我支持米兔,但这个女教授是烂屎。因为

咪呜
楼主 (文学城)

米兔的骚扰侵犯和侵害应该来自优势方,比如权力或/和金钱,等等,所以很难拒绝,揭露,告发,控告等等等等。如果骚扰侵害侵犯等等来自同学同事等“势均力敌”的一方,这很容易拒绝,告发和/或控告,所以,你用不着米兔来凑热闹,甚至以此自愿为某些政治力量当枪使,这就走偏了,对米兔本身是有害的。

当然,过去即使是来自“势均力敌”的一方,另一方也由于各种原因不像现在这样可以坦然拒绝,告发,控告等等,所以,你现在才说出来。但即使你现在说出来了,也不过就是你说出来了。面对当事人一路走来的人生,只有蠢货或自愿当蠢货的人才会因你所说的那一件事对当事人做出负面的评价。相反,你现在说出的动机,别人怎么想,就很难说了,比如以此出名和/或获得其他好处。因为你和做出米兔的人一样也是人,另一种米兔而已。更进一步,如果比较人生的污点,现在说出所谓米兔的,比做了所谓米兔的,有可能更多呢!

——————

另外一件事:

K的大法官任命,再次让人看出,政治有多脏,如果需要,政客们真的会和耶稣乱搞也无所谓。

看样子,全世界所谓发达国家的左派都是屎,当然啦,一旦自诩代表人民利益,代表justice,那一定是屎。

 

桃子苹果
2 楼
老床不是自诩代表人民的,还是劳动人民呢?

哪个政党不说自己代表正义?

桃子苹果
3 楼
老床不是自诩代表人民的,还是劳动人民呢?

随着中国对外开放的深入,世界在逐渐了解中国,中国人也在逐渐了解世界的异性。他们走进了我们的生活,有的甚至成为了我们生活中的一分子。于是,有些中国人漂洋过海,嫁给了外国男人或者娶了外国女孩。自上世纪80年代初期以来,中国跨国婚姻的登记数几乎是逐年繁荣昌盛。1982年,中国跨国婚姻登记数为14193对,而到了1997年已达50773对,涉及53个国家和地区。

  人们在惊叹这一段段惊世未了情的同时,却忽视了故事背后的酸甜苦辣欢乐痛苦。由于文化的差异的婚姻观念,以及成家的目的各有不同,在婚姻中演绎了一幕幕悲喜剧,跨国婚姻并不像我们想像的那么浪漫,那么甜蜜。来自不同国家的两口子告诫我们,其实与任何一段婚姻一样,跨国婚姻,不仅仅是相爱。

  日本男性最愿意娶中国女性

  随着中国人逐步走向世界,以工作、学习和生活为目的旅居日本的中国人在逐渐增加。在这些中国人中,一些女性嫁给了日本人为妻。日本政府公布的一项统计数据表明,随着日本的国际化程度提高,国际婚姻也在与日俱增,特别是日本男子娶外国女子为妻的越来越多,其中娶中国女子为妻的比例最高。

  随着日本人口增长率一年比一年低,40多岁的一般日本男性现在很难找到二三十岁的日本女性为妻,原因是如今日本女性都要求较高的生活水准,而一般的40多岁的日本男人的经济条件大多都达不到她们的要求。于是,这些日本男子尽快解决单身寂寞的最佳办法就是把寻求配偶的目标转向国外。一般日本人都认为,中国人的长相与日本人很像,饮食差异也不大,都使用筷子,都会写汉字,等等。

  中澳婚姻温而不热澳大利亚和中国是地球上一南一北两个国家,文化背景十分不同,但是两国间的联姻数量却一直居高不下。这当中,除了经济的吸引和文化的好奇等有利因素之外,也存在许多困难和误解尽管中澳交流年年发展,但是两国婚姻并没有出现过突增或者突降的情况,近几年每年结婚人数比例的增长基本不超过7%,偶尔还有降低。这种平缓增长一方面说明中国人在澳大利亚的生活趋于稳定,另一方面也说明近几年中澳婚姻交流没有什么突然的变化。

  澳大利亚移民局对中澳婚姻的签证一直控制严格。首先他们要证明双方婚姻关系的真实性和持久性,而且这种考核对申请人所处的特殊社会环境,文化传统,经济现状,家庭中长辈参与程序和申请人对婚后的安排,并未加以深入考察,而是直接套用澳大利亚的各种观念、行为标准和移民部政策,罗列出一串串申请人未能符合的条件或标准。所以有时候申请人在面试时一个不经意的回答会成为拒签理由之一;有时,申请人在婚姻生活中的矛盾或不和,尽管双方和好如初,但仍然会被移民官抓住把柄赫然成为拒签的重要理由之一。从2002年12月开始,澳大利亚立法规定实施新的结婚证书颁布办法,所有要登记结婚的配偶,可以先谈好彼此的结婚条件,包括离婚时财产如何分配,小孩如何教育,要到什么地方度假,甚至一周做爱几次,等等。

  许多在悉尼的中国人对此无法理解,但是澳大利亚人对此另有看法,悉尼大学正要结婚的安德森教授就认为,这样很清楚,也是一种互相尊重对方的表现。

  中澳跨国婚姻的离婚率一直居高不下,专家说原因和澳大利亚整体婚姻文化习惯有关。澳大利亚是有名的家庭观念差的国家,在世界各国夫妻离婚率排到前三,第一是美国。40岁以上的澳大利亚男人中,有过离婚记录的占全体总数的40%。所以澳大利亚人把婚姻看得比较淡。

  中德联姻喜忧参半

  上海的磁浮列车开通了,来自德国慕尼黑的电机商人彼得先生感到非常兴奋。他很清楚,中德两国合作的磁浮列车项目的开始意味着中德两国在上海的合作前途无量,对他个人来说,这绝对有助于实现他一直以来的梦想——在上海找一个中国媳妇。“两国交流越来越多,中国姑娘对我们越来越不陌生,我在工作中和她们交流越来越容易。”彼得操着生硬的汉语说。据了解,彼得先生身边有这种想法的德国小伙子还有不少。

  德国人把婚姻家庭看得很重,这一点和中国人很相似。如此他们认为应当有了一定经济基础才能结婚,否则婚姻会不稳定。也因此,德国人办理跨国结婚的手续非常烦琐。登记结婚的话,首先要把从小到大各种证件能办上的都办上。这些文件必须首先经过中国公证机构公证,再经中国外交部确认,最后由德国驻中国大使馆认证后再邮寄到德国,由在德国注册的翻译公司译成德语,后再递交给婚姻登记处。但最终能否结婚不是由婚姻登记处说了算,所有文件都得送德国各州最高法院由法院决定。一般来说,没四个月这套程序批不下来。乃至有一种说法建议凡欲和德国人结婚者转道丹麦办理,那里三天就够了
咪呜
4 楼
不,你完全不对。左派走上街头的理论依据就是他们站在道德高地上。比如比利时社会党,选赢了

别的党就算了,他们选输了,是一定要走上街头闹的。法国也一样,只不过是任何时候都闹。

另外,这次不要歪我的楼,我不在谈论川普。

a
alazycatinsd
5 楼
所有发达国家,厉害国人争相恐后要移民的,都是左派潮流的国家,也都是女权相对成熟和崛起的地方。

有意思的是,大部分历害国人利用这个政治形势得到合法居住权和对等的政治权利后,立刻改弦易辙180度大转弯,对自由派破口大骂,逢左必反,对极右亲得不行。这中间的逻辑到现在我都百思不得其解。

 

咪呜
6 楼
这次不要歪我的楼,我不在谈论川普。我在谈米兔。米兔的界限。
a
alazycatinsd
7 楼
米兔有界限?啥界限?
a
alazycatinsd
8 楼
咪呜现在反川了,就在不久前:)
咪呜
9 楼
人都喜欢符合自己利益的秩序,喝狼奶长大的,本能地趋向铁腕可以保障这种秩序。不过,我也听说很多

美籍华人反对川普,不过是因为自己的老人在享受美国各种社会福利。支持川普的美国华人告诉我的。

不过不要歪楼,我在谈米兔,不在谈川普。

另外,我从来不是左派,更讨厌左派站在道德制高点上耀武扬威

咪呜
10 楼
我提出了界限的看法。就在主贴里啊
a
alazycatinsd
11 楼
我这回贴也没谈川普啊

很多华人川粉当年来到美国的时候,也是有奖学金助学金各种对贫穷留学生资助补助的,现在缓过来了就变脸,反对合法福利的收益者。这种前后矛盾的嘴脸,两边都不讨好。

而且别忘了,任何制度都有被滥用的,福利制度只是其中之一。不是每个来到美国的老人都跟那些传说中天朝帝都魔都几套房几千万资产的,穷光蛋有的是。如果我当年不出来,也是穷光蛋一枚,而且是厉害国的穷光蛋。

人性真有意思,专挑软柿子捏。那些凭借一己之力制定法律政策对自家人自己那个阶层谋取巨大利益的上千万上亿手笔的,是高大上阶层,说不得碰不得;那些少了几百块就要饿肚子的,反而罪该万死。

什么世道。

a
alazycatinsd
12 楼
你觉得这个界限是“势均力敌”?问题是有势均力敌这回事吗?
桃花好运
13 楼
她的证词漏洞比较多...
-
-worldance-
14 楼
I don't have much time today, here is an article

about the negative effects of Me too movement. A little long sorry, if you don't mind. I may write some on this later when i have time. The Negative Impact of the #MeToo Movement April 2018 • Volume 47, Number 4Heather Mac Donald

Heather Mac Donald
Manhattan Institute

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She earned a B.A. from Yale University, an M.A. in English from Cambridge University, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. She writes for several newspapers and periodicals, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New Criterion, and Public Interest, and is the author of four books, including The War on Cops: How The New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe and The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture (forthcoming September 2018).

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Print E-mail Download Issue

 

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on April 18, 2018, during a two-week teaching residency at Hillsdale as a Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism.

Our nation is about to be transformed, thanks to the #MeToo movement. I am not speaking about a cessation of sexual predation in the workplace. If that were the only consequence of #MeToo, the movement would clearly be a force for good. Unfortunately, its effects are going to be more sweeping and destructive. #MeToo is going to unleash a new torrent of gender and race quotas throughout the economy and culture, on the theory that all disparities in employment and institutional representation are due to harassment and bias. The resulting distortions of decision-making will be largely invisible; we will usually not know of the superior candidates for a job who were passed over in the drive for gender parity. But the net consequence will be a loss of American competitiveness and scientific achievement.

Pressures for so-called diversity, defined reductively by gonads and melanin, are of course nothing new. Since the 1990s, every mainstream institution has lived in terror of three lethal words: “all white male,” an epithet capable of producing paroxysms of self-abasement. Silicon Valley start-ups and science labs quake before the charge of being all or mostly male; their varied ethnic demographics earn them no protection from the diversity racket. The New York Times recently criticized the board of fashion giant H&M for being “entirely white.” We can therefore infer that there are females on the H&M board, or else the Times would have let loose with the bigger gun: “all white male.” When both categories of alleged privilege—white and male—overlap, an activist is in the diversity sweet spot, his power over an institution at its zenith.

But however pervasive the diversity imperative was before, the #MeToo movement is going to make the previous three decades look like a golden age of meritocracy. No mainstream institution will hire, promote, or compensate without an exquisite calculation of gender and race ratios. Males in general, and white males in particular, will have to clear a very high bar in order to justify further deferring that halcyon moment of gender equity.

Hollywood and the media are already showing the #MeToo effect. At this year’s Oscar awards lunch, the president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, John Bailey, prefaced his remarks by noting that he was a “75-year-old white man.” Bailey was trying to get out ahead of the curve, since if he hadn’t pointed out this shameful status, feminist crusaders in the press and the industry would have done so for him. Witness actress Natalie Portman’s sneer in presenting the best director prize at the 2018 Golden Globe awards: “And here are the all-male nominees.” Such shallow bean counting is now going to become the automatic response to any perceived lack of “diversity” in entertainment.

Naturally, Bailey announced reparations for the Academy’s predominantly white male profile: henceforth it would “balance gender, race, ethnicity, and religion” in all its activities and would double its female and minority members by 2020. Needless to say, this was not enough. Outside the lunch, the National Hispanic Media Coalition protested the lack of proportional ethnic representation in Oscar nominations and acting roles.

CBS is considering only females to fill the anchor slot at Face the Nation, to catch up with The Today Show, which now has two female anchors. The Recording Academy, which oversees the Grammys, has promised to overcome the “unconscious biases that impede female advancement” in the music industry, after bean-counting complaints from The Wall Street Journal’s pop music critic and female music executives.

The prospect of left-wing entertainment moguls having to sacrifice their box office judgment to identity politics is an unalloyed pleasure, and of little consequence to society at large. But quota-izing will hardly be limited to Hollywood.

Major publishing houses are analyzing their author lists by gender and race and making publishing decisions accordingly. What books get reviewed and who reviews them will increasingly be determined according to gender and race. There are likely no major newspapers that are not tallying reporter and op-ed bylines, as well as the topics they cover, by gender and race. In 2005, professional feminist Susan Estrich preposterously accused Michael Kinsley, then running the Los Angeles Times editorial pages, of excluding female writers. Naturally, Estrich ignored the fact that males are disproportionately interested in public affairs, as demonstrated by lopsided sex ratios among op-ed submissions and letters to the editor. Eighty-seven percent of contributors to Wikipedia are male. There are no allegedly sexist gatekeepers at Wikipedia screening out females; contributions are anonymous and open to all. But males are more oriented towards highly fact-based realms.

Now, however, sterile bean-counting exercises such as Estrich’s have gone in-house. In response to the #MeToo movement, The New York Times created a “gender editor” who presides over a “gender initiative” to infuse questions of gender throughout all the Times’ coverage. A recent front-page product of this #MeToo initiative covered the earth-shattering problem facing NFL cheerleaders: to wit, they have a dress code and are forbidden from fraternizing with the players. Despite these allegedly patriarchal conditions, females are still lining up to be hired, to the puzzlement of the Times.

Publisher Meredith Corp. has come in for the usual criticism after buying the floundering Time, Inc. late last year. “They’re basically all middle-aged white males from the Midwest,” grumbled a Time staffer, who, you would think, would be in no position to complain. Dow Jones, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, is offering leadership training exclusively to females to try to meet its short-term goal of 40 percent female executives.

Corporate boardrooms, executive suites, and management structures are going to be scoured for gender and race imbalances. Diversity trainers are already sensing a windfall from #MeToo. Gender, diversity, and inclusion were the dominant themes at this January’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The conference was chaired exclusively by women. Windows were emblazoned with slogans like “Diversity is good for business” and “Gender equality is a social and economic issue.” CEOs shared their techniques for achieving gender equity. It’s actually quite simple: pay managers based on their record of hiring and promoting females and minorities, as Hilton CEO Christopher Nassetta explained. Never mind the fact that by introducing irrelevant criteria such as race and gender into an evaluation process, you will inevitably end up with less qualified employees.

U.S. banks and financial institutions are facing pressure from shareholder groups to release data on the number and compensation of females and minorities in their upper ranks. Immediate punishment befalls anyone in business who has the courage to criticize this war on merit. The chief creative officer of the advertising firm M&C Saatchi wrote last year that he was “bored of diversity being prioritized over talent.” Saatchi atoned for this heresy with a frenzy of female hirings and promotions.

Amazingly, John Williams—a white man—squeaked into the presidency of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York this April, to the outrage of the diversocrats. Don’t be surprised if he is the last to do so. “The New York Fed has never been led by a woman or a person of color, and that needs to change,” announced New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Williams’ “progress,” as The New York Times called it, in “diversifying” senior leadership when he was president of the San Francisco Fed undoubtedly made his unfortunate race and sex more palatable to the search committee.

#MeToo enforcers are even going after classical music. New Yorker music critic Alex Ross triggered outrage against the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and the Philadelphia Orchestra in February when he tweeted that they had programmed no female composers in their 2018-2019 seasons. Never mind that the CSO was even then performing Jennifer Higdon’s Low Brass Concerto—a piece commissioned by the Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore orchestras—at Carnegie Hall. It is ludicrous to suggest that these institutions are discriminating against female composers, but Ross and his followers demand affirmative programming quotas.

The public radio show, Performance Today, ran a series of shows in March about gender and racial inequities in classical music. At a time of diminishing classical music audiences, it is profoundly irresponsible to direct the poison of identity politics at our most precious musical institutions. Doing so only encourages potential young listeners and culturally ignorant philanthropists (I’m thinking of you, Bill Gates) to stay away. Facts are facts, and throughout most of music history, the greatest composers have been male. No amount of digging through score archives, however useful that enterprise may be for discovering unfamiliar works, is going to unearth a female counterpart to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, or Brahms. So what? We should simply be grateful—profoundly grateful—for the music these men created.

Orchestra boards will pay penance for their own inadequate diversity by a mad rush on female conductors, whose numbers are minuscule. It was already difficult two years ago to land a U.S. conducting position for a universally esteemed white male conductor, reports his agent. Now it would be nearly impossible, the agent believes, adding: “If I had a trans conductor, I would be rich.”

Academia, the source of identity politics, will double down on its diversity quota-izing in the wake of #MeToo. A panel at the annual American Economic Association meeting in January charged that gender discrimination was pervasive in economics—an argument that fit into the “larger national examination of bias and abuse toward women in the work force,” The New York Times reminded readers. In March, the Chronicle of Higher Education and Priya Satia, former diversity chair of Stanford University’s Department of History, went into diversity meltdown over a history conference that Hoover Institution Fellow Niall Ferguson had organized. Though Ferguson had invited females to speak, none had accepted. Not good enough, according to Professor Satia. Ferguson should have suspended the conference entirely unless he could persuade females and minorities to participate. Although Satia did not identify any scholarly gaps that resulted from the actual lineup, Stanford University was so shaken by the controversy that it issued a statement on behalf of the president and provost assuring the public that it had made its concerns about the lack of diversity known to the conference organizers.

STEM departments—departments of science, technology, engineering, and math—have been under enormous pressure from the federal government to hire by gender and race. Now they are creating their own internal diversity enforcers, notwithstanding the massive diversity bureaucracies already in place. UCLA’s Engineering Department now has its own diversity dean. Audrey Pool O’Neal, the director of UCLA’s Women in Engineering program, justified this sinecure with the usual role model argument for gender- and race-conscious decision-making. “Female students let me know how much they appreciate seeing a woman of color in front of their classroom,” she told the UCLA student newspaper.

Why not appreciate seeing the most qualified scholar in front of your classroom? Any female student who thinks she needs a female professor in order to envision a scientific career has declared herself a follower rather than a pioneer—and a follower based on a characteristic that is irrelevant to intellectual achievement. Marie Curie did not need female role models to investigate radioactivity. She was motivated by a passion to understand the world. That should be reason enough for anyone to plunge headlong into the search for knowledge.

Silicon Valley is a #MeToo diversity bonanza waiting to happen. It’s not for nothing that the Mountain View headquarters of Google is referred to as the “Google campus”; the culture of the Silicon Valley behemoth is an echo chamber of shrill academic victimology. Managers and employees reflexively label dissenters from left-wing orthodoxy as misogynists and racists. It is assumed that the lack of proportional representation of female, black, and Hispanic engineers at the company is due to bias on the part of every other type of engineer.

In August 2017, Google fired computer engineer James Damore for writing a memo suggesting that the lack of 50-50 gender proportionality at Google and other tech firms may not be due to bias, but rather to different career predilections on the part of males and females. He cited psychological research establishing that on average, males and females are attracted to different types of work: males to more abstract, idea-centered work, females to more human-centered, relational activities. Damore was not disparaging the scientific skills of the female engineers working at Google; he was trying to explain why there were not more of them. Nevertheless, Google accused Damore of using harmful gender stereotypes that put Google’s female employees at risk of some unspecified trauma.

Google’s adoption of the bathetic rhetoric of academic victimology to justify firing Damore was bad enough. But in January 2018, the National Labor Relations Board released a memo upholding Google’s action on the same grounds: Damore had engaged in discrimination and sexual harassment by employing “harmful gender stereotypes.” The reasoning behind the NLRB memo puts at risk the job of every academic scientist researching the biological and psychological differences between the sexes. The ideological imperatives of feminism are trumping the search for scientific truth. This is a dangerous position for a society to embrace.

The following month, a Google recruiter challenged Silicon Valley’s quota mentality by refusing to obey an edict to purge white males from consideration for entry-level engineering interviews. The recruiter alleges in a lawsuit that he was promptly fired. Google, it seems, would rather not be informed about potentially groundbreaking tech talent if it comes in the wrong color and shape.

Such distortions of meritocracy will become even more intense following #MeToo. The mad rush of investor funding into the biotech fraudster firm Theranos was undoubtedly due in large part to the sex of its founder. Elizabeth Holmes claimed to have invented an advanced blood-testing device. Even as her claims about the largely fictitious device unraveled, investors continued to give her unqualified support. Her blue chip board boasted two former secretaries of state and James Mattis, then head of the U.S. Central Command and now Secretary of Defense. Hilariously, the #MeToo-obsessed New York Times opined that it was “surprising” how long Holmes was allowed to operate “before regulators stepped in.” Actually, what is surprising is that they stepped in at all, given the dominant narrative that the dearth of female start-ups is due to sexism on the part of venture capitalists and regulators.

Despite the billions of dollars that governments, companies, and foundations have poured into increasing the number of females in STEM, the gender proportions of the hard sciences have not changed much over the years. This is not surprising, given mounting evidence of the differences in interests and aptitudes between the sexes. Study after study has shown that females gravitate towards different types of jobs than men, as James Damore fatally observed. Females on average tend to choose fields that are perceived to make the world a better place, according to the common understanding of that phrase. A preschool teacher in the Bronx, profiled by Bloomberg News, exemplifies such a choice. She has a B.A. in neuroscience, but opted not to go to medical school so as to have an impact on poor and minority children. Her salary is a pittance compared to what she could earn as a clinical or research neurologist, but she said that pay is not her top motivation when it comes to choosing a job.

Even under the broad STEM umbrella, females seek jobs that are seen as directly helping others by a two-to-one ratio over males. Females make up 75 percent of workers in health-related jobs, but only 25 percent of workers in computer jobs and 14 percent of engineering workers, according to a Pew Research Center poll. In 2016, nearly 82 percent of obstetrics and gynecology residents were female—yet no one is complaining about gender bias against males. And in a resounding blow to the feminist narrative about bias in STEM, it turns out that the more gender equality in a country, the lower the percentage of females in STEM majors and fields. The more careers open to females, the less likely they are to choose math or science.

Finally, there is the most taboo subject of all: the non-identical distribution of high-end math skills. Males outnumber females on both the bottom rung of math cluelessness and the top rung of math insight. In the U.S., there are 2.5 males in the top .01 percent of math ability for every female in that category. This is not a matter of gender bias and cultural conditioning; gender differences in math precocity show up as early as kindergarten.

Given these different distributions of interests and skills, the only way to engineer gender proportionality in the hard sciences is to put a ceiling on male hires, no matter how gifted, until enough females can be induced to enter the field to balance out the males. And indeed, the National Science Foundation, which has announced that progress in science requires a “diverse STEM workforce,” seems to be moving in that direction. This is undoubtedly good news for China, as it furiously pushes ahead with its unapologetically meritocratic system of science training and research. Not such good news for the rest of us, however.

The #MeToo movement has uncovered real abuses of power. But the solution to those abuses is not to replace valid measures of achievement with irrelevancies like gender and race. Ironically, the best solution to sexual predation is not more feminism, but less. By denying the differences between men and women, and by ridiculing the manly virtues of gentlemanliness and chivalry and the female virtues of modesty and prudence, feminism dissolved the civilizational restraints on the male libido. The boorish behavior that pervades society today would have been unthinkable in the past, when a traditional understanding of sexual propriety prevailed. Now, however, with the idea of “ladies and gentlemen” discredited and out of favor, boorishness is increasingly the rule.

Contrary to the feminist narrative, Western culture is in fact the least patriarchal culture in human history; rather than being forced to veil, females in our society can parade themselves in as scantily clad a manner as they choose; pop culture stars flaunt their promiscuity. As we have seen, every mainstream institution is trying to hire and promote as many females as possible. As the #MeToo movement swells the demand for ever more draconian diversity mandates, a finding in a Pew Research Center poll on workplace equity is worth noting: the perception of bias is directly proportional to the number of years the perceiver has spent in an American university. The persistent claim of gender bias, in other words, is ideological, not empirical. But after #MeToo, it will have an even more disruptive effect.

桃子苹果
15 楼
当年小布什怎么赢的?民主党说什么了?Al Gore 说什么了?你健忘了?没忘的人有的是。

到现在,法官们介入那件事都是历史上抹不去的污点。

我不喜欢Gore 的很多做法,但是在这点上,他做的对。

a
alazycatinsd
16 楼
这还用作者废话。。。所有运动都有其副作用的,最著名的就是法国大革命。
咪呜
17 楼
法国大革命是人道主义灾难,是反动,好吧?
-
-worldance-
18 楼
maybe it's more rational to fcocus on the points she made?
a
alazycatinsd
19 楼
你也是这么看待人权宣言的?
a
alazycatinsd
20 楼
我的副作用说就是非常rational的观点了,难道不是吗?
咪呜
21 楼
仔细读贴:界限是来自优势方,否则即使是骚扰侵害侵犯,但

不能算在米兔运动中。当然是不对不好甚至是犯罪,但是另一回事,是施予者的人生污点而已。

咪呜
22 楼
报告,我不知道
a
alazycatinsd
23 楼
那你觉得这件事上谁是优势方?
咪呜
24 楼
你是说运动吧?这可是两回事。

咪呜
25 楼
看样子,你没有看懂帖子。
咪呜
26 楼
那么长………
桃子苹果
27 楼
嗯,不知者不为罪。不过你对所谓左派的指责就少了些说服力。。打回去重来吧。。
a
alazycatinsd
28 楼
哈,没有运动那只母鸡,能有人权宣言这只蛋吗?

a
alazycatinsd
29 楼
有可能。看懂的给说说呗
咪呜
30 楼
就是真的,也不过是他的一个人生污点,而不是米兔。他一路走来,是什么人,只有

蠢货或想当蠢货的人,才会因此污点给他负面人生评价。相反,这个女教授,现在说出来,其动机,其人格,至少我感觉污点应该比K多。

米兔应该限于骚扰侵犯侵害来自权力金钱等优势方

咪呜
31 楼
民粹和民主不是一回事。
咪呜
32 楼
ID桃花朵朵 你为什么删掉自己的跟帖?
G
Gbdjw
33 楼
典型的右派。

开个玩笑,别往心里去,(阿拉第一次用这句话 

咪呜
34 楼
至少川普当选之后,美国民主党很让我看不上,虽然我很清楚我如果在美国,会是

中间派。

蓍草为yarrow
35 楼
很多人,大多数人都有人生污点,这无所谓。但是对于一个要做40年最高法院大法官的候选人,确实

非常需要盯紧的。

G
Gbdjw
36 楼
你也要允许人家狗急跳墙一次吧?

关键是GOP贸然改变游戏,把2/3改为1/2+1,以后的后患还多着呢!

咪呜
37 楼
你意思真的是有些

反川普的美国华人,真的是自己老人在享受美国福利的,华人川粉没说错?

我在问事实,观点另谈。

G
Gbdjw
38 楼
France's celebrity pushback against 'MeToo'

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42643504

 

咪呜
39 楼
麻烦解释一下,我对背景不是很了解
G
GoGym
40 楼
当年共和党怎么对老克和奥八的? 都是风水轮流转,互相报应
咪呜
41 楼
你这又是另外一个话题了
咪呜
42 楼
我没看到共和党在克林顿时期如此狗急跳墙。即使在奥巴马政府时期
G
GoGym
43 楼
过气老女人怕以后沒男的对她感兴趣
G
GoGym
44 楼
我看到,太多了
a
alazycatinsd
45 楼
看过报道说

是的,有那样的人 - 那些老人国内北京上海有房子和退休金,如果报道准确属实的话。

不过我本人不直接认识那些人,毕竟来自穷乡僻壤的小地方,一家子没权没势更没钱,人家压根儿看不上咱,更不会跟咱混一个圈子,估计他们碰到了我这样的躲都来不及所以回答你的结论是,我没有第一手资料,不好乱讲。

但是这个大法官候选人K的表演,确实算是亲眼见到的 - 不说他是不是真对Ford那么做了,那个我说了也不算 - 就说这件事带出来的对他的考验,integrity简直是一塌糊涂。

咪呜
46 楼
可见不够多。我那么远,没看到;这次看到了。你近,都看到,正常
咪呜
47 楼
他们的意思是

那些反川华人,不过是既得利益者,不管是真需要这福利还是装假获得这个福利

咪呜
48 楼
下去解释一下最后一个跟帖,我没看懂
a
alazycatinsd
49 楼
嗯,这我说了也不算。可是你自己歪楼了,不是说不谈老川嘛

咪呜
50 楼
我是顺便问你一下。
a
alazycatinsd
51 楼
那么对等地,也要允许别人顺便歪一下楼嘛:)
咪呜
52 楼
我在欧洲从来就是右派,即使是我刚毕业时工作的法国雇员占大多数的比利时公司里

我也这么说。

咪呜
53 楼
那当然不行-:)
G
Gbdjw
54 楼
这就是媒体要的“眼球”效应!她只是100多个签名者“之一”。但你就只看见她了!

我儿子目前对华裔的评价:最能被propaganda的群体。

桃子苹果
55 楼
再说一遍,无知无罪。。不过,这年头把事情的来龙去脉搞搞清楚不难。。

难的是不带偏见,不先入为主。。

a
alazycatinsd
56 楼
哈哈,州官啊
桃花好运
57 楼
不想吵架....好我加回去...我自己的观点,不代表别人..
G
Gbdjw
58 楼
阿拉对右派没异议。阿拉为儿子选的“教母”我的闺蜜就是右派。
桃花好运
59 楼
她的证词漏洞比较多...
G
GoGym
60 楼
不过这也是当年老Reid开的头,因为共和党不confirm奥八的任何提名。但还留着参院考证大法官这块

老麦头一不作二不休,把这个最后防线也破了。

我说了,都是冤冤相报,沒一方好的

咪呜
61 楼
在我的帖子下,不会吵架的,有我罩着你,不怕!

桃子苹果
62 楼
我觉得大法官的听证任命的事,

共和党对奥巴提名不confirm,太占不住理了。。。这个后选人,也真不合格。

G
GoGym
63 楼
原来参院要confirm总统提名,需要100票里至少60票,用意是至少要少数党几票合作,不能太偏激

但当年共和党不惜一切和奥八作对,对他提的任何法官(包括联邦上诉法院)都不通过。空了好多位置。当时民主党是参院多数,就改了规则,说51票就行。但留最高法院大法官这块,还是要60票,因为是终身,事关重大。

但共和党上台,一不作二不休,把这个也改成51票, 所谓的1/2加1。

所以,都是冤冤相报,都不是好货

G
GoGym
64 楼
是的,那次对奥八和Garland太过份太不公平了, 所以报应到K头上,他们也不用抢天呼地的
G
GoGym
65 楼
这才真实,要是编的,随便编个圆的
G
GoGym
66 楼
看到了吗?
桃花好运
67 楼
不用争论了, 已经通过了...

看你舌战你的N奶+

G
GoGym
68 楼
欧洲右派大概是米国左派

桃花好运
69 楼
个人看法不一样, 不用争论....:-)
G
Gbdjw
70 楼
过去参议院的重大决策都是绝大多数才能通过(2/3)

因此过去很多事都被2党争执而不能通过。2013年民主党控制参议院时废除了这个2/3才能通过命名低级法院的法官,当时好像有200多名法官被block,但他们没敢动重大命名(譬如高级法院和最高法院)和重大决策的选举多数规则,保持2/3数。

川普上台后,目前的参议院GOP领袖决定把所以决策通通改为1/2+1,弃2/3多数,这么一来GOP的52票就稳通过。推翻O8医保就是最后关头McCain倒戈才没实现。

 

G
Gbdjw
71 楼
我觉得民主党在这点上还是有底线。
G
GoGym
72 楼
沒争啊,也是说个人看法嘛:)
G
Gbdjw
73 楼
+1
G
Gbdjw
74 楼
川普上台就喊要大搞基建,这么多年都是共和党压制不让干啊!!
G
GoGym
75 楼
对呀,就登她照片了。老过气挺会博眼球哈

G
GoGym
76 楼
+1000000!
G
GoGym
77 楼
同意
G
Gbdjw
78 楼
过去是,现在不是啦,现在有股邪劲,极右,和二战前夕越来越像!
桃子苹果
79 楼
所以,这个头是谁开的,谁就应该承担历史的责任。。
桃子苹果
80 楼
哈哈,搞啥基建了么?
G
Gbdjw
81 楼
我倒是觉得feinstein太老了,没玩好。

还想连任,在想啥呀?还不快给年轻人让路?!

祖母绿珠儿
82 楼
你歪楼了:这主贴里的中心议题是Ford教授的指控对MeToo运动的危害,你却歪到支持或反对Trump层面上了。砸!
桃花好运
83 楼
大家没忘CLINTON在白宫里搞INTERN??
祖母绿珠儿
84 楼
往上追溯的话,民主党做得也很不光彩。。。包括肯尼迪家族,他们做了多少缺德事?你再仔细查查,谁解放了黑奴?
祖母绿珠儿
85 楼
Trump确实提出要搞基建,这是他推进美国经济发展的第二步骤。
桃花好运
86 楼
下了, 去做热YOGA...
祖母绿珠儿
87 楼
南北战争的起因又是什么?美国走到今天,大家都比着烂,谁都脱不了干系。
G
GoGym
88 楼
那是他婚外情,你情我愿,是他家的私事。和试图性侵能相提并论吗?
G
GoGym
89 楼
仿奥8:)
G
GoGym
90 楼
唉,现在邪气泛滥:(
祖母绿珠儿
91 楼
克林顿被弹劾的原因是他做假证,妨害司法公正。
桃子苹果
92 楼
哈哈,南北战争的起因是因为取消黑奴制还是因为维护州权?

你觉得林肯对南方州袭击联邦军队,要撤出联邦,分裂联邦应该听其自然?

现在的共和党早就背离林肯当年的共和党了,这段历史你不是不知道吧?

 

祖母绿珠儿
93 楼
民主党也是为了维护州里享有黑奴的权利才跟北佬打仗的吧,所以谁都不光彩。现在黑奴的后代最崇拜的

还是林肯!

现在的民主党跟他们当初的理想相差不多么?乌鸦别说猪黑(当然是黑猪啦),哈哈哈。。。

我觉得现在的政治都烂透了,都该反思一下自己到底在干什么?嗯。。。

桃子苹果
94 楼
你对美国历史的了解真还是缺了一大块。。。

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

从罗斯福开始,美国的人权运动都是民主党,左派在推动。。。两党都转变了角色。

所以,现在是共和党人为当年要脱离联邦自立的南方军首领保持纪念碑,也不愿意承认当年是反对取消黑奴制才和北方打起来的。。

 

a
alazycatinsd
95 楼
给富人减税后发现没钱了,来不及印,先用关税补上,如果能收上来的话。
祖母绿珠儿
96 楼
首先你批评我对美国历史不够了解。。。这句话奠定了不够平等友善讨论的基础。。。

你对美国历史,也只是了解了你想了解的那一部分而已。。。

我只是想指出你的视角问题,没生气也没情绪化。。。

W
WenWen.
97 楼
她面相不善
2
2008VGirl
98 楼
不是真通过。
祖母绿珠儿
99 楼
不信你问

禾口。。。我认真参与了她帖子的讨论。。。

G
Gbdjw
100 楼
他的脸其实蛮“淫”的。

一开始还没人出来爆料前我看见这个脸就有这个感觉。