If women want men to take the #MeToo movement seriously, why is it fine when women use men with the obvious objective of advancing their power?
Vice President Kamala Harris always has been a player for men who hold power, but why is that okay with feminists, if they don’t like men who behave that way?
Feminists have been gaining control over the universities since the late 1990s. Millennials and Gen-Z women have been educated by these feminists, with schools using the “gender studies” angle to attract students. They may think this is okay especially if it is mainly for a job or power rather than just for money.
Such a view is hypocritical and it points to the hypocrisy inherent in the feminist movement. (Feminists don’t like what is inherently good in women and imitate the worst qualities they see in men.)
The Legacy of #MeToo and how we got there
Harris’ past relationships never became an issue in California because California has different standards from much of the country. She was 29 when she began dating Willie Brown, Speaker of the Assembly and San Franciso Mayor, who was 60. He provided her first two political appointments.
I went to college with theater majors who became upset after hearing that you have to sleep around to get roles. Many of them decided it wasn’t worth going for it, if that is the case. But many of those who go to Hollywood and stayed there thought differently, until the accusations against Harvey Weinstein surfaced.
California is a feminist hotbed and Californians may turn the other way. They may have been reluctant to criticize her for fear of being called a sexist, misogynist and racist. (If you run for office — man or woman — hard scrutiny should be expected. When problems are found, it is not necessarily because of sexism.)
If women don’t want men in power to be players, they should NOT be players. (This writer knows that Donald Trump’s record with women is bad, and would never defend him.)
Harris’ record and Prop 47
Harris’ main legacy as California’s Attorney General of California was Proposition 47, which she labeled the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, a completely deceptive title. It was intended to facilitate widespread decarceration. It did not facilitate rehabilitation for those in prison, but, rather, changed the standards for classifying crime.
Prop 47 decriminalized theft under $950 and turned some felonies into misdemeanors. Most Californians observe that it led to more crime and sex trafficking. It made it more difficult to prosecute rapes and to use DNA evidence to solve crimes. Harris promoted the proposition, and she wrote the language that appeared on ballots. While it passed, it did not lead to safer neighborhoods and schools. Some cities followed suit, but most people don’t benefit from the decriminalization of crime and Californians aren’t happy with
As for her suitability to be president, there is so much in her record that should cause anyone to pause. Both she and Gavin Newsom have some responsibility for the widespread homelessness, violence and drug use that increased under their policies. Prop 47 is her legacy; it is her signature act for which her policies should and beliefs should be judged.
As the Substack by fellow a Northern Californian Michael Shellenberger states:
“Harris is utterly conformist in her approach to policy. The result is that she is not a leader, she is a follower of public opinion, which the legacy news media have historically shaped.” (He explains that the news media is losing power.)
He adds: “Her track record shows that her rise to the top was heavily shaped by being not selected by the people but rather by Democratic Party elites, from her boyfriend, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to her selection by Biden as Vice president and again as presidential candidate.”
She barely won her first statewide election in 2010 in the overwhelmingly Democratic state. Kamala Harris’ husband Doug Emhoff is a very successful entertainment lawyer. He may be the power behind her throne right now. They married in 2014.
She was elected to the Senate in 2018, barely enough time for her to have the experience one would want for the vice presidency. As vice president, she was tasked with directing the border immigration problem, but she failed.
Sex for money, marriage for money; marriage for power
This writer would never begrudge a woman whose only method of making a decent living is exchanging sexual favors for money. Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession — out of necessity.
I’ve heard feminists and their young followers say that women should not marry for money. Their goal is for women to command high salaries and not need someone else’s money. However, many smart and strategic women have traditionally looked for advancement in money and social class through marriage. Even if they are feminists, these women are more focused on having more money, not earning more money. Sadly, to the feminists, marrying up doesn’t make women powerful in the workforce. Staying home after having children (or even the choice to have children) goes against their expectations, too.
Why should young females have so much respect for Harris when she didn’t earn it by being the best and most competent? She would never have earned the nomination for president if she had gone through the primary process.
I would rather the United States’ first female president win because she is the party’s best and smartest. Angela Merkel was chosen Chancellor three times, a fact which suggests she was the best in Germany! Nancy Pelosi was also elected to her position because of her extraordinary political skill.
If you don’t believe poor Harris’ record please read Michael Shellenberger’s article on PUBLIC, Indifference And Ambition Behind Kamala Harris Policies That Increase Violence And Trap Children On Street. (You may need to subscribe for the entire post, but the content is excellent)
