PROTECTING R KELLY: A Joint Effort Between The Black Community & White Male Power Brokers

"Near the beginning of the series [ SURVIVING R KELLY], an infamous clip plays from a 2018 Facebook Live session. In it, Kelly addresses the latest wave of backlash against him, shouting out his supporters and blowing off his critics. Surrounded by boisterous supporters, he gloats, “It’s too late, they should’ve did this shit 30 years ago.”

And if black feminists were 
as powerful then as they are now, 

while he was still weak

(30 years back = not rich, not famous), 

AND he was not black-idolized by the greedy poor 

for getting rich in a white supremacist environment;

AND he was not making money hand over fist 

for the black men in charge 
of individual music companies X and Y

AND ALSO, more importantly, 

the white men in charge of the music industry,

THEN #MuteRKelly would, indeed, have worked

R. Kelly is dead right about it being 30 years too late for something like  #MuteRKelly to work on to stop a pedophile preying on black girls in 2018 

No diggity. No doubt. 

     Thirty years back, instead of coming together to take R. Kelly down --before his music caught on with little white boys wanting to absorb and appropriate black cool, the black community protected the endangered black male, (insert sarcastic tone here) the only ones REALLY suffering under white supremacy.

     When a black man or black woman truly believes that black women do not suffer white supremacy as much then further believe sexism and misogyny are not systemic and deadly (despite domestic violence rates in the black community) then you get what you've got 

-- a large percentage of the black community willing to rise up and protect any black man, no matter how obvious it is that he's a lowlife 

     ...even at the expense of little black girls.

I understand this, but I will never forget the black community's response to the 14 year old black girl child Kelly statutorily raped and urinated on.

"She knew what she was doing" was implied and straight up said by black men and ring-through-the-nose black women.

I'll never forget that traitorous bullsh*t.

all grown up now

https://www.thedailybeast.com/surviving-r-kelly-exposes-how-the-randb-singer-got-away-with-sexually-abusing-girls-for-decades

Never.

This is why I'm glad Aaron McGruder preserved some of the black community's patriarchal crap in a cartoon, a BOONDOCKS episode.

In THE TRIAL OF ROBERT episode, Huey (the wanna be activist,) wanted R. Kelly to held accountable for peeing on the little black girl while Riley (the wanna be criminal) wanted R. Kelly to keep on making music, keep on being rich, being male, and therefore being a black hero.    

Too many black folks thinking paralleled Riley's.

And just like the Catholic Church can't be absolved from protecting those pedophile priests and gymnastic officials (and a host of unnamed others) cannot be absolved of covering for Larry Nassar, the patriarchy soaked black community cannot be absolved of R. Kelly.

Let me stop to say this again: I don't care what white folks are doing with their predators. I care about little black girls. That means I want our predators thrown in the trash.

And I say this just having heard from a video of an ex-bunny, ex-f*ck buddy of of the repulsive old lecher Hugh Hefner, a buddy of Cosby's. According to Hefner's ex, Holly Madison, author of DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE, Hefner referred to the quaaludes he gave young girls he persuaded to sleep with his repulsive, wrinkled ass, as "thigh openers." And he was

Quaaludes were also the drugs that Hefner's friend Bill Cosby used to allegedly drug and rape multitudes of women. In a recent case, model Chloe Goins claimed that Cosby raped her in the Playboy Mansion in 2008, and alleged that Hefner "conspired" with his friend in her assault... 

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/bjvyvw/dont-mourn-for-hugh-hefner

Despite the responsibility the black community bears for raising R. Kelly high enough that he became white-famous, it was the white men in power who really counted when it came to discounting little black girls, raped by Kelly, as nothing

---girls of all shades really, because any white woman not married to a white man has a fairly low status too.

Brock Turner's barely there prison sentence for raping an unmarried white woman should have showed everybody, except white women in denial, that white men mostly care about protecting other white men. Larry Nasser managing to skate for years despite sexually assaulting little white girls, should be telling us all the very same thing.  Married white women have high status, but even that is a secondary status conveyed to them by their white husbands, which means they are one divorce away from...

Yet, the other group that powerful, white male power brokers protect tooth and nail are other men that make them money, and that includes a bunch of rich, quasi-powerful, performer-class black men like Bill Cosby and R. Kelly, who can be seen as the Larry Nassar of the black community.
White male power brokers, that work behind the scenes, don't offer the same level of protection to black men that they offer white men who rape, but the protection is significant.   
Again, Hugh Hefner, who referred to the quaaludes he gave to young women as "thigh openers," got away scott free (unless you believe in hell)

But make no mistake, the white men in who own football teams are the only ones with power enough 

-protect the Darren Sharpers from rape accusations so he can continue to play football -- right up until the player retires his revenue stream (mostly) dries up. 

-allow the R. Kellys' and a whole host of others to continue with their careers, despite rape accusations involving young girls.

The white man's decision 
to protect a black man 
is based on whether or not 
that black man has the ability 
to make money for him,
 hand over fist.

For example: 
When Cosby quasi-retired, 
they cut him loose.

However, this white male protection is not often afforded to black women. Truth be told, there's not much evidence one way or the other, as there haven't been a bunch of black women in positions of power until relatively recently (Shonda Rhimes, Mara Brock Akil, Ava DuVernay)
But patriarchy being what it is, hypocritical men will punish a woman who does anything that can make a man imagine a tramp-stamp on her forehead --money or no money, apparently.

EXAMPLE:  

Les Moonves, recently taken down by #MeToo at CBS, did everything in his power to destroy Janet Jackson's career after her wardrobe malfunction at some concert of sports arena.  

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Apparently, there is not wrath like the wrath of a hypocritical man whose patriarchy has been scorned via a woman acting, in his opinion, like a tramp.

As for how R. Kelly got away with it so long? 

First of all, 

any conversation aimed to answer this question 
that does not begin 

by talking about how Jerry Lee Lewis, 
whose career was destroyed(?) by

his decision to marry his 13 year old cousin 

then end 

by talking about Elvis dating a 14 year old Priscilla 

until she was old enough to marry

and getting away with it,

contains an incomplete answer

Elvis may not have been the first white man to get away with preying on girl children, but Elvis' white male protectors set a high profile example for a lot of people that followed. 

For example, I did know about Woody Allen marrying his step-daughter and sexually assaulting his adopted daughter. But I didn't know that Paul Walker, of FAST AND FURIOUS fame, got away with being a 33 years old man who could pick up his 16 year old girlfriends up after their 10th grade geometry class  --until a day or so after his death (Apparently he "dated" a bunch of underage girls.)

Secondly, any answer meant to address how R. Kelly got away with preying on little girls for decades that does not take into account black men's measuring their masculinity (the fake toxic version) by looking at what white men get away with is also an incomplete answer. 

Thirdly, any answer that does not address black women's being trained, almost from birth, to believe that black men are the ones most affected by white supremacy --and therefore the ones deserving of protection-- is also an incomplete answer because most of black female patriarchy is firmly rooted in fear of being accused of anti-blackness. 

     Woke black folks know that if a black woman comes down hard on any black man, even a predator or an abuser, she will be accused of wanting to be white or wanting to align with white supremacists.   

     And this sizable percentage of black women are even afraid to turn their backs on Stephon Clarke, who turned his backs on black women when he was alive. And a lot of feminist and non-feminist black women, both, are afraid to say "to hell with that rabid dog, XXXTentacion" or even simply ignore his death, period, despite the heinous abuses he admitted committing against women.  

   And while non-feminist, black women are finally rejecting R. Kelly in large numbers (at this late hour), over the decades it has been non-feminist black women that have been caping for the black men that hate black women, so much so that they defend a predator like R. Kelly.

Anti-feminist black women... 

--afraid of being rejection by black men--afraid of other internalized-sexism suffering black women just like themselves.--afraid of their blackness being questioned by black men and pick-me-s 

  ... perform their blackness so hard that they (along side anti-feminist black men) make black female victims afraid to speak too. 

     In other words, in the black community, woman's inhumanity to woman is, in part, based on a pseudo-black-solidarity. 
      
     Lastly, any answer that doesn't examine the history of rape culture in this country is a foundation-less answer
So now I'm trying to figure out why I would need to watch the R. Kelly Documentary on Lifetime.

1. I mean, I've been watching this monster for years and years, knowing he's a monster supported by most of the black community -- "most" until at least the last decade or so.
2. I've known for decades that his black female victims are counted as nothing in face of a black man's success within a white supremacist environment -- by black men and black women both.
3. And I've always known that any female who can (il)legitimately be called "whore" --even 14 year old girls who have been urinated on -- can be counted as nothing by a majority(?) of non-feminist/ non-womanist black men and black women and especially by anti-feminist black men and anti-feminist black women.

The only reason for me to suffer and watch this documentary is so that I can know the names of more victims and some of the people that enabled Kelly's career

--which would be the same reason I watched that movie about Jerry Sandusky; I wanted to know who knew what and when and how they turned away knowing Sandusky was raping children.

So maybe I want to know the same thing about those protecting and enabling R. Kelly. Maybe that's reason enough to watch all by itself.

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM

LEE DANIELS IS ACTUALLY PLANNING A #MeToo COMEDY

Feeling Rebloggy

“That’s exactly why it’s important to get in the writers’ rooms now and to connect with Hollywood now,” she explained to the New York Times. “Before it gets to be such a catchall phrase that they dilute its meaning, that we help people understand the gravity behind the words and that it’s not just used as, ‘Oh, look who got Me Too’d, ha-ha,’ like a punch line.”

“I just read something the other day that said Lee Daniels is making a Me Too comedy. The hair stood up on my arm. To put Me Too and comedy in the same sentence is so deeply offensive and not because I’m uptight and I don’t see comedy in things. We’re not ready for a comedy and it’s just so offensive that you think in this moment when we’re still unpacking the issue that you can write a comedy about it. And that’s the type of thing I’m talking about. We have to get out in front of that,” said Burke.

~THE GRIO 

https://thegrio.com/2018/10/17/tarana-burke-deeply-offended-by-lee-daniels-plans-metoo-comedy/

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM

FAUX FORGIVENESS AND VOTING IN A SOCIETY DOMINATED BY MALE SUPREMACY

"...I’ve admitted in the past, my own memories are often unreliable. That’s hardly unusual. I’ve written about an old friend who told my son, “Jack, when I tell you stories about your father and me, I am never intentionally lying, but I cannot say for certain that any of the stories are true.”

But back to Kavanaugh. As his interrogators dredged up his past, it seemed evident that he and his high school pals were big drinkers. His enemies even brought forth a letter he had written to his pals before they rented a condo at the ocean. Somebody should warn the neighbors, he wrote, that we are “loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us.”

What’s more, the buddy who was supposedly with him during the alleged assault later wrote a book, “Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk.” It was about his high school days.

Still, in very emotional testimony, Kavanaugh denied that he was ever a big drinker. Never got really drunk. Never blacked out.

In a more tolerant society, he could have been more measured: “I did not have my head on straight when I was 17. I was entitled. I went to an exclusive private school. I was smart and an athlete, one of the popular kids. We went to country club parties and we rented condos on the ocean. Imagine that."

In a society less dominated by male supremacy, a boy or man laying his body down on top of a girl or woman groping her as he attempts to take her clothes would be an obvious rape attempt.

But that's not the America we're living in.

If the writer's daughters, nieces, grand daughters, and grand nieces go to college there's a one in four chance they'll experience what we all know Kavanaugh did to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford OR a fully executed rape if the girl children in his life aren't lucky enough to be wearing a one piece swim suit the boy-man laying on top of them can't get past.

The writer should "imagine that" instead.

And if rape or attempted rape really happens to one of the four girls he cares about, the writer should then talk this faux forgiveness with his girl child or his barely out of childhood girl--somebody he REALLY cares about -- right after that boy has laid on top of her and tried to grind his erection into her while stripping her naked, reduce it to "groping" --which I can tell you from personal experience is still a terrifying sexual assault.

What's even worse, only a man could think a woman could forget the name of a person she knew beforehand when that same person attempts to rape her at a later date. And such an empathy deficient man would only utter this nonsensical crap to a woman.

I mean, can you imagine a man named "John," anywhere on the planet, saying to another man named "Mike" something along the lines of "Hey Mike maybe you just got confused about who got mad at you and cut your hand off out of spite? Maybe it wasn't Sam. After all, it was a long time ago."

Only a man could equate forgetting the details of childhood escapades with remembering which one of the known boys in your neighborhood sexually assaulted you. And when I say "only a man...." I mean, I don't think the most brain-dead, anti-feminist woman could come up with such a false equivalency, not unless she was a pick-me trying to hold on to a man that barely tolerates her.

Moreover, remembering the-who is not the same thing as remembering whether his hand went up under your shirt first or down your pants first.

Remembering somebody you already know after they've sexually assaulted you is also unlike identifying the facial features of a stranger who rapes or attempts to rape you. Most women --whether they try to fight during a rape or not-- are busy trying to will themselves to another planet, to another freaking dimension. That's not conducive to remembering a strangers face.

And, strangers look like one another. The older I get, the most I see how many people can look like one another. That's why you should be frightened to death if you ever find yourself in a police lineup.

But when you know Brett Kavanaugh already and Brett Kavanaugh attempts to rape you, you don't get confused and think maybe Sam Jones did it instead.

This faux kindness, faux logic, and faux reasonableness in this article is just a way of being dismissive. And it confirms my earlier point:

Everybody knows Brett Kavanaugh attempted to rape Christine Blasey Ford. Those on the right, the left, the center, and the independents, they all know.

The male supremacists in each group, whether they be male or female, just don't want to call what Kavanaugh did "attempted rape" because they've been conditioned to think most sexual assaults are no big deal --not until the penis has actually penetrated the vagina by force; and even then "a rape" needs to have happened in an alley by a stranger, hopefully a black or brown skinned stranger, in order for the event to be truly identified as "rape."

Do not be confused. This article didn't have one damn thing to do with kindness or being reasonable. This was likely an attempt to justify his own attempted rapes or the attempted rapes of friends.

That's the only way you can mistake what Christine Blasey Ford said for "groping" which, again, is still a serious sexual assault. When women start reaching around from behind and grabbing strange men's penises and attempting to either yank them off and bend them in half, maybe men will get it. For now, the only way women stop girls from being collateral damage in boy's coming of age stories is for women to get half the political and legal power in this country. And not just any women either. Feminists have to get half the power in this country.

Women, white women in particular, who derive their power from men and are happy with the feeling of this second hand power are not going to stop calling sexual assaults a boy's right of passage either. They've told us this. It's time to believe them.

So vote. Vote in every election you can. Your state representatives are the key to controlling what police and judges do. Your congressmen and senators, they determine what a president can or cannot do; determine which judges will or will not be confirmed.

Vote.

One day, when feminist women have enough power, we will change the laws. Then ten times as many girls and women will feel safe reporting the Brett Kavanaughs to the police for level 1, level 2, or level 3 sexual assault--OR-- if no touching is involved women will even feel safe reporting the Les Moonves-es of the world for a misdemeanor level 1, level 2, or level 3 sexual harassment charge.

But we cannot create these multi-layer, misdemeanor and felony, sexual harassment and sexual assault laws and enforce them until we break the patriarchy, until we reduce the male supremacy. And we cannot do that unless we vote. In most states you can still register to vote between October 22 and October 30th. And in some states, if not most states, you can register on line in a couple of minutes--> https://www.vote.org/register-to-vote/ VOTE!

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM

REMEMBERING BROCK TURNER AND WHAT LOOKS LIKE CONSENT TO THE RAPIST-MINDED

A repost (2016)

"Your Honor, if it is all right, for the majority of this statement I would like to address the defendant directly.

You don’t know me, but you’ve been inside me, and that’s why we’re here today.

WHAT LOOKS LIKE CONSENT TO A RAPIST

On January 17th, 2015, it was a quiet Saturday night at home. My dad made some dinner and I sat at the table with my younger sister who was visiting for the weekend. I was working full time and it was approaching my bed time. 

I planned to stay at home by myself, watch some TV and read, while she went to a party with her friends. Then, I decided it was my only night with her, I had nothing better to do, so why not, there’s a dumb party ten minutes from my house, I would go, dance like a fool, and embarrass my younger sister. 

On the way there, I joked that undergrad guys would have braces. My sister teased me for wearing a beige cardigan to a frat party like a librarian. I called myself “big mama”, because I knew I’d be the oldest one there. I made silly faces, let my guard down, and drank liquor too fast not factoring in that my tolerance had significantly lowered since college.

The next thing I remember I was in a gurney in a hallway. I had dried blood and bandages on the backs of my hands and elbow. I thought maybe I had fallen and was in an admin office on campus... "

~Buzzfeed

* * * * *

Brock Turner was found, half hidden, be thrusting into an unconscious woman and arrested for rape.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra?utm_term=.nj2gL0g3X#.jvWAWjAgQ

Both were intoxicated. But the questions above are the questions the woman raped by Brock Turner had to answer in writing and turn in before some of the rape charges against her assailant were dropped.

http://www.whio.com/news/news/crime-law/stanford-swimmer-from-area-accused-of-sex-assault/njyHy/


As I understand it, Brock didn't have to turn in a sheet of paper justifying every single thing he did that day. We can assume the police questioned him. But I doubt Brock was defending his clothing, his food choices, what and why he decided to drink, and if and where he decided to pee.

No, Brock probably didn't answer questions anything like the victim did. But at least the sexual assault charges stuck. And while Brock probably didn't have to turn in anything in writing to the judge, Brock's father did. He sent a note to court on how 6 months jail time was too much for "20 minutes worth of action"

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/06/05/3784913/stanford-sexual-assault-dad-letter/

So, now I'm curious about just how "intoxicated" Brock was. Aren't you?

Because if he learned consent from his father, the alcohol wasn't really the issue. Rape is nothing to this man or his father. Brock's father talks about his son's lack of appetite and depression -- as as reason to let him go after he's raped someone.

Did I forget to mention that Brock was found thrusting into an unconscious woman while half way hidden behind a dumpster? Yeah. Apparently Brock wasn't so drunk he didn't forget to try and hide his crime while he was doing it.

You know what? Even if a family member of mine had killed someone on a whim, I'd probably be worried about their eating, depression, and state of mind. I'd be worried about suicide, etc. But I do not believe I'd talk about the murder's passion for cooking and day to day enjoyments --as if the crime was nothing. If I did write something on behalf of my beloved, murderous relative, I think I'd also mention how sorry my murderous relative was for the crime against the victim.

But for a lot of men? When the crime is rape, there's no crime and no victim. There's a misunderstanding. It's almost as if someone stepped on another person's toe. Describing "rape" or "sexual assault" as "20 minutes worth of action" comes from a mind that barely believes that rape is real.  A statement about "20 minutes worth of action" comes from a mind steeped in rape culture. And a more intense form of rape culture is appears to be what was taught to Brock Turner whose Olympic Swim Team dreams are dust. 

If I was raped like this and my assailant got 6 months, the dust of his dreams would be small consolation, but I dance on that dust just the same.

Don't you let anybody teach rape culture as "normal" to your son now or in the future.

 Read More of the Rape Victim's Statement Here: 

 https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra?utm_term=.nj2gL0g3X#.jvWAWjAgQ

LISTEN TO THE WHOLE STATEMENT HERE. 
This really out to be required reading for sex education class.  The woman that was raped talked about discovering she was raped by being told, by reading about her story in the news. She talked about not wanting her body anymore. She talked about her sister crying so hard she couldn't talk, even months later, because they went out together -- and now her sister is thinking she should never have left her alone.

In rape culture women can't be alone.

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM

BETWEEN BROCK TURNER AND BRETT KAVANAUGH

A repost

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COMBLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM

THE #TimesUp LEGAL DEFENSE FUND IS USING ITS 22 MILLION DOLLARS TO HELP POOR WOMEN

Feeling Rebloggy 

Women in the entertainment industry began the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund in January. It followed accusations of sexual wrongdoing against powerful men in Hollywood. Those accusations also led to the rise of #MeToo.

In the months since the fund was launched, more than 780 lawyers have registered with the group to provide legal help. More than 3,500 people have asked for help. Forty percent of them are women of color. Two-thirds are poor or near poor.

The women come from many different industries, including building, food services, education and the military.

VOANEWS

Read More: 

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/times-up-metoo-helping-poorer-women-fight-against-sex-abuse-too/4599784.html

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM

A BOY NOW A MAN CONFESSES: I WATCHED A RAPE

LOCATION: AT A PARTY IN 1969

The man who wrote this article doesn't remember where the rape happened, what time it was, or how he got home. He remembers his first sexual experience -- watching a rape through a window.

From The Washington Post

...At one point, a boy told several of us to go outside and look through a window into the basement because another boy, a football player, had taken a girl there. (There were far more boys than girls at this party.) When we peered through, we saw the girl passed out on a sofa, her feet facing us. As the boy approached her, he waved to us, smiling. He proceeded to remove her jeans and then her underwear. It was the first time I had seen a girl naked. He climbed on top of her and penetrated her. She immediately woke up and tried to fight him off. At this point, we all scattered in the yard. No one said anything. There was just nervous laughter... 

[When I was in college and heard of things

 like this happening to some nameless girl,

the boys, feeling guilty, always talked about how 

"she put herself in that position" 

by drinking too much

...just like Nate Parker told his victim] 

Eventually, we all went back into the house. I don’t remember anyone drinking, other than the girls. I did not drink anything. We must have gone into a bedroom, because the next thing I recall is standing with about 10 other boys around a bed on which a different girl had passed out. Everyone was touching her through her clothing. I placed my hand on her leg and quickly removed it. 

One boy kept turning the lights on and off. When they came on, everyone removed their hands from the girl’s body. In the dark, everyone put their hands back on her. Everyone would laugh. It was some kind of game, and we all seemed to understand the rules. This happened four times, and then we all left the room. I’m glad it didn’t go further... 

My boys are 19, 17 and 11 years old. What I teach them about the treatment of girls is simple: respect, respect, respect. If they witness something like I did, go to the authorities. This is no time to worry about being a snitch. I reminded them that I was the same age when I witnessed the rape; my very first vision of sexual contact was a rape. My sons agree I was a foolish, immature teenager....

~WAPO

Read More:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-watched-a-rape-for-five-decades-i-did-nothing/2018/10/05/f28d9cf8-c805-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html?utm_term=.d15da4f1bc12 

I've said it before. I'll say it again. This behavior was common as dirt for men a couple of decades back, and probably now too. And I assure you that upwards of 90% of the young men who did this haven't called themselves "rapist" even once. 

And while there might be some 20 year olds who don't believe that this was common for boys to either do it or witness it, every last one of those old mofo-s in congress (male and female) know perfectly damn well Christine Blasey Ford's memory is working just fine and that Kavanaugh did exactly what she said --- attempted rape.

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM

MALE SUPREMACISTS MINIMIZE RAPE AND PUSH KAVANAUGH ACROSS THE FINISH LINE

I am not going to spend any time debating whether or not Kavanaugh did what Christine Blasey Ford said he did. We already know he did it. Left, right, black, white, male, female, asian, and brown we all know it's very, very likely Brett Kavanaugh attempted to rape Ford when they were kids.

The only thing that's really up for debate is whether or not to call it "attempted rape."

The reason I know that we all know that there is a lot more than a 50/50 chance Kavanaugh did exactly what Dr. Ford said he did is because the White House made sure the FBI investigators didn't investigate much of anything. 

The FBI didn't interview people Dr. Ford asked them to, or track down timelines based on her statements. The White House didn't even have the FBI interview Kavanaugh under oath, in a  situation where his lies could put him in jeopardy.

You don't have your investigators do that when you think someone is innocent. And the people who are willing to defend someone like Kavanaugh don't cheer when they see an investigation done this badly -- unless they know the person being investigated is likely guilty. 

not the real headline

YE OLDE DRINKING BUDDIES OF BRETT KAVANAUGH SAY HE SHOULD NOT BE CONFIRMED

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-were-brett-kavanaughs-drinking-buddies-we-dont-think-he-should-be-confirmed/2018/10/04/923cf6ac-c821-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html?

The GRAB EM BY THE P*SSY led White House has been able to get away with this, in part, because of how strong a strangle hold male supremacy has on entire country.

And this can be seen in how the main stream media has handled their Kavanaugh coverage.

The main steam media has been saying Kavanaugh is accused of "sexual misconduct."  Ask yourelf what that means. Think about how that phrase might echoing in the back of your mind. 

Does "sexual misconduct" mean a girl pinching a boy on the buttocks as he walks by? 

Does "sexual misconduct" mean a boy looking at a 14 year girls new breasts in an obvious and demeaning way?  

Doesn't "sexual misconduct" almost have to translate as "something sexual happened" but that something is only slightly worse than whatever it is so many Americans willingly fit inside "boys will be boys?"

The words the male dominated press have chosen to describe as "sexual misconduct"

a) a boy shoving a girl into a bedroom and locking the door (false imprisonment?) 

b) throwing her on a bed and getting on top of her so he can grind his crotch into hers, grind his erection into her vagina --that's what happened right? that's what "grinding" on her means right? Kavanaugh was dry humping her as he forced his hands under her clothing, trying to get her clothes off (attempted rape)

What we've been hearing over the last few days is a reassigned, minimized value of the crime of attempted rape. 

Saying Kavanaugh was accused of "sexual misconduct" instead of "sexual assault" or "attempted rape" in the news headlines gets people to think Kavanaugh was a sexual bad boy when he was in high school and college. And I'm wondering if this is not having an almost brain-washing type of an effect.

Calling what Kavanaugh is accused of "sexual misconduct" instead of "attempted rape" is probably why some men have commented that they are disgusted with Kavanaugh's inability to apologize.

Apologize? 

So maybe "sexual misconduct" is being heard as "sexual rudeness" too?

This minimizing of  rape and attempted rape into "he's been a bad boy" is probably one of the reasons why a poll published a few days ago shows that 56% of republicans said they are willing to vote for a candidate that's been accused of "sexual assault."

56% OF REPUBLICANS SAY THEY WOULD VOTE 

FOR A CANDIDATE DESPITE MULTIPLE SEXUAL ASSAULT ACCUSATIONS

https://blackchickrocked.blogspot.com/2018/10/56-of-republicans-say-they-would-vote.html

The minute I read this, I knew Kavanaugh was a done deal

...no matter what the FBI found 

Furthermore, I think #MeToo has kinda shot itself in the foot by cheering as some men have been fired and dragged out of the limelight ...before we figured out what really happened. 

For example, I'm not sure of all the things John Conyers did. I was waiting for an in-depth news story. But then he was  just gone, thrown away before whatever he did do could splatter on nearby democrats.

The accusations against Charlie Rose were vague before he disappeared too, because PBS didn't want it's reputation damaged any further.  

Worse, it sounds like Matt Lauer was actually accused of rape, among a whole host of other things, before he was disappeared by NBC --because NBC didn't want its reputation smeared by being associated with him.

This may look like #MeToo success to some.  And it is a step in the right direction because, let's face it, pre-2017, a Daddy-figure man in the organization you worked for either cared or didn't when you were sexually harassed or assaulted. 

That is, until relatively recently, a woman damn near had to become a little girl complaining about the rough and tumble boys when she complained about sexual harassment or sexual assault in the work place.

At least, this is how humiliating it felt to me 

-- to complain about offensive behavior, about a man repetitively " accidentally" touching me... to another higher level man (Daddy-ish or Slave-owner-ish) when there was no guarantee that this person, who probably does believe you but doesn't care about boys-will-be-boys that much, was going to do anything more than pull Chad aside and say, "Tsk-tsk"

Now, women are being heard in way they weren't before. That's good. Now when a number of women come forward against one assailant, he is fired. That's good too. But these fired men are not being handed over to law enforcement because a lot of hands on sexual-type assault is not against the law. And that's not good at all.

That's unacceptable.

Many women may think #BelieveWomen was effective in the cases I listed above. But I don't want us all to just #BelieveWomen. 

I don't believe women just because they're women. #BelieveWomen means #BelieveWomenToo. And this is something I do believe in. 

Besides, if 94% of women currently won't lie about rape because male dominated courts tend to violate a woman a second time when she reports a rape to the authorities, then 50% of women will START lying about rape if they're always instantly believed.    

We don't want that

We should always want #BelieveWomenAsOftenAsMen to be in effect, which should also mean believing a women enough for a REAL investigation to be done, a public and transparent law enforcement investigation. 

--very much unlike the investigation of Brett Kavanaugh by the FBI

The way it stands now, sans any public, law enforcement based investigation at all, companies and corporations like CBS are catapulting men like Les Moonves out of their organizations and out of the limelight without us ever being crystal clear on everything he got away with for decades. 

To be clear, I'm not saying I can't look up details on Conyers, Rose, Lauer, or Moonves. I'm saying I, as a consistent reader of news, was not left with a clear picture of what each of them did. 

1. I was not left with an firm impression of what the more serious accusations were and what the lesser accusations were for each man. 
2. I don't have a general picture in my head of which accusations had corroborating witnesses and which ones didn't. 
3. I was only left with the vaguest idea what these men were accused of. I know random details but nothing of each individual men's pattern. I mean was there 

• sexual harassment that involved no physical contact?

• sexual harassment that did involve physical contact? (=sexual assault when I become Queen of The World)

• a rape that took place?

• a hostile work environment for women, created due to the man's sexual behavior? (I THINK Tavis Smiley did this by treating his news room like his personal harem. You can't screw your underlings and expect those screwed, those not screwed, and the ex-screwed to feel safe, to feel that promotions etc. are being evaluated fairly.)

I explain all this to say that the republicans may be sexist, rape culture swilling, male supremacist jackasses but #MeToo's focus is off target.

In the here and now we need to focus on putting women in office and removing male supremacists from office. And the first male supremacist we need to remove is Susan Collins. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/politics/susan-collins-2020-challenge/index.html

She's said she was committed to voting for Kavanaugh, an obvious partisan -- remember his Clinton conspiracy comment-- who was chosen because of his anti-Roe-v-Wade leanings. And she's said she chose to confirm him because there's no absolute proof he attempted to rape Dr. Ford after a laughably inadequate FBI investigation. 

Somebody should tell Collins that if there's a 50/50 chance a supreme court nominee is guilty of attempted rape, you shouldn't put him on the Supreme Court -- fair or not, we've supposedly got to protect the integrity of the court. 

And the chances he did exactly what he was accused of were likely a lot higher than 50/50. If they weren't, there would have been a real FBI investigation where dozens of witnesses were interviewed. The FBI has the staff do that and do it in a week.    

The rush to judgement tells me everybody knows he did it. And that includes Collins.

Furthermore, this week's hearings were an extended job interview, not a criminal trial. The standard is different. 

In the past, before we lowered ourselves enough to accept a GRAB EM BY THE P*SSY president, we'd have at least made it look like we honor the high standards required to be a Supreme Court Justice. 

To be more specific, pre GRAB EM BY THE P*SSY, we'd have at least made a supreme court nominee pretend he's not a republican operative looking for a black robe to legitimize his right-wing conspiracy theories (that protect the Clinton's comment seemed really off the wall in the moment.)

A retired Supreme Court Justice even came out to say Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed --due to the Clinton comment and his hysterical self-defense, I'm sure. A retired justices almost never do that. 

Collins had more than one good reason to vote "no" on Kavanaugh. She failed do so. She's got to go. I hope the people of Maine are paying attention.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/05/politics/susan-rice-collins-maine-senate-2020/index.html

For the past week I've also been trying to figure out why the republicans are forcing Kavanaugh up America's collective rear end like he's a human suppository. 

To me, it made no sense for the GOP to take a chance on alienating their own white women. 

White supremacy on the right is what glues them together no matter what, but I still thought republicans might be concerned about losing republican voting independents -- despite the rape minimization done by calling what Kavanaugh was accused of "sexual misconduct."

Orange Chump's brain-dead macho attitude aside, it would have made a lot more sense for someone to talk The Orange Genius into simply withdrawing Kavanaugh so he could send up the next conservative judge on the list. 

I mean, Kavanaugh is on the court now anyway. But at what cost? Aren't they going to lose Senators and Congressmen over Kavanaugh come election day? 

(Maybe it's me that's over-estimating the brown-under girded blue wave to come in November?)

I've since read that the supreme court has the Gamble v United States on it's docket already -- and that Kavanaugh's vote will be key.

As you've already noticed, even if you are as unfamiliar with the actual law as I am, in this country you cannot try somebody for the same crime. That's what we mean we say there's no "double jeopardy." However, what you have also noticed is that there's a loop hole that allows different government agencies to go after a criminal for different aspects of the same crime. 

That is, a state government can charge somebody with murder, lose the case and then the feds can have a second bite of the apple. Using different charges, federal prosecutors could get a murderer by doing something like charging them with violation of another person's civil rights (via killing them).  

Something like that.

Apparently, Gamble v the United States seeks to get rid of this exception to double jeopardy. 

And Kavanaugh is supposedly already on board to get that done. Why is this so important you ask? I can think of a number of Civil Rights Cases that might have been negatively impacted by this. And anything that leans into "states rights" is bad for black people. But I'm thinking Mueller has already successfully charged and gotten plea deals and convictions on people like Paul Manafort who may, in turn, be a witness against Trump.

If Flynn, for example, has nothing else he can lose after Gamble v U.S. -- that's bad for the Russia investigation.

Some say it's too late for Gamble v U.S to help Manafort, Flynn, and the rest. But I'm not so sure. 

If Manafort already has a plea bargain on one set of crimes and Gamble goes Trump's way, who is to say how a judge will interpret the outcome of the Gamble case? That is, I think Mueller has charges for Manafort that he hasn't gone to trial on yet. So maybe Gamble really wouldn't hinder the Russia Investigation. But what if a judge decides, based on a new Gamble ruling, that whatever Mueller still has in his back pocket really should have been part of the original case? 

Gamble v U.S. might not be anything. Maybe. But Kavanaugh's stance that a sitting president probably cannot be indicted is everything.

From the White House's perspective, minimizing rape was nothing, is nothing compared to Trump getting out from under the Russia Investigation.

Whatever. For now, we have this half-baked rape investigation to think about. 

We cannot have a rapist or attempted rapist stay on the Supreme Court. And I don't care how long ago it happened, how drunk Kavanaugh was, or how old he was either.

So I hope the democrats really do attempt to have a real investigation done then impeach Brett Kavanaugh after the November election ---because being drunk doesn't turn you into somebody you're completely not. 

I don't believe that. I haven't since I was 9 or 10 year old kid listened to a drunk white neighbor in the hallway verbally attack me with racial insults directed at my father. 

But even if being drunk does warp your true character in some way, even if alcohol does more than just make you less inhibited, when you get drunk and drive, you're held responsible whether you are 15, 25, or 85 years of age.

Similarly, if you get drunk and falsely imprison someone and attempt to rape them, you should be held responsible at 15, 25, or 85 years of age.

When women have half the power in this country there will be varying levels of misdemeanor and felony sexual harassment and sexual assault charges. Men will no longer be able to say "Ooops, I misbehaved. Ooops I wasn't a gentleman" when they've raped someone  

--with the male dominated press half-way providing them cover by calling these "sexual assaults" instances of "sexual misconduct," instances of bad-boyness.  

When women have the power they should have, any attorney who puts such crimes into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) will be disbarred. 

NDAs are high on my hit list. 

And once we get the attorneys in line, the NBCs, CBSs, PBSs, etc will no longer be able to fire men and hide what the men they've hired and supported have done and also hide what the network or corporation has done to shield the sexual predator...for decades.

We've got a long way to go. We start by getting out the vote next month and again in 2020. 

The American Bar has re-opened it's Kavanaugh evaluation despite their findings being too late to stop the appointment. Even it there's not an impeachment of Kavanaugh down the road, maybe we'll know exactly how big a crime was committed here.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/american-bar-association-reopens-kavanaugh-evaluation

BLACKCHICKROCKED.BLOGSPOT.COM