#Et Too Brute

I have to say I have been drawn to the Katie Hill story and it’s not because of the pictures. Here is Caroline Overington’s take in today’s Australian: Katie Hill’s career over through another’s misdeeds? Bonkers. Let Caroline tell the story.

Here is a tale of the bonk ban, ­coming to bite some people on the bum.

You perhaps remember the furore­ over Barnaby Joyce having an affair with Vikki Campion, now the mother of his two sons? ­

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull brought in the bonk ban to prevent MPs from having a relationship with anyone who works for them. The US congress has one, too.

Now meet Katie Hill. She is young, a woman, bisexual, and a Democrat, and until this week she was a rising star in her party, having blazed her way into the congress during last year’s mid-terms.

Hill, 32, was elected during an audacious changing of the guard. She defeated a two-term Republican, scooped up a Los Angeles district not held by her party since 1990, and helped the Democrats win back the house.

She quit this week, not long after she was accused of being in breach of the bonk ban. Hill was married when she ran for congress. She was also part of a year-long thruple. That’s a three-person relationship — one lad, two ladies — with her husband, Kenny Heslep, and female campaign worker Morgan Desjardins.

Want more? Here’s more.

She ended both relationships upon being elected to the house, and was accused last month of starting a new one with a male staff member, Graham Kelly.

Now, the Desjardins relationship does not violate house rules because she was not on Hill’s congressional staff. The relationship with Kelly — which Hill “abso­lutely” denies — would violate new house rules banning sexual relationships between members and staff. The house ethics committee launched an investigation.

Hill would not, at first blush, appear­ to be the natural target of the #MeToo anti-harassment ­initiatives. These rules were ­designed to prevent the reprehensible sexual harassment of women in the workforce: think Harvey Weinstein, or Roger Ailes-style behaviour. But of course they apply to everyone, and if Hill was in breach, she would have to go.

Pretty straightforward, yes/no? Well here’s Caroline again:

It does seem odd that consensual relationships can be wrong, however. You cannot stop people who work together being attracted to each other. Michelle and Barack Obama met at work. So did Bill and Melinda Gates, and Gerry and Katie Harvey, and about a billion other people. Everyone’s an adult here.

Yes, why be judgemental? Except this is a person who is supposed to be making rules for the whole of society. And she is absolutely prohibited from having sexual relations with someone who is her subordinate within her Congressional office. But this is the new generation, with whom all such things are just as normal as holding hands. Caroline blathers on:

Millennials live their lives online. They find their sexual partners on Twitter. They take nudes, and send them to people, or else they store them in the cloud. ­Except there is no cloud. It’s just other people’s computers. They are bound to leak….

There has been some outrage over Hill’s adventurous approach to sex, like it was anyone else’s business. Millen­nials also do not consider it unusual for people to be bisexual, or to have more than one partner at the same time.

Also, who’s surprised by this? Hill is attractive, ambitious, confident, capable and female, and she was fighting for President Donald Trump’s impeachment. Of course they went after her sex life.

Caroline Overington is the worst imaginable judge of sexual morality and politics. Read the whole of what she wrote but it is disgusting. Her attitude to Donald Trump would be an interesting contrast. Sounds pretty judgemental to me. And who is this “they” that went after her sex life? And Caroline, are you aware that Katie stole the election in her own district? And do you think her husband, who released the photos, was a Republican? You are ignorant of everything that matters.

Meanwhile, for a different look at these same things, there is this: The MeToo Revolution Eats Its Own.

The marriage between feminism and the sexual revolution has been akin to a prude marrying a playboy. Its offspring were bound to be screwed up. One of its dysfunctional children is the MeToo movement, which continues to devour its friends, from Sen. Al Franken to Rep. Katie Hill….

Katie Hill is suffering the fate of a feminist who could handle feminism’s rhetoric but not its arbitrary rigor. The same feminism that tells women they can “do whatever they want with their bodies” didn’t like what Katie Hill was doing with hers, as she cavorted with female and male staffers. The new rules of feminism, which include prohibitions on office sex, require a level of discipline Katie Hill’s let’s-try-everything, sexually omnivorous generation is incapable of upholding. To the Katie Hills, today’s feminism is a cruel paradox, espousing the moral philosophy of lechers while turning rule-making and ethics inquiries over to prudes.

You should read it all, which leaves Caroline’s views in the cesspool where they belong. Here’s the way it ends.

The marriage between feminism and the sexual revolution has resulted in a raft of bewildered orphans whose education in degeneracy made them ill-prepared for cultural change. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, liberalism, educationally speaking, destroys the organ and then demands its function. All of the columnists commiserating with Katie Hill are in one way or another bemoaning that incoherence implicit in feminism. Yesterday’s feminism made Bill Clinton a president and Teddy Kennedy a revered senator; under today’s feminism, Hill couldn’t even keep her minor seat.

But then, what did the Frankens and the Hills expect? The liberalism to which they subscribe is inherently arbitrary, owing to a relativism that makes coherent governing impossible. A wilfulness writ large, liberalism has no consistent principle save one: power and its ever-contradictory whims.

What they wanted was a set of rules that would trap their political enemies but spare their friends. How love, marriage, children and a long life together come out of this is beyond me. How any of this breeds happiness and contentment is to me an unknown. A life of instability and misery seems like the most probable outcome.

And a pictorial reminder of what was going on.


Nowhere else have I found it so well put: #COUNTMEOUT!.

I think the #MeToo “Movement” is the most dangerous movement since the KKK, which it resembles with its mob mentality. And, I speak with total moral authority because I am a woman, whose every squeak and whine is, therefore, “credible.” I can credibly accuse any male from my kindergarten, high school, college, or long-ago workplaces, of the most lurid crimes, with no corroboration or even dates of occurrence. They will be pronounced guilty by man-hating leftist women and their wussified, terrified, man-shaped consorts who are so generally-repulsive that their only chance at getting laid is to pretend to be “feminist.”

Even after Tawana Brawley, and Mattress Girl, the Duke LaCrosse team accusers, and the fraternity gang rape that never happened, after every poop swastika and banana peel in a tree, all men and most women feel they HAVE to give an obligatory genuflection to “but, of course, the #MeToo movement is an important and wonderful thing.” No. It is not.

It is a deadly cocktail of Professional Victimhood, Neo-Victorianism, the hysteria of the Salem Witch Trials and the certainty of being found guilty of the Stalinist Show Trials. No man is safe, no matter how many decades go by, from being accused of sexual crimes. It is the weaponization of the fantasies or distorted accounts of minor, unprovable, or consensual sexual incidents redefined later by unhinged women.

And then continues in the same vein which I would say really must be read, but if you are reading it here, would mean it will be read only by those who do not need to. But read it anyway.

And then there is this from Mark Steyn.

I mentioned with Tucker the other night the condescension of Gentleman Jim Acosta, who airily presumes that, if you’re a woman, any woman, you believe the accuser and assume this Kavanaugh guy is a serial gang-rapist. That’s how it goes: Identity politics makes moron cultures of formerly sophisticated societies. So it was inevitable that when a picture from yesterday’s hearing popped up, of the judge with three females sitting behind him, the wankerati of Twitter immediately assumed that they were just three regular all-American women staring in disgust at the rape beast of Bethesda.

In fact, they were Kavanaugh’s wife, mother, and one of their dearest friends. And the reason they look like that is because they’re crushed and broken by what Dianne Feinstein, Blumenthal, Whitehouse and the other whatever-it-takes Democrats chose to do to them. It is a testament to the thoroughness with which these malign carbuncles on the body politic set about their task that, in a certain sense, one could forgive the Twitter mob its carelessness: Mrs Kavanaugh was all but unrecognizable from the woman who’d sat behind her husband just a fortnight ago. She was, indeed, a different person, and she will be for the rest of her life.

Dianne Feinstein did that to her, consciously. The Ranking Member is in a tricky position back home. She’s on the California ballot this November, but, having been outflanked on her left, she is not the official Democrat nominee. So she cannot afford to be insufficiently “progressive”, and thus concluded it was necessary to, in Kavanaugh’s words, “destroy” his family.

Nothing personal, just business.