We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
One thing about the EEOC I've never understood is that it continues to exist at all. Look at it this way. Imagine yourself as an employer. One of your employees, a real public complainer, brings the attention of the EEOC down upon your business operation. You figure finally that you have to comply with "government standards" about this employee and agree to comply.
But you also realize that this employee is a trouble-maker and that she will have to be "kept in Coventry" as far as trust and promotions are concerned. By her complaints to the government agency, she has frozen her career in mid-stride. She is not trustworthy as far as your company is concerned. This was my reasoning, at least, when the EEOC was first established back in the 1960s. I knew that if I wanted to grow in responsibilities within a company. I had to convince the company mavins I wanted the company to succeed as much as they did. And I realized that, if the company didn't feel they could promote me, I had better look for another job in the same field. Most women of my era did this, making their way up the ladder by moving from company to company, always demonstrating loyalty and cooperativeness.
Why is this so hard for some folks to understand? Seems so obvious to me. You just have to put yourself in the employer's place to deduce their thinking.
Having also gone to prep school, albeit a bit later than Romney went to his, I have a pretty good idea what was really going on. I doubt the hazing incident with the student had anything to do with any "presumed homosexuality."
During the Sixties and Early Seventies, private schools were consumed with strict dress codes because they didn't want the "bad influences" of the hippy culture or any other Sixties lowlifes to invade their campuses. Supposedly you were in prep school partly because your parents wanted a "better" environment for you. So private schools, if they did not have uniforms, had strict dress codes on clothes and appearance. "Inclusiveness" was not a value then, most prep schools wanted to draw a big line between "us" and "them."
The biggest hot button item for boys was hair. At my school, your hair could not touch your collar, cover your ears or be long enough to cover your eyes. The administration of my school went nuts if your hair was too long and it was the quickest way to get you detention, or if you persisted and refused, expelled. And it was also the quickest way to get you ostracized from other students as a "rebel" and someone who really should not be at the school. And of course the time the real confrontations occurred was after a vacation period, when a student would let their hair grow during the interim. (It all seems so petty and quaint in hindsight now.)
So, when the Romney incident got exposed yesterday by WaPo, with the reference to the "hair covering the eyes," I immediately had a flashback to that whole environment and how people got so worked up about hair length. I highly suspect what was going on had nothing to do with homosexuality, it was the whole hair thing.
Doesn't at all excuse what Romney did, but again, I highly doubt the motivation was because of being "anti-gay."
The other outcome of this is that when you got to college, you ran into the "prep school rebels," the folks who, after prep school graduation, fell off the wagon and decided to totally rebel from their prep school upbringing and would wear just totally crazy stuff and went to the opposite extreme in terms of outrageous behavior.