What happens when #MeToo meets #BanBossy?

A few days ago, I batted out a moral ranking of the ‘guests’ at The Sex Addiction Clinic of Misfit Celebrities:

• Garrison Keillor – harmless
• Charlie Rose – clueless
• Donald Trump – mendacious
• Matt Lauer – opportunistic
• Harvey Weinstein – predatory
• Bill Clinton – diabolical

You can quibble about the personalities and their offenses, and I truly don’t care. The point is there are gradations to the kind of behavior we’re condemning, differences in motivation that tell us what is going on.

DISC it: We’re going to find C and I in huge abundance among true offenders, obviously: Both are poorer at reading inbound displays, and hence are more likely in general to faux pas-in-full in social encounters. But C and I are much more likely to treat other people as tokens in a game, too: To see an individual human being not as the present and momentary instantiation of his entire life, but simply as a sale or a fare or a deal or a trick – or a “free” gumball.

Everything that rational people could plausibly object to comes down to predation: Deploying force or fraud (in the form of guile) to induce behavior the victim would not otherwise have chosen. Much of what is being #MeToo’d about amounts either to clumsy courtship or unwelcome conversation – but, of course, women can make anything trivial. In any case, anything short of actual predation should be ignored. That’s the only way adult-babies will learn how to act like adults.

But the motivation of that actual predation matters, because it illuminates the intoxicating, addicting illusion-of-omnipotence that undergirds all socially-abusive behavior: Predation is not about sex. It’s about power. Not even power over the person, directly, but power over the inconquerable laws of nature that say one lion should never be able to enslave another.

Ultimately – and aboriginally – C and I are strategies for obtaining unearned the material and emotional values produced by D and S. By means of fear or fascination, C and I seek to enslave lions – in the most-polite and least-transparent way possible, of course.

We live in a Ci culture.

The entire managerial class – the putative ruling class – is Ci.

Ci is the DISC profile least likely to exhibit appropriate authority in the form of mutually-responsible leadership and most likely to make authoritarian compliance demands, instead.

Women bosses are Ci-squared. They must over-compensate, anyway, to prove they can fit it. Still worse, a non-emasculated man will not yield to a woman’s dominance in the way he would to a man’s. That means lady bosses have to be even bossier than the men.

This is what #BanBossy actually means: Ci women bosses are even worse as leaders than Ci men bosses, and, accordingly, they scream at their subordinates even more than the manicured man-boys they are alleged to be equal to.

What do you suppose Ci women bosses scream about?

We have noted but failed to see the scat displays put on by, among others, Charlie Rose, Louis C.K., Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton. We see them as being sexual when in fact they are dominance displays: By making the intimately personal and private parts of life overtly and obscenely public, the predator is seeking your submission by shocked outrage.

Much of the anger expressed in C or I (or, too-often, D) compliance demands and dominance displays will take the form of verbal or physical scat displays – typically in form of mocking claims that the victim of the abuse is unable to perform appropriately in the bedroom or the bathroom.

What do Ci bosses scream about, when they are haranguing their unlucky subordinates?

What do women Ci bosses scream about, when they are haranguing their unlucky male subordinates?

How much of her “authoritah” consists of publicly humiliating her male subordinates with scat displays?

What do you think will happen, lady bosses, when #MeToo meets #BanBossy?

I think you’re screwed, Bossy, and not in the way you need.