Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Val Uptuous NotAgain's avatar

I’m going to say something controversial. This is more than hypocrisy, it’s more than just looking at porn, or masturbating at inappropriate times, and it is not the least of what he’s done. It isn’t the worst thing he’s done, I will never forget Nex Benedict and his response to their death, but it is something that I’d far more nefarious than just being a human with urges. This is blatant misogyny. What woman who goes into any office to see pictures of naked women, nude calendars, or videos of porn in the background will think they will be heard? Sexual harassment, creating a hostile work environment, and more are not acceptable and in some cases crimes, and grounds for termination. Claiming this is just simply hypocrisy is undervaluing the reality that women in the workforce have had to live with forever. We’ve had to work in places that had these images visible day in and day out and challenged not to complain, harassed for saying anything, and have the images excused by the leadership. But the images are never the end of the problem, they’re just a signal that the workplace will be hostile to you. The men who put up these types of images will never consider you capable, or worthy of your position. They will dismiss you, at best, but will not think twice about assaulting you. He had parents in his office discussing their children, and the parent who was speaking was a woman, his colleague who called him out was a woman, and his response was to accuse her of being the aggressor. He’s telling women, specifically these women that he doesn’t value their opinions, their concerns, or their humanity. How does he treat the female students under his watch? Women are just objects to him, wallpaper, their value is in their appearance as decoration. At least, when he is at work.

I don’t think this is so small.

Expand full comment
Joe King's avatar

𝐼𝑛 𝑎 2023 𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟 “𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑠,” 𝑊𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑝𝑢𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑎𝑛 𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑑 “𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑒𝑥𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙.” 𝐵𝑢𝑡 𝑛𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑜𝑘𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑙𝑦 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑒 𝑎 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑛𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑑𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑. 𝑆𝑜 𝑖𝑡’𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝑊𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑑𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘…

Every accusation a confession. One more data point supporting that hypothesis. I guess Walters is going to redefine porn the way he redefined history. It's not porn if it isn't two men together.

Why is this latest example of hypocrisy from Walters not surprising?

Expand full comment
480 more comments...

No posts