So Brooks is not only an awful human being. . . he’s also a creepy one. Rejectable on all levels.

Of course, since Republicans hate gay people, revealing that a Republican Senator is not only closeted, but molestation-prone and closeted, would be a highly political act. Brooks is just watching out after his own.

Of course, if Brook’s team is the side that’s into unwanted gender groping, what does it say for his self-esteem that it’s better to shut up about it than to reject the behavior?

My money is on Sam Brownback.  Lindsey Graham is too obvious.

What’s wrong with Brooks?  I can’t imagine that he’d drop this blindly, knowing that herds of bloggers will be researching every event he’s attended for the past 20 years.  If the alleged groper is still in office, Brooks will soon lose all access to scoops - making his job as a bobblehead pundit very difficult.
If the groper is deceased or out of office, why wouldn’t he name the person?

I think Brooks just got caught up in his clever story and embellished the details.

“I can only imagine what happens to you guys.”

What happens when an openly gay person is groped at the table is that he or she is able to react appropriately to stop it. Why the hell wouldn’t we?

Ewww.
It says volumes about the power relationships the Washington Insiders have that a ‘journalist’ would permit this sort of familiarity, and not think he was in a position to object.

And he leaves us to imagine the coupling of of fishfaced journalist and Republican senator.
Ewwwwww.

Why would a gay person be any more accepting of unwanted touching than a straight person?

Would Brooks welcome or feel that he had to put up with constant groping from any woman who chose to do so?

this is especially great because of david “fuck risotto my dick is huge” brooks’ tough hetero manly man image, an image which traditionally centers around punching any fag who gets near you

if you ever had any doubt that that was entirely horseshit and masculinity is a scam, welp

Well, when you are a well and widely known whore, you have to expect this kind of thing.

While I am perfectly capable of believing that some Republican senators are the some of the most repressed creatures on this planet, the coy refusal to name names reads to me like the tales of the Imaginary Boyfriend back in sixth grade. “You wouldn’t know him.” Okay then. As with CParis above, I tend to think this is an embellishment and he got caught up in the moment not realising that he was about to say something fact-checkers around the country might leap upon.

I’ll give him the outside chance that he opened his mouth, and then realised he was gonna piss off a buncha people. In which case, he’s protecting an asshole Republican congress critter, and is by extenuation a bit of a schmuck himself.

You know, I’ve actually forgotten the name of the guy who tried to rape me in high school, but I would have no hesitation in identifying him in a line-up or any other circumstance, as Mom used to say, “Tell the truth and shame the Devil.”

”…And Then He Jizzed In His Pants”

...well, of course he did.  They don’t call him David “Bobo The Tool” Brooks for nothing…

Policing sexuality reinforces power structures—hetero or straight. To ask him to stop might embarrass the Republican, but it breaks protocol. The others at the table are going to close ranks around the guy with a vote in Congress and Brooks won’t be invited back. And by violating Brooks’ space and person, like that, it reminds Brooks of that fact.

That’s something that is coming to me out of these Sanford and Ensign realizations about “the Family” (not to be confused with Manson’s “the Family”). These grown men are getting pushed around by their comfort circle, and the headline is, “What you want doesn’t matter. Now do what we say.” The supposed crime doesn’t matter, just the opportunity to act out their submissive/dominant relationship. And when it comes to something so personal and so core to a person’s being as sex, that has reverberations everywhere.

I wonder, too, if the collapse of Republican power and their permanent majority is part of why these guys, Brooks included, are bucking the system and asserting themselves. This repressive regime just doesn’t have that much to offer now—be it in electoral politics or in granting access to pols the NYTimes readers care to hear from.

Dark Avenger… I am curious why you didn’t identify him while you were in high school. Honestly.

I am curious why you didn’t identify him while you were in high school. Honestly.

Since he ended up masturbating behind me, and didn’t touch me, there would’ve been no proof against his word, and remember that this was 33 years ago in small-town California.

When I told a girlfriend about it years later, she laughed because I used the word attempted in describing it.

Also, I was raised not to be revengeful. When I last saw him he had bad acne, didn’t seem to be very happy, and actually didn’t understand why I didn’t want to interact with him.  Besides, I got a scholarship that got me out of town and in a big city, I was literally leaving him behind.

Mother Avenger always believed in karma biting back, she apparently was present at such an occasion in her youth and was thoroughly appalled at what she saw, the details she kept to herself.

I later saw her seemingly oracular wisdom come to life when I encountered a bully who made my life hell at the library a few years ago, and the first words out of my mouth were, “My God, (blank) you’re a mess”.

As Dr Christian Bernaard said:

<blockquote>Suffering isn’t ennobling, recovery is.<blockquote>

(And not in the 12-step manner)

Well, when you are a well and widely known whore, you have to expect this kind of thing.

If he didn’t want to be groped, he shouldn’t have been tempting that GOP senator, what with going out in public with an inner thigh and all.  Everyone knows that Brooks likes to lapdance the Republicans; a little harmless touching isn’t that bad.  Nobody was asking the little tease to actually put out.

That’ll wait until the next Republican Congress…

[Disclaimer for the sarcastically-challenged, especially those who might represent themselves as 2nd wave feminists or enjoy railing against “sex-pozzies”: I am engaging in sarcasm, not condoning sexual harassment]

...And Then I Puked in My Mouth

This pretty much encapsulates Brooks: a guy who, professing to be straight, would let a republican senator feel him up for an hour without saying anything, and then brag about it later.

Geez. My mother used to complain about this sort of thing at political dinners 30 years ago. But I guess real conservatism means things like that never change…

This is for real? You sure this isn’t some kind of SadlyNo! or Jesus’ General spoof?

Frankly,  I’m surprised that Brooks had the guts to talk about it at all.

Anyone know offhand what Brooks thought about Anita Hill back in 1991?

Do you think, if someone brought it up to him, he’d even understand the point they’d be trying to make?

Disclaimer for the sarcastically-challenged, especially those who might represent themselves as 2nd wave feminists or enjoy railing against “sex-pozzies”: I am engaging in sarcasm, not condoning sexual harassment

You know, what I saw in that epic thread was 1) Amanda put forth an argument that dudes who see women as little more than an assembly of parts should be a little smarter about limiting their access to the open view of said assembly; 2) Somebody, thinking he was being funny, said something like “I totally dig the sight of hot chicks.” which is a weird thing to say in the context of the article; 3) Somebody who can’t argue particularly well over-reacted all over the place; 4) Lots of other people who generally CAN argue well over-reacted all over the place; 5) Name-calling and other assorted BS, *lightly* interspersed with good faith attempts to understand/argue. 

Kinda best to let it just die, don’t you think?

Yeah, something tells me this wasn’t supposed to leave the restaurant.

Dark Avenger… yeah, thanks for sharing that, and I appreciate your sympathy towards someone with rather obvious… shortcomings and troubles. And crimes.

It is difficult to say, because it comes so close to a defense of rapists, but I think it is a more comprehensive indictment of rape culture, top-down. Aggressors are so often motivated by bullshit, victims in their own way of that larger culture. Victims are doubly victims because of their rape and then their own indictment by the same culture. There are people worse and then much worse off under this dynamic, and while no aggressor’s behavior is excused, there are few winners. Just more reason to remedy all of this bullshit in society at large. Equality, honesty, and probably a little forgiveness.

I see a lot of evil there, but I also see an awful lot of victims. An awful lot. Emotionally crippled Republicans (who probably do deserve to be stoned), New York Times columnists (who deserve their own punishment, in the next life if not this one), and what… one third, one half of women, all of whom are completely blameless?

I’m not accusing anyone here of anything… every comment in the thread is right on. Just observing: compassion and prosecution aren’t mutually exclusive values. And that there is a larger weight on everyone’s chest.

Was this in Vegas?  Should it have stayed there?

Oh, Avenger, I haven’t heard that for so long!  My grandmother used to say it.  Now I say it, when the occasion calls for it, but I’ve never heard it from anyone else.

I call bullshit.  If this actually happened to him, he’d be FAR more understanding of sexual harassment claims by women, since it seems like he didn’t enjoy it much.  Since he isn’t, we can conclude it’s a salacious tale to please the teevee people.

Main Gauche—uh… no.

Women internalize that shit when it happens to them. So do men. Look at homo-hazing on the football team. Look at “turdblossom.” My name is [something] and you choose to call me [something else], and either I find that special or demeaning. Actually, it is demeaning either way, whether or not I’m choosing to consider it a sign that I’ve been adopted by the A clique.

It comes in all forms and all degrees, ranging from “sweetcheeks” to rape. And people deal with it in all kinds of ways—those who stand up for themselves often find them ostracized and rejected, part of the reinforcing cycle that is so wicked.

Look at Brooks’ “I don’t know what you guys go through,” at the end of the comment. He’s offering the anecdote as a funny bonding thing. I do the same thing with friends and acquaintences who were bullied in school. Except, we didn’t let Varsity closet-case leave his hand on our inner thigh through the entire lunch break, and lived outside of the cool kids club as a result. Others chose a different route. For those on cable news, I suspect, generally, they chose the different route.

It is those rewards and punishments that make the entire thing so insidious, especially in that vast majority of instances which don’t include violence, job termination, etc.

I call bullshit.  If this actually happened to him, he’d be FAR more understanding of sexual harassment claims by women, since it seems like he didn’t enjoy it much.

Unless he actually believes that he got a tangible benefit out of the encounter.

Y’know the comments at ThinkProgress and Huffington Post on this issue have been a sewer of gay baiting and bashing jokes and victim blaming stuff like “if he didn’t object he must have wanted it” plus a zillion variations on “If I had been in his shoes, I’d of slugged the guy. Why didn’t he?”

So I come to Pandagon and what do I see?

Would you write “and then she wet her panties” about any woman on the right or left if she admitted to being harassed? Or if a guy on the left who had gender issues, like Keith O., fessed up would you bust out with the “he wanted it because he’s really gay ha-ha!” Stuff?

Also, if this was any woman or lefty guy, even one who isn’t good on rape culture, would you speculate she “actually believes that he got a tangible benefit out of the encounter.”? Rhetoric which seems awfully close to calling him a whore?

I loathe David Brooks, but this moment has brought out the absolute ugly worst in the left and, sadly, it seems it’s infected Pandagon as well.

If a guy on the left said something similar, would his “I don’t know what you guys go through” be read as pandering or recognizing the other side?

“Atrios wrote….............”

Trenchant raises some good points here, though I am trying to make them much more gently… this is a learning opportunity (assuming my points apply, of course), rather than a reason to scold.

Women use their sex appeal to get ahead (Joan Holloway). Women sell sex for money (prostitution). You might call either a whore, but there is a larger context to approach the situation in. Whether it is Joan Holloway, who seems so in control and to have made affirmative choices about how she wields her sexuality, or a clear cut victim of the sex trade (say, Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver), we find sympathetic, even pitiable, characters.

I don’t think it takes much of a stretch to expand that even to the David Brook’s situation. The gay-baiting and whore-calling just reinforces the extrapolation—the sex trade doesn’t have winners, except for (maybe) the pimps. Whatever form the sex trade, or rape culture more generally, takes.

(I’m not endorsing a law enforcement solution either, simply because the cure is worse than the disease. But this is why we are trying to move the culture to recognize these situations and dynamics, and to defuse them.)

Also, Henry may be overreaching with that point (h/t Dark Avenger), but I think he’s got a good point.

In sixth grade, I got put on a behavior contract after feuding with my Principal and teacher. When they decided to put me on a SECOND behavior contract, included dumb shit like not staring at other students. I refused to sign it (go me!) and they held me to it anyway, as an excuse to suspend me more.

Another point: that I refer to adults as “MR.” or “MRS.” or “MS.”. Sure enough, I’d been consciously denying them that (kinda) title, and denying that as a sign of disrespect. Now, a PFC in the Army is far more entitled to be “PFC Wintergreen” than that principal was entitled to be “Mr. Mosinitch,” but the act of slighting either in their title can achieve the same effect.

My own earlier point… call folks what they want to be called, whether it be Atrios or Drudge or Mr. or Mrs. or Mr. President. To do otherwise is a disrespect—often, though not always, intended.

[Mr. David] Brooks told what he clearly considers to be a humorous anecdote. I don’t really see a The Lonely Island reference as being a particularly clear example of victim-blaming.

And outside of the New York Times, referring to someone by their last name only is a pretty consistent writing convention. Using it as a form of address is often belittling, I agree (such as when trolls come here and use “Marcotte” as a pejorative”) but calling “Yglesias links to this story…” pejorative is pretty damn hair-splitting.

After thinking about it, I came up with an explanation that makes sense.

Brooks isn’t concealing a gay senator, he’s concealing a bisexual senator.  That would explain why he didn’t do anything, he might’ve already known about the fellows beforehand, and whatever way Brooks bats, he’s confident in his sexual identity to the point where a hand on a thigh for a while didn’t give him the whillies.

ha, I thought this interview of my fellow Californian Kevin Starr had particular resonance.

A Times reviewer once wrote that there are few victims in your histories. Are there victims in California history?

You mean permanent victims? There are people who were victim-ized, but they didn’t stay permanent victims. Native Americans were enslaved; they were hunted down like vermin. That’s pretty intense victimization. Ishi does not become a victim. He was victim-ized, but he becomes triumphant.

If by victim you mean someone who’s permanently deformed, forever having their humanity marred—I don’t believe it. In fact, I believe that’s a form of dangerous stereotyping, to ascribe permanent victimhood to any group. Groups have suffered powerful injustice, and yet when you say that, you also have to say that they triumphed, that they prevailed. I don’t reverberate to victimhood, probably because of my own life. I refused to become a victim myself, so it’s not one of my big stories.

TrenchantOkay:

Hypocrites at Pandagon = fair game (male or female).

TrenchantOkay, I seem to remember right-wing women being described as such when touched by W or the like.  Although that seems to be consenting touch.

So.  Amanda M. says, at Pandagon,  “I was sitting in public and a male Senator put his hand on my thigh and I didn’t feel I could get away.  Now I really get what other women go through.”

And the commenters say “She’s creepy.”  “She’s a whore.”  “She wanted it.”  “Why didn’t she speak up?  Because she’s in bed with the power structure.”  “Damn, she’s hot, I’d do her.”

And the headline is “And she came so hard she couldn’t walk.”

Yeah, that’d happen, because this is a feminist website.  But it’s okay to do every single bit of this to a guy.  Why? 

I’ve been blogging my loathing of David Brooks for years.  But when he says somebody groped him against his will, I say “Sexual harassment sucks.”  Apparently at Pandagon it sucks only if you like the victim.

So.  Amanda M. says, at Pandagon, “I was sitting in public and a male Senator put his hand on my thigh and I didn’t feel I could get away.  Now I really get what other women go through.”

And the commenters say “She’s creepy.” “She’s a whore.” “She wanted it.” “Why didn’t she speak up?  Because she’s in bed with the power structure.” “Damn, she’s hot, I’d do her.

Alas, your parallel isn’t well constructed.  A better parallel would be:

“So.  Amanda M. says, at Pandagon, “I was sitting at a YearlyKos dinner and a celebrated male liberal blogger put his hand on my thigh and I didn’t feel I could get away.  They’re all really a bunch of molesters underneath.  But I’m not going to tell you who because it could hurt the cause.”“

And even then, the parallel fails - Amanda isn’t in the business of selling her integrity on a daily basis for a paycheck.  Brooks is.

As Auguste points out, Brooks regards it as a humorous and harmless incident.

You don’t seem to be appreciating the irony here. We are not condoning the sexual harassment AS sexual harassment; we are, however, appreciating with various degrees of bitter enjoyment the parallel between Brooks’ anecdote and the relationship between the Republican power structure and the tame Washington journalistic corps, the relationship that led to them cheering on the war and the other excesses of the Clinton and Bush eras.

It ISN’T that getting groped means Brooks is a whore.  It’s that Brooks was ALREADY a whore - he sold his integrity for access to power, a cosy position, and an ongoing relationship with Republican politicians.  His casual acceptance of some senator copping a feel illustrates this point.

This is David Brooks.

Speaking of splitting hairs, I’m not sure it’s any more acceptable to respond to a story of what you apparently feel is sexual harassment with a discussion of the fuckability of the harassee. But maybe you were indulging in some sort of irony I’m not picking up on.

By the way, since I realize I was a bit nonspecific with my words there, I should clarify that I think it’s sexual harassment too. I’m only assuming that Henry Holland does, since his comments on the matter have been fairly hit and miss, as I noted.