"Patriots are not revolutionaries trying to overthrow the government of the United States.
Patriots are Counter-Revolutionaries trying to prevent the government from overthrowing the Constitution."
The Coach’s Team (TCT) offers the best in conservative essays along with articles taken from various internet sites. The victory of Donald Trump has provided a God-sent opportunity to reverse the years of willful damage done our nation by Barack Hussein Obama.
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Black, female ex-Charlie Rose staffer suggests racism because he didn’t harass her
"It's always something," as
the late Gilda Radner's comedy character Roseanne
Roseannadanna would conclude – usually about trivial or completely misguided
complaints she voiced (a classic example here). Those words
echoed in my mind as I read the litany of complaints one of Charlie Rose's
former staffers lodged in the pages of Esquire earlier
this month. Ms. Rebecca Carroll wrote:
His language around
race felt consistently coded. Charlie demanded I book the black guests he
wanted but previously had been unable to get – black guests of a perceived
level of respectability and intelligence (Sidney Poitier) – while dismissing
the black guests I pitched, (Vivica Fox, for example). He accused me of pushing
my own agenda several times, memorably when I pitched a panel on hip-hop. (I
did not hear my white colleagues receive criticism that they were pushing any
sort of agenda when they pitched potential guests and segments.)
It is unclear if being asked to book
black guests he wanted was in itself offensive to her. One could argue
that this was racist – segregating the booking process. But one could
also argue that not asking her to book black guests was
racist, as in "keeping it within the community" or "cultural
appropriation" claims of turf.
But she was just warming up. A
similar ambivalence attends her words about sexual harassment:
[W]hile many of us on
staff were subject to Charlie's unsolicited shoulder massages and physical
intimidation, as he towered above us at a height over six feet tall, the women
Charlie preferred and preyed upon – at least that I witnessed – were white. It
was an environment that all but erased me, while simultaneously exploiting me
as a black woman.
I felt like an exotic
anomaly he could move around the chessboard at his whim – and I was supposed be
grateful for it.
So, being left alone was offensive?
With perfect knowledge of Rose's mind and soul, she seems convinced that
it was a racial affront. She expanded on that theme:
For white men, that
means not just being the richest, most powerful person in the room – but also
preying upon and ultimately capturing the most desirable woman in the room,
In America, the most
desirable woman in the room – the most sacred, coveted, enshrined woman – has
always been the white woman. As a survivor of sexual assault myself, I know
that we women of color are victims as much, if not more, than white women; we
are also less likely to come forward with our stories of abuse because there's
so much more at stake.
How does being "a survivor of
sexual assault" impart knowledge of the rates of sexual assault for black
and white women? I do not understand this. And why do all black
women have more at stake than all white women? Does Oprah really have
less at stake than a 23-year-old intern who is white?
But best of all is this paragraph, in
which she denies doing what she is doing and then resorts to academic jargon to
obscure the trick:
To be clear, I'm not
suggesting it would have been preferable for Charlie to have preyed upon me,
too – but rather, his sexualization of white women was a manifestation of gendered
power dynamics in the same way that his not sexualizing me was an expression of
racialized power dynamics.
So I guess she is a victim of
"racialized power dynamics," and that's a bad thing. She is not
complaining, mind you – only noting it. But why note it if it is not a
bad thing – i.e., something one should complain about?
Ed. Remember when we used to ask if liberals lay awake at night thinking of ways to claim they have been victimized? That used to be meant as a joke, right? Not any more.
And isn't it fun to see liberals attacking each other?