Taking the Proverbial Cake

Why??

Why do I do it? 

Why do I even bother to click on these news stories of old white dude after old white dude saying stupid word salad about something they know nothing about.

I think perhaps I dare to hope that one of them will surprise me and have a heart and a conscience and speak out on the side of women who tell their stories of sexual assault.

Not surprisingly, the article I just read was more of the same sewage many a white dude-bro compatriot has been trotting out, including Franklin Graham’s gem from last week.

This one takes the proverbial cake.  However, it’s a cake made out of crap.

take the cake

1. To be the worst in a series of negative actions.

Here is the article -- in all of its hair-pulling entirety -- should you enjoy eating crap cake or are just curious as to how far mankind has sunk. (Spoiler alert: it’s really low.)

Kevin Cramer is a Congressman in the House of Representatives for North Dakota. He announced in January this year that he would not be seeking to run against incumbent Heidi Heitkamp’s for her Senate seat, but instead would run for re-election as Representative. A month later he changed his mind and decided to challenge Heitkamp.

Wikipedia states that:

“In June 2018, The Washington Post reported that Cramer had contacted the White House to seek political help in his Senate campaign and that Cramer was upset that President Donald Trump had not publicly criticized incumbent Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp in the same way that he had criticized other Democrats. Cramer later publicly criticized White House staff and argued that Trump was refraining from criticizing Heitkamp because she was a woman.”

This is who Cramer is -- a guy who is not afraid to let his misogyny flag fly. So it may not shock you that these are some of the soundbites he recently offered up.

"My point was that there was no type of intercourse or anything like that," Cramer said. "That was my point, that nothing happened in terms of a sexual event beyond, obviously, the attack."

Yeah....nothing happened...you know besides being pinned down on a bed and having a boozy dude cover your mouth with his sweaty hand. 

Cramer keeps dropping some dope knowledge with these feel-good words...

“Well she admits she was a 15-year-old that had been drinking at a party that -- I mean, how many 15-year-olds handle a lot of alcohol, you know, 36 years ago? When it wasn't that common, by the way. ... Thirty-six years ago it wasn't that common for 15-year-olds to be at booze parties," Cramer said.”

Really...hmm. All the "Animal House" genre movies seem to indicate that this party scene was pretty common — as well as, you know, the memories of Brett Kavanaugh‘s actual friends from that time. Also, Cramer is a mere four years older than Kavanaugh and I find it entirely plausible he could be intimately familiar himself with the 80's-drunken-party-while-your-parent's-are-gone scene.

But Cramer is not convinced that a non-penetration, sort of assault that basically Ford asked for because she had been participating in underage drinking was not really that bad because...

 “Even if it’s all true, does it disqualify him? It certainly means that he did something really bad 36 years ago. But does it disqualify him from the Supreme Court?"

I, myself, am comforted knowing that really bad things I did 36 years ago are not a disqualifier to the nice life I'm living today. I mean, I was nine, but I'm sure Hitler is wishing he would stuck around and waited a few more decades for his crimes to fade into irrelevance and his reputation to be rehabbed.

If this is making your blood boil, rest assured, Cramer thinks there is something which could disqualify Kavanaugh...

"If it's found that he knew -- that he recalls it, and knew it happened and lies about it, that's -- then I think that would disqualify him. Because that's what he's doing today, not 36 years ago."

Okay. Got it. Again. It only matters who I am and what I'm doing today. The past is a non-issue. Has no bearing on my character or conduct. Fabulous.

This is utter lunacy. Why the heck does it even matter if it's proved that Kavanaugh lied? Just because 36 years separates these two events, they both go to character. If past behavior is not an indicator of future conduct or morality, then why would lying LAST WEEK indicate the same? You can’t demand honesty and one and not the other.

Who gets to decide the timeline effect of criminal and immoral behavior? Is it only pertinent if it was yesterday or last month or last year? Who gets to decide when we draw the line and say, "oh that was _____ years ago, we can't hold him responsible for what he did back then."

Not to mention the glaring double standard of holding Professor Ford responsible for drinking alcohol thirty-six years later.

I think it's time to stop with the veiled politeness and politicking and expose this charade.

It's toxic masculinity. It's patriarchy. It's a not-even-kinda-thinly-veiled contempt for women daring to step out of their "proper place" to challenge men in the workplace and in the Senate. To say, "no more" to our bodies being your play thing and object of your fantasy.

But it's also time to say, "Yes."

"Yes!" to all the women who are coming forward and telling their MeToo stories. Who are saying, "Yes!" to taking back their bodies and equal place in this world alongside men (fyi...there are plenty of good ones out there). Who are saying, "Yes!" to running for political office and taking on men like Kevin Cramer (Shout out to you, Heidi Heitkamp!).

And maybe I need to take a lesson here and say, "No!" to clicking on more of these toe-curling articles and "Yes!" to more cake....but chocolate cake. Definitely not whatever these guys are selling.