call it an "unwanted advance" and the man loses his job, and his reputation. In short, "unwanted advance" and "inappropriate behavior" are subjective - what is unwanted or inappropriate to one person might well be wanted or appropriate to another.
Not long ago, a man making the "wolf whistle" at a woman was considered to be giving her a compliment. Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby - yes, even Pat Boone - have all used the whistle to indicate they like what they see. But today, whistling at the wrong woman can be deemed harassment (even though it is not).
It seems the new rules in this Battle of the Sexes are, at the very least, confusing and only blur the lines. And the strange thing is, it is all so unnecessary.
There are only two real rules, and neither should be breached. If everone were to follow these two rules, there would be no issues, and we would easily be able to pick out the people who break them.
RULE #1: Every man has an OBLIGATION to pursue those he is attracted to, but with that obligation comes the OBLIGATION to stop when the other party makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that he is to stop. He can make any pass, whistle or whatever, but if the other party says, "Stop - leave me alone", he must stop immediately. No harm, no foul.
RULE #2: When a man interacts with a woman in any personal sense, and that women wants him to stop at any point, she has an OBLIGATION to let the man know, in clear terms, that she wants him to stop. It is her obligation to inform him of the line or lines he may not cross.
If all persons were to adhere to these two simple rules, there would be no issues of harassment or sexual misconduct. ALL issues of harassment, sexual misconduct and even rape occur when a person violates one or both of those rules.
If a woman does not draw clear lines for the men she attracts, then the fault is hers if he goes too far. And if a woman draws clear lines, and a man crosses them, he is the one at fault. There is a responsibility on the part of both parties, and each must play by the rules if they are to prevent issues of misconduct.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)