Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think we are defending Takei so much as pointing out the flaws in the potential case against him.
1. It's one man's word against another's.
2. It happened 40 years ago.
3. Both were supposedly seriously drunk.
4. There is no pattern of accusations against Takei.
5. Takei has given a full and frank account of his version of events.
6. Etc. etc.
But most importantly of course he is a well-known left-winger and supporter of the Demcrats, much like Weinberger, whom the left-wing media and populace are givng an equally easy ride.
Unlike the Republican Moore, whose party has rightly condemned for his apparent paedophilia.
You have that backwards,
Easy ride for Weinsteins? he's been fired, and no one is protesting for him to keep his job. He's been condemned by everyone.
Let's see, Keurig pulls ads from hanitys show for defending a pedophile,
republicans are now boycotting and smashing their keurigs in support of a pedophile
Just like with trump, the R's didn't care about the number of women accusing him, not even the under age girls that accused him, nor his admittance of walking into girls dressing rooms to see them naked.
A few republicans condemning more is no where near "the party" doing it.
You would think Moore would step down, as trump should have, but let's see if moore gets elected. That will show you what the party thinks.
Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore.
That doesn't "reflect" the GOP party anymore than Kennedy leaving a women to drown or BIll Clinton's issues reflect the Democratic party.
...
...
...
Anyways... more and more Hollywood are being accused...
whembly wrote: Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore.
Most?, Why isn't it everyone? that "most" also elected trump and could possibly elect moore.
You can say "most" all you'd like as if it's some sort of achievement, but its really the disturbing the numbers that are defending the guy and how he gathered support because he's a pedo.
whembly wrote: Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore.
Most?, Why isn't it everyone? that "most" also elected trump and could possibly elect moore.
You can say "most" all you'd like as if it's some sort of achievement, but its really the disturbing the numbers that are defending the guy and how he gathered support because he's a pedo.
Sure it's disturbing... I'm only asking if can the same paint brush you just used.
I believe it takes a super majority of the senate to remove a "seated" Senator.
All 48 Democrats plus 18 Republicans doesn't seem too hard to summon up to remove a sex predator. I mean, if you want to say 'most' Republicans will not support Moore, then surely you'll be able to summon up 18 out of 52 Republican senators?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore.
It isn't most. Not yet. It was a handful, and now its a few more, once McConnell took the lead.
Thing is, you had no problem talking about the issue Hollywood had. It was the most natural thing in the world, to go from hearing about Weinstein to noting how people covered this up for years, to noting that people speaking up now, finally, didn't absolve Hollywood of years of cover ups. And you weren't wrong, it was awful how few people did anything to limit what Weinstein and others did for years.
But no that major elements of the Republican party attempted a cover up you suddenly don't make that same natural step. And sure, this cover up may have been laughably bad, and could possibly be abandoned after just a few days, but that's not due to any morals, it's only because they're not good enough liars to keep it going (I'm not sure anyone is a good enough liar to maintain that defense, with what is now coming out). But the fact remains FOX News, Breitbart and others attempted to smear the accusers by claiming bankruptcies and divorces somehow meant they were lying, and by dismissing the story as a political attack led by WaPo, and by claiming most accusers are lying. It was some shameful bs, and it was coordinated with Moore and other Republican leaders who made similar arguments. The whole sorry affair absolutely reflects on the party as a whole.
You had no problem being disgusted by Hollywood looking the other about Weinstein's abuses, if you are honest you must be at least as disgusted with what major parts of the conservative movement attempted here.
And yeah, a lot of people in the Democrats played a part in covering for Bill Clinton, and plenty of others knew a lot more than they said. That does reflect on them and the party at that time.
But it is the Republicans who are did it right now, and they are doing it to defend a guy who tried to rape children.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists. If someone said "witch trials are a problem in society" the response would be of confusion over why someone would have such a silly viewpoint. It's like when when people say "racism is dead" or "sexism is dead" if it were actually dead no one would make that statement. No one goes around saying "witch trials are dead" or "slavery is dead" because such a statement is accepted as a basic truth.
That doesn't really follow, just because you have to say that creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution doesn't make creationism a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution
You're presenting an example that supports the argument you're challenging. People only say 'creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution' because there is a significant group of people argue otherwise. The expression only exists because the problem exists.
You misunderstood the argument, NinthMusketeer argued that if people felt a need to deny something, that thing actually exists or at least a strong confirmation of it existing, not just that people that argue for it exists.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists.
So my point was that doesn't make sense and I used the example of denying creationism as legitimate science, in NinthMusketeers world that would be a strong confirmation that creationism was actually a legitimate science
Apples to oranges. Scientific concepts are not social values or practices.
Okay, if I feel the need to deny the existence of bigfoot or the mothman, does that make them real or a "strong confirmation" that they exist? Or if you wanna keep it to social values/practice, if I deny white genocide does that make it real?
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think we are defending Takei so much as pointing out the flaws in the potential case against him.
1. It's one man's word against another's.
2. It happened 40 years ago.
3. Both were supposedly seriously drunk.
4. There is no pattern of accusations against Takei.
5. Takei has given a full and frank account of his version of events.
6. Etc. etc.
But most importantly of course he is a well-known left-winger and supporter of the Demcrats, much like Weinberger, whom the left-wing media and populace are givng an equally easy ride.
Unlike the Republican Moore, whose party has rightly condemned for his apparent paedophilia.
The 'lefties' in Hollywood by and large stood by Polanski for decades. Pretending like it's a stark dividing line between political parties is simply playing into the partisan divide.
They aren't standing by Weinstein or Spacey now, but a lot of Republicans are standing by Moore.
"The gallows are being erected" hyperbole aside, it's pretty clear the reason for his inclusion on that list was the unsolicited groping of an actresses breast when she was coming out of a bathroom. The Patricia Arquette incident was a throwaway addendum to that.
It's like selectively reading the article and then asking why we're lynching Ben Affleck for making Argo.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists. If someone said "witch trials are a problem in society" the response would be of confusion over why someone would have such a silly viewpoint. It's like when when people say "racism is dead" or "sexism is dead" if it were actually dead no one would make that statement. No one goes around saying "witch trials are dead" or "slavery is dead" because such a statement is accepted as a basic truth.
That doesn't really follow, just because you have to say that creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution doesn't make creationism a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution
You're presenting an example that supports the argument you're challenging. People only say 'creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution' because there is a significant group of people argue otherwise. The expression only exists because the problem exists.
You misunderstood the argument, NinthMusketeer argued that if people felt a need to deny something, that thing actually exists or at least a strong confirmation of it existing, not just that people that argue for it exists.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists.
So my point was that doesn't make sense and I used the example of denying creationism as legitimate science, in NinthMusketeers world that would be a strong confirmation that creationism was actually a legitimate science
Apples to oranges. Scientific concepts are not social values or practices.
Okay, if I feel the need to deny the existence of bigfoot or the mothman, does that make them real or a "strong confirmation" that they exist? Or if you wanna keep it to social values/practice, if I deny white genocide does that make it real?
Disciple of Fate wrote: But the part I wanted to adres was the drinks thing. They had dinner so it shouldn't have been an empty stomach and Brunton said this:
It was his second drink at Takei's place. It's possible they had already had drinks before. It would be weird if they hadn't. As to the meal - good pick up, I thought they'd been at a bar, but I think that was me getting confused with the details of previous times they met. As a dodge... it was the '80s and dinner was a huge plate with like two peas and a prawn on it?
But yeah, this is just speculation, but I think it is more believable that Brunton drank too much and it caught up with him, than Takei drugged him. Although Brunton's description, of being black out drunk, then waking up and being sober enough to leave and drive home doesn't sound like any drinking experience I've had, witnessed or been told about, so who knows.
Of course that is possible, enjoying a glass of wine or two with dinner is pretty normal and not all people care enough not to drive afterwards. Haha two peas and a whole prawn actually sounds pretty good for a restaurant visited by stars, I've certainly seen smaller portions today.
The drive home part has me scratching my head too. Some people just take alcohol really well and might feel confident enough to drive even if they totally shouldn't. I have seen Dutch people able to do it on a bicycle, two wheels must be harder than four. Maybe he actually did drive home while still heavily intoxicated, but is just ashamed to admit that he did. I don't think we will ever get to hear the full story and so far no other people have stepped forwards to accuse Takei (as of this moment that I'm aware of), which makes it harder than a case with multiple accusers like everybody says.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think we are defending Takei so much as pointing out the flaws in the potential case against him.
1. It's one man's word against another's. 2. It happened 40 years ago. 3. Both were supposedly seriously drunk. 4. There is no pattern of accusations against Takei. 5. Takei has given a full and frank account of his version of events. 6. Etc. etc.
But most importantly of course he is a well-known left-winger and supporter of the Demcrats, much like Weinberger, whom the left-wing media and populace are givng an equally easy ride.
Unlike the Republican Moore, whose party has rightly condemned for his apparent paedophilia.
The 'lefties' in Hollywood by and large stood by Polanski for decades. Pretending like it's a stark dividing line between political parties is simply playing into the partisan divide.
They aren't standing by Weinstein or Spacey now, but a lot of Republicans are standing by Moore.
While the Polanski case is pretty terrible I feel obligated to include my last comment on another Polanski thread: Two wrongs don't make a right.
Breaking Bad star Bryan Cranston says there could be a way back for Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey following allegations of sexual assault. He said it would "take time... and tremendous contrition on their part". "If they were to show us that they... are truly sorry and are making amends, not defending their actions but asking for forgiveness. "Maybe down the road there is room for that [a way back]. Maybe it's possible," the star told the BBC. "It would be up to us to determine case by case whether or not this person deserves a second chance," he added. Both Weinstein and Spacey have denied the accusations against them.
Cranston said that anyone found guilty of such abuses would have to acknowledge that "they have a deeply rooted psychological and emotional problem that takes years to mend" and would have to be willing to "put the work in" in order to see their career rehabilitated. The 61-year-old, who found fame on the TV series Malcolm in the Middle and Breaking Bad, told the BBC's arts editor Will Gompertz: "Sexual predatory behaviour is not a Hollywood problem, it's a societal problem and we're seeing that everywhere. "What's so great [is] that it's being exposed. Young men and women should not have to tolerate being mistreated. We're an enlightened society, enough already. "I don't want my daughter to be raised in an environment where she has to monitor her behaviour and avoid [walking past] a construction site," he added.
"Let's get rid of these people and that behaviour, it doesn't belong in our society." Cranston also spoke about the controversial issue of gun control in the US, following several mass shootings in October. "[We've had] massive killings, then the uproar, upset - and then it calms down. The NRA gun lobby is immeasurably strong. It's so sad. It's crushing to me actually, as an American, to accept that this is a way of life. "It's just unfathomable to me and yet it's real… the ultimate disrespect is to take some innocent's life. "If we're not repulsed by that, what are we repulsed at?" Reflecting on American society, Cranston said "anger" was part of the reason Donald Trump became president. "It's a legitimate feeling to feel disenfranchised and not listened to, and they [Trump voters] latched on to his message of supreme accomplishment. "He didn't burden himself with truth - don't worry about that, just listen to the message. He has this compulsion to need to talk, to feel like he's in control. "A person doesn't always need to talk to be in control of the situation. Just be smart - sometimes being quiet and introspective is a good thing." Cranston is starring at the National Theatre in London in an adaptation of the Oscar-winning film Network, which depicts a dystopian media landscape where opinion triumphs over fact.
Filing this one under "but why?" Both Weinstein and Spacey have done all but directly admit decades of sexual assault.
I believe it takes a super majority of the senate to remove a "seated" Senator.
All 48 Democrats plus 18 Republicans doesn't seem too hard to summon up to remove a sex predator. I mean, if you want to say 'most' Republicans will not support Moore, then surely you'll be able to summon up 18 out of 52 Republican senators?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore.
It isn't most. Not yet. It was a handful, and now its a few more, once McConnell took the lead.
Thing is, you had no problem talking about the issue Hollywood had. It was the most natural thing in the world, to go from hearing about Weinstein to noting how people covered this up for years, to noting that people speaking up now, finally, didn't absolve Hollywood of years of cover ups. And you weren't wrong, it was awful how few people did anything to limit what Weinstein and others did for years.
But no that major elements of the Republican party attempted a cover up you suddenly don't make that same natural step. And sure, this cover up may have been laughably bad, and could possibly be abandoned after just a few days, but that's not due to any morals, it's only because they're not good enough liars to keep it going (I'm not sure anyone is a good enough liar to maintain that defense, with what is now coming out). But the fact remains FOX News, Breitbart and others attempted to smear the accusers by claiming bankruptcies and divorces somehow meant they were lying, and by dismissing the story as a political attack led by WaPo, and by claiming most accusers are lying. It was some shameful bs, and it was coordinated with Moore and other Republican leaders who made similar arguments. The whole sorry affair absolutely reflects on the party as a whole.
You had no problem being disgusted by Hollywood looking the other about Weinstein's abuses, if you are honest you must be at least as disgusted with what major parts of the conservative movement attempted here.
And yeah, a lot of people in the Democrats played a part in covering for Bill Clinton, and plenty of others knew a lot more than they said. That does reflect on them and the party at that time.
But it is the Republicans who are did it right now, and they are doing it to defend a guy who tried to rape children.
I didn't discuss it because there's *still* a banned topic. I'm amazed the mods hasn't warned us yet to stop talking about US Politics.
So please stop inferring simply because I don't discuss it.
I think we have an agreed upon policy that still bans a politics thread for the sake of talking politics, but that it’s okay to include political discussions as long as they are relevant to the actual topic at hand.
We can’t have a thread about Trump, but we can talk about how Trumps response and behaviors affect our relationship with North Korea in the North Korea thread. It’s a thin line, but I think for the most part we have managed it.
So I think that alleged sexual abuse at the hands of a politician, and other politicians responses to the allegations, are fair game.
d-usa wrote: I think we have an agreed upon policy that still bans a politics thread for the sake of talking politics, but that it’s okay to include political discussions as long as they are relevant to the actual topic at hand.
We can’t have a thread about Trump, but we can talk about how Trumps response and behaviors affect our relationship with North Korea in the North Korea thread. It’s a thin line, but I think for the most part we have managed it.
So I think that alleged sexual abuse at the hands of a politician, and other politicians responses to the allegations, are fair game.
Then I hope sebster mentions later on that we've be PM'ing on these verious topics and I had made my opposition to Moore bluntly and that I hope the Doug wins so that the fricking Bannon-wings dies out.
If more Takei accusers come forward, then I'll be convinced. Until then, it's really "he said, he said".
Regarding "rape culture", about 1/3 of the women on my FB felt comfortable enough to say #metoo. I was shocked, and it led me to engage in some serious retrospection. I've done things that at the time I could dismiss as "drunk" or "jokes", but the recipient could have easily felt violated by. It's not a good feeling.
I understand exactly what you mean in terms of the latter. I also was surprised by how many of my friends said #metoo. I'm usually pretty dismissive of hashtag slacktivism but I wonder about this one.
In terms of Takei, I'm not sure how I feel. He's the only one so far to issue a complete, total denial. As you say, there is only the one accusation, and the pattern in these cases seems to skew pretty heavily towards repeat offenders. I'm not saying the accuser made it up at all, but I'm hoping that it falls into that mushy middle area of two people having an encounter that feels very different to each of them.
Of course, not wanting to believe something horrible about someone because you are fond of them is how a lot of this came about in the first place. It's possible for George Takei to be a funny dude who played an iconic role and who also once sexually assaulted someone.
The only thing I know for sure is this video did not age well.
feeder wrote: If more Takei accusers come forward, then I'll be convinced. Until then, it's really "he said, he said".
Regarding "rape culture", about 1/3 of the women on my FB felt comfortable enough to say #metoo. I was shocked, and it led me to engage in some serious retrospection. I've done things that at the time I could dismiss as "drunk" or "jokes", but the recipient could have easily felt violated by. It's not a good feeling.
Its in Dutch, but the results are pretty grim. Its about young adults 18 to 35. 58% of young women and 32% of young men have been groped at least once, 30% of those multiple times. 61% was in the night life, 11% in the workplace, 7% in public transport and another 7% o the street plus some smaller percentages.
The overwhelming place for both men and women to be groped is the butt, followed by crotch for men and breasts for women. Yet with 2/3rds of women and 1/3rd of men facing groping, only 2% actually report it. Crazy numbers, likely similar in the US and other European countries at least, as the Netherlands is pretty average for a Western country.
I think a lot of us might agree that two drunk gay adult men in the early 1980s allegedly having an allegedly non-consensual and quickly terminated fumble in the dark is on a different part of the spectrum to a US Senatorial candidate who allegedly has a well-known history of fething underage girls.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think a lot of us might agree that two drunk gay adult men in the early 1980s allegedly having an allegedly non-consensual and quickly terminated fumble in the dark is on a different part of the spectrum to a US Senatorial candidate who allegedly has a well-known history of fething underage girls.
Yes, but Takei potentially being somewhat of a hypocrite would completely exonerate all of the predators on "their side". That's the impression that I get.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think a lot of us might agree that two drunk gay adult men in the early 1980s allegedly having an allegedly non-consensual and quickly terminated fumble in the dark is on a different part of the spectrum to a US Senatorial candidate who allegedly has a well-known history of fething underage girls.
Yes, but Takei potentially being somewhat of a hypocrite would completely exonerate all of the predators on "their side". That's the impression that I get.
I don't think any of the Republicans jumping to defend Moore have said anything at all about Takei.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think a lot of us might agree that two drunk gay adult men in the early 1980s allegedly having an allegedly non-consensual and quickly terminated fumble in the dark is on a different part of the spectrum to a US Senatorial candidate who allegedly has a well-known history of fething underage girls.
For this reason, Takei is more of a grey region while Moore, Spacey, and Weinstein are more of a "GTFO of society, d-bags" in my book.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think a lot of us might agree that two drunk gay adult men in the early 1980s allegedly having an allegedly non-consensual and quickly terminated fumble in the dark is on a different part of the spectrum to a US Senatorial candidate who allegedly has a well-known history of fething underage girls.
Senator guy isn't allegedly. He has a well known history of seeking out the company of underage girls and any defenses given of his person are bizarre apologies for his behavior or calls to silence his accusers, motivated from wanting to keep power. It's disgusting and terrible.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think a lot of us might agree that two drunk gay adult men in the early 1980s allegedly having an allegedly non-consensual and quickly terminated fumble in the dark is on a different part of the spectrum to a US Senatorial candidate who allegedly has a well-known history of fething underage girls.
Yes, but Takei potentially being somewhat of a hypocrite would completely exonerate all of the predators on "their side". That's the impression that I get.
I don't think any of the Republicans jumping to defend Moore have said anything at all about Takei.
Sorry, I was referencing all the loyal foot soldiers, fighting the meme war in the trenches.
d-usa wrote: Isn't the latest news that the local mall kept an eye out for him because he was known to creep around the place?
Yes. Everywhere you look and everyone you ask confirms this guy hangs with teenage girls a lot.
This whole thing is some sort of horrifying Rorschach test for responding to the unthinkable. The one that hurt me the most was Louis C.K, and that's mostly for my roommate's sake, as he's a big comedy buff.
Scrabb wrote: The one that hurt me the most was Louis C.K, and that's mostly for my roommate's sake, as he's a big comedy buff.
That was a shame. While not my favorite comedian by a long shot, I thought a lot of his observations were thoughtful and humorous and I enjoyed him on Sirius Satellite's various comedy channels.
That was pretty disgusting of him. At least he is owning it without any qualifications. Still, I don't think I can listen to his stuff again for a long while.
Scrabb wrote: The one that hurt me the most was Louis C.K, and that's mostly for my roommate's sake, as he's a big comedy buff.
That was a shame. While not my favorite comedian by a long shot, I thought a lot of his observations were thoughtful and humorous and I enjoyed him on Sirius Satellite's various comedy channels.
That was pretty disgusting of him. At least he is owning it without any qualifications. Still, I don't think I can listen to his stuff again for a long while.
Yeah, I feel the same. I can still listen to Pantera and Down because, despite being a stupid racist fethhead, Phil doesn't yell about any of that.
Louis CK's creepy private predilections and his public work occupy nearly the same space as each other and it feels greasy as feth now.
d-usa wrote: Isn't the latest news that the local mall kept an eye out for him because he was known to creep around the place?
5 accusers.
He signed the yearbook of one
Mall security saying they kept a watch on him.
All major senators saying get out.
Some scuttlebutt is if he wins, Senate will depose and replace with Sessions.
State RNC is threatening anyone who wants to put in for write in, that they'll never get another position there.
Why would they write in? The longer a write in campaign is not started the worse plan it becomes.
This is Cowboy Roy's last shot at higher office. Splitting the ticket will allow Jones a chance to squeak in.
The best play here (the instance Moore didn't drop) is to disown him on the national stage but back him at the state level or at least not overtly sabotage Moore. He's Bama's favored son, no way they elect a Dem if you properly spin the pedo accusations. Then you have your GOP senator to shore up majority come 2018 and you get to act like you had scruples until the heat fades.
His adversarial attitude is Mitch's problem but it's still better to the GOP than having a Dem mucking up tax reform or the senate majority.
The long term problem that creates is the GOP will be labelled as 'the rapist party' and it's going to be extremely difficult to shift that message regardless of the reality of the matter.
I'm continually shaking my head at how many people have difficulty condemning a person who did something wrong. It's really not difficult. When there is overwhelming evidence that a person did something wrong, condemn those actions. Simple. Done. It's pathetic on the part of society that the behavior we see is even remotely acceptable.
If somebody labels himsellf as part of a group you consider yourself part of, for many people is hard to do the reasonable mental work of thinking "This is a big group. That guy can totally do wrong. Him doing wrong not makes me or the group wrong. I can totally condemn him without betraying the group we both are part of. Condemning him doesn't give a victory to the opposite group"
You can see this everywhere. From people defending represive goverments of other countries because they label themselves as communists/socialists/Nationalists/Capitalists, to people defending people of his same religion, or defending a Star player of his favourite sport team if he does something illegal and wrong, etc...
whembly wrote: I didn't discuss it because there's *still* a banned topic. I'm amazed the mods hasn't warned us yet to stop talking about US Politics.
So please stop inferring simply because I don't discuss it.
What? I never complained you didn't comment, because you did comment. "Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore." Those are your words, posted by you.
My complaint was about your comment. Because you took 'most' of the GOP withdrawing their support as evidence that Moore doesn't reflect on the party. But earlier in this thread, in your opening post that started this thread, you said "Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?"
So apparently Hollywood can permit something for years, and when uncovered it isn't enough that almost everyone rejects the abuser, that's still enough to say Hollywood has a dark side.
But the Republican party can have a serial abuser in their midst, with a string of victims and a pattern of behaviour known by many in the public, and when his abuses are revealed then after about a week most of the establishment of the party rejects him, while much of the rest of the party responds with conspiracy theories and arguments that it is okay for men in their 30s to pursue teenage girls, including one girl aged 14... but "hat doesn't reflect the GOP party".
Don't deny the double standard, because that would be some impossible nonsense. Realise what you've done. Reflect on it. Use this as a chance to learn something about how you think about issues.
Guys, I know we all love to gain internet and ego points, pointing at mental incoherences of other posters. But I don't know if anything valuable is gonna come out that. Or at least, insisting on it once it has been clearly explained the first time.
whembly wrote: I didn't discuss it because there's *still* a banned topic. I'm amazed the mods hasn't warned us yet to stop talking about US Politics.
So please stop inferring simply because I don't discuss it.
What? I never complained you didn't comment, because you did comment. "Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore." Those are your words, posted by you.
My complaint was about your comment. Because you took 'most' of the GOP withdrawing their support as evidence that Moore doesn't reflect on the party. But earlier in this thread, in your opening post that started this thread, you said "Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?"
So apparently Hollywood can permit something for years, and when uncovered it isn't enough that almost everyone rejects the abuser, that's still enough to say Hollywood has a dark side.
But the Republican party can have a serial abuser in their midst, with a string of victims and a pattern of behaviour known by many in the public, and when his abuses are revealed then after about a week most of the establishment of the party rejects him, while much of the rest of the party responds with conspiracy theories and arguments that it is okay for men in their 30s to pursue teenage girls, including one girl aged 14... but "hat doesn't reflect the GOP party".
Don't deny the double standard, because that would be some impossible nonsense. Realise what you've done. Reflect on it. Use this as a chance to learn something about how you think about issues.
I dunno Seb, I can see why he would be reluctant to post more detailed thoughts on the GOP. And as a GOP supporter his thoughts are likely to have more nuance than being summed up as "really has a dark side, eh?" Further I would say there's been many more revelations about hollywood starts recently than politicians. You may be entirely right but I think the assumption is a bit of a stretch here.
I don't think anybody doubts that where power structures exist this kind of behaviour is more common that we want to admitt. That applies to Hollywood. But to politics too.
Sexual harassers, Paedophiles, etc... of every colour and political party and ideology, I doubt are a mathematically substantial amout of the whole, but I'm pretty sure that they are enough to be a relevant and present nearly everywhere problem that we just don't appear to fight in a really substantial leve.
It appears that is changing in recent years. But will the movement keep going pass the enteirtaiment industry?
sebster wrote: ...when his abuses are revealed then after about a week most of the establishment of the party rejects him, while much of the rest of the party responds with conspiracy theories and arguments that it is okay for men in their 30s to pursue teenage girls, including one girl aged 14... but "hat doesn't reflect the GOP party".
Galas wrote: But will the movement keep going pass the enteirtaiment industry?
I think we'll definitely see some things happen once the 2018 election season starts, and it won't be pretty. We'll just have to wait and see, really. Hopefully, there will be a domino effect that carries it over into other areas, and not just the entertainment industry and politics.
whembly wrote: I didn't discuss it because there's *still* a banned topic. I'm amazed the mods hasn't warned us yet to stop talking about US Politics.
So please stop inferring simply because I don't discuss it.
What? I never complained you didn't comment, because you did comment. "Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore." Those are your words, posted by you.
My complaint was about your comment. Because you took 'most' of the GOP withdrawing their support as evidence that Moore doesn't reflect on the party. But earlier in this thread, in your opening post that started this thread, you said "Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?"
So apparently Hollywood can permit something for years, and when uncovered it isn't enough that almost everyone rejects the abuser, that's still enough to say Hollywood has a dark side.
But the Republican party can have a serial abuser in their midst, with a string of victims and a pattern of behaviour known by many in the public, and when his abuses are revealed then after about a week most of the establishment of the party rejects him, while much of the rest of the party responds with conspiracy theories and arguments that it is okay for men in their 30s to pursue teenage girls, including one girl aged 14... but "hat doesn't reflect the GOP party".
Don't deny the double standard, because that would be some impossible nonsense. Realise what you've done. Reflect on it. Use this as a chance to learn something about how you think about issues.
No.
Unless the mods give full-throated approval to discuss the political aspect of this, I'm not going down this road here and try to convince you otherwise. We'd be well into thread-lock territory.
sebster wrote: ...when his abuses are revealed then after about a week most of the establishment of the party rejects him, while much of the rest of the party responds with conspiracy theories and arguments that it is okay for men in their 30s to pursue teenage girls, including one girl aged 14... but "hat doesn't reflect the GOP party".
It seems to me that the response to such allegations against a member of the entertainment industry is not really comparable to a politician, especially one in the middle of an election.
So turning it into a partisan issue "look at those evil <insert political party here>, they aren't unanimously and immediately condemning <insert politician name here> like happened with <insert name of member of entertainment industry>" is of limited value.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Of course that is possible, enjoying a glass of wine or two with dinner is pretty normal and not all people care enough not to drive afterwards. Haha two peas and a whole prawn actually sounds pretty good for a restaurant visited by stars, I've certainly seen smaller portions today.
The drive home part has me scratching my head too. Some people just take alcohol really well and might feel confident enough to drive even if they totally shouldn't. I have seen Dutch people able to do it on a bicycle, two wheels must be harder than four. Maybe he actually did drive home while still heavily intoxicated, but is just ashamed to admit that he did. I don't think we will ever get to hear the full story and so far no other people have stepped forwards to accuse Takei (as of this moment that I'm aware of), which makes it harder than a case with multiple accusers like everybody says.
Also it was the 80s, people were a lot less worried about driving while intoxicated. What might have been 'felt okay to drive' then would be 'lost license and suspended jail sentence' today. So he could still have been drunk/under the effect of the drug?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Then I hope sebster mentions later on that we've be PM'ing on these verious topics and I had made my opposition to Moore bluntly and that I hope the Doug wins so that the fricking Bannon-wings dies out.
I can confirm whembly was opposed to Moore, and to his credit that opposition was even before Moore was outed as a predator. It was for all the awful things that we knew about Moore before this latest revelation.
But that doesn't have anything to do with whembly's position here, where he commented on Moore and the Republican reaction, and is now refusing to reply to my point about what he said, because he doesn't talk about Moore or the Repubilcan reaction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think any of the Republicans jumping to defend Moore have said anything at all about Takei.
Would Star Trek have reached Alabama yet?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Guys, I know we all love to gain internet and ego points, pointing at mental incoherences of other posters. But I don't know if anything valuable is gonna come out that. Or at least, insisting on it once it has been clearly explained the first time.
I believe the opposite. I think the only good that comes out of any conversation like this is from people seeing the weaknesses in their thought patterns and then working on those weaknesses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I dunno Seb, I can see why he would be reluctant to post more detailed thoughts on the GOP. And as a GOP supporter his thoughts are likely to have more nuance than being summed up as "really has a dark side, eh?"
Developing more sophisticated views about the wrongdoing by an organisation he supports, but having simpler, more hostile views towards an organisation he was already hostile to is exactly the point.
Further I would say there's been many more revelations about hollywood starts recently than politicians. You may be entirely right but I think the assumption is a bit of a stretch here.
Don't forget Ailles and O'Reilly at FOX News. While not elected, they were absolutely a key part of Republican politics. And then if we go back to 2015 we have Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the House, who was convicted for sexual abuse of a minor, a crime he had covered up with hush money paid with misappropriated Federal funds. Then before that you had Mark Foley, who in 2006 was caught sexting an underage girl, which was only finally acted on when evidence became undeniable, before then Hastert had denied and delayed any investigation.
On the other side there was Weiner, and of course Clinton.
And here's a stat for everyone - a member of the House yesterday reported that in the last 10 to 15 years $15 million has been paid out by a special fund to victims of sexual harassment. Whether that's just harrasment by members of the House or if it also includes their senior staff, I don't know.
So yeah, there's no stretch calling this a major issue in Washington as well as Hollywood.
And that doesn't damn anyone involved in politics, certainly not anyone who supports one side or politics or the other. But people who were very quick to attack Hollywood who are now decide to have more nuanced views when it comes to something closer to home... well I think they should spend some time thinking about how they approach these issues.
Unless the mods give full-throated approval to discuss the political aspect of this, I'm not going down this road here and try to convince you otherwise. We'd be well into thread-lock territory.
But you came in and you commented, to defend the Republican party and claim Moore and his defenders don't reflect on the greater party. This is the exact opposite of your take in the post you started this thread with, where Weinstein's behaviour and the years it was ignored/covered up was enough to condemn the whole industry no matter how much people were speaking out against Weinstein now.
I'm not asking for a political take on this. You don't have to discuss the Republican party at all. What I want is a recognition that you saw the two sets of allegations and you approached each very differently because you are supportive of one group, and antagonistic to the other.
This matters because its exactly those sorts of thoughts and the rationalisations that flow from them that let these things happen. It's exactly the rationalisations that many Clinton staffers admitted to in the wake of the Clinton administration. It's the rationalisation that millions of voters went through to justify voting for Trump, and its more or less the rationalisation I went through to justify supporting Clinton despite his predatory behaviour.
It is exactly what we need to be honest about if we're going to change any of this.
The fact that I am 100% confident, in light of who started this thread, that this thread is totally a “damn liberals, look at them” thread makes the excuse of “I wouldn’t want to make this political” very questionable.
d-usa wrote: The fact that I am 100% confident, in light of who started this thread, that this thread is totally a “damn liberals, look at them” thread makes the excuse of “I wouldn’t want to make this political” very questionable.
This.
The Champion of US politics "What Aboutism" can't really start a thread with a blatant "what about" twinge to it and then claim they don't want it to be political.
Other posters have tried that, and as I said in those threads, no one whose been here long enough to know who is who is that stupid.
Seriously, I'm not trying to bash whembly. I like the dude and I count him as a mate. I'm also not trying to make this about Repubilcans or politics any more than Roy Moore makes that necessary, because I don't want this thread locked. I'm just trying to get whembly to maybe look at the difference in how he approached Hollywood's scandal, and how he approached Moore's scandal, to maybe think a bit about why he might have reached opposite conclusions on the two events.
And then maybe, hopefully, out of that conversation we might start talking about how everyone has similar blind spots.
It's a big ask from everyone, I know. Hope springs eternal.
But you came in and you commented, to defend the Republican party and claim Moore and his defenders don't reflect on the greater party. This is the exact opposite of your take in the post you started this thread with, where Weinstein's behaviour and the years it was ignored/covered up was enough to condemn the whole industry no matter how much people were speaking out against Weinstein now.
I'm not asking for a political take on this. You don't have to discuss the Republican party at all. What I want is a recognition that you saw the two sets of allegations and you approached each very differently because you are supportive of one group, and antagonistic to the other.
This matters because its exactly those sorts of thoughts and the rationalisations that flow from them that let these things happen. It's exactly the rationalisations that many Clinton staffers admitted to in the wake of the Clinton administration. It's the rationalisation that millions of voters went through to justify voting for Trump, and its more or less the rationalisation I went through to justify supporting Clinton despite his predatory behaviour.
It is exactly what we need to be honest about if we're going to change any of this.
No... I most certainly did not. I've tried to stay away from politics at the mods behest... my silence on certain topics shouldn't be construed of... well... anything.
When I started this thread and said I "Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?" that is in NO WAY to be interpreted that I think the pedo/rapist/sexual assaulters of the Hollywood bigwig as somehow be "representative" to Hollywood as a whole. In fact, it's very insulting that *this* is how you're framing your arguments in your attempt to get a pound of whembly-o-flesh. It is no more ridiculous than to claim Ted Kennedy letting a woman to die or that Bill Clinton's rape accusations is anymore indicative to the Democratic party as a whole.
In fact, it's hilarious that you can't even see the wide fething brush you're using...and continue to use.
Stop that.
You can recognized that Roy Moore is absolutely unqualified for the senate seat, without dragging the whole party on it's petard to flout out some virtual-signaling dick measuring contest.
Likewise you can condemn the behaviors of the likes of Weinstein/Spacey/et el without dragging everyone else down in Hollywood.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: The fact that I am 100% confident, in light of who started this thread, that this thread is totally a “damn liberals, look at them” thread makes the excuse of “I wouldn’t want to make this political” very questionable.
Question all you want boyo.
This wasn't a "damn libs" post... this was an attempt to have a serious discussion over serious issues.
Not my problem that you don't feel that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Seriously, I'm not trying to bash whembly. I like the dude and I count him as a mate. I'm also not trying to make this about Repubilcans or politics any more than Roy Moore makes that necessary, because I don't want this thread locked. I'm just trying to get whembly to maybe look at the difference in how he approached Hollywood's scandal, and how he approached Moore's scandal, to maybe think a bit about why he might have reached opposite conclusions on the two events.
And then maybe, hopefully, out of that conversation we might start talking about how everyone has similar blind spots.
It's a big ask from everyone, I know. Hope springs eternal.
Oh bloody hell...
Please elaborate on how I've reached opposite conclusions on the two events.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I dunno Seb, I can see why he would be reluctant to post more detailed thoughts on the GOP. And as a GOP supporter his thoughts are likely to have more nuance than being summed up as "really has a dark side, eh?"
Developing more sophisticated views about the wrongdoing by an organisation he supports, but having simpler, more hostile views towards an organisation he was already hostile to is exactly the point.
More sophisticated =/= more or less hostile. Also, commenting that Hollywood has a dark side is hardly a blanket comment on Hollywood as a whole. Literal comments aside, I haven't seen anything from him that indicates he is more/less forgiving of one side to the other (on this particular matter). Further, to say "US politics really has a dark side, eh?" is such a baseline assumption it would be like saying "the sky is really blue some days, huh?" verses Hollywood where many people may not/do not take that as a basic trait of the industry. I usually agree with you when calling out other posters but I think past conversations with Whembly may be affecting your objectivity on this one.
d-usa wrote: The fact that I am 100% confident, in light of who started this thread, that this thread is totally a “damn liberals, look at them” thread makes the excuse of “I wouldn’t want to make this political” very questionable.
This.
The Champion of US politics "What Aboutism" can't really start a thread with a blatant "what about" twinge to it and then claim they don't want it to be political.
Other posters have tried that, and as I said in those threads, no one whose been here long enough to know who is who is that stupid.
There's politics then there's politics. 'Political' isn't a binary where it is or it isn't, it's a spectrum. Did Whembly's political slant help motivate him to start this thread? Probably. But he may have started it even without said political slant. And the content of his first post is very straightforward. Posted by someone else I don't think anyone would see it as anti-left.
At the very least, I think the reaction to Whembly has been disproportionate to the bias he may have shown.
whembly wrote: I didn't discuss it because there's *still* a banned topic. I'm amazed the mods hasn't warned us yet to stop talking about US Politics.
So please stop inferring simply because I don't discuss it.
What? I never complained you didn't comment, because you did comment. "Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore." Those are your words, posted by you.
My complaint was about your comment. Because you took 'most' of the GOP withdrawing their support as evidence that Moore doesn't reflect on the party. But earlier in this thread, in your opening post that started this thread, you said "Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?"
So apparently Hollywood can permit something for years, and when uncovered it isn't enough that almost everyone rejects the abuser, that's still enough to say Hollywood has a dark side.
But the Republican party can have a serial abuser in their midst, with a string of victims and a pattern of behaviour known by many in the public, and when his abuses are revealed then after about a week most of the establishment of the party rejects him, while much of the rest of the party responds with conspiracy theories and arguments that it is okay for men in their 30s to pursue teenage girls, including one girl aged 14... but "hat doesn't reflect the GOP party".
Don't deny the double standard, because that would be some impossible nonsense. Realise what you've done. Reflect on it. Use this as a chance to learn something about how you think about issues.
I dunno Seb, I can see why he would be reluctant to post more detailed thoughts on the GOP. And as a GOP supporter his thoughts are likely to have more nuance than being summed up as "really has a dark side, eh?" Further I would say there's been many more revelations about hollywood starts recently than politicians. You may be entirely right but I think the assumption is a bit of a stretch here.
I saw the recent list from Hollywood, which included Bush sr, and it's no where near the length of this list:
Sure Hollywoods dirt is coming to light "recently", but there's a steady stream of offenders across the political spectrum, but most of them from the GOP. Which when you boil it all down all you can really conclude is that America has a rape culture, yet only one side is defending it, and elected a president who has a longer list of accusers than most on the Hollywood list.
whembly wrote: No... I most certainly did not. I've tried to stay away from politics at the mods behest... my silence on certain topics shouldn't be construed of... well... anything.
Dude. This was you, in this thread;
whembly wrote:Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore.
That doesn't "reflect" the GOP party anymore than Kennedy leaving a women to drown or BIll Clinton's issues reflect the Democratic party.
How is that 'trying to stay away from politics'?
When I started this thread and said I "Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?" that is in NO WAY to be interpreted that I think the pedo/rapist/sexual assaulters of the Hollywood bigwig as somehow be "representative" to Hollywood as a whole. In fact, it's very insulting that *this* is how you're framing your arguments in your attempt to get a pound of whembly-o-flesh.
I don't want a pound of flesh. That is not what this is about. Seriously dude, we've been doing this for years, there's a long list of times I've caught out this or that, I have no need to add one more to the pile.
What I want is there to be some conversation about how we view this stuff, how our bias and our own motivations cause us to view new allegations. Politics is a good way of showing this, because there's such an obvious switch in so many people, not just you, in how the accusation is addressed, based on which side the accuser belongs to.
This is you in the first couple of pages of the thread, regarding the accusations against Hollywood.
"its de jour in the industry" "Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?" "...and I'm sure there are fethloads of other executives who'd need to be exposed. I guess the whole "Casting Couch™" genre in porn is hitting pretty close to reality...eh?" "At the same time, this is an industry that requires you to know the right people to be successful... and it appears, that many of those "people" abuse their position of power in despicable ways."
Later on, you attempt a defense of the GOP on the grounds that most of them had rescinded their support of Moore; "Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore. That doesn't "reflect" the GOP party anymore than Kennedy..."
Never mind that at that point there had been very few withdrawals of support, and most of what we'd seen was 'if true' dodges and some extremely weird defenses from Alabama GOP figures, the difference in those two approaches is telling.
Now, once again, this isn't to score internet points. I don't give a feth about that. It's about opening up some understanding about how we all engage with these accusations when they happen, how we will happily believe them when they suit us, but ignore, deny or oppose them when we find them threatening. And more than that, how we will ignore the failings in institutions that let these things happen, when we happen to benefit from or remain supportive of those institutions. Brian Cranston recently said he thought Weinstein and Spacey might find a way back - to people outside of Hollywood that sounds absurd, but we're not in that bubble. To people outside of the Republican bubble, the argument that the GOP mostly rescinded their support of Moore is also absurd.
It is no more ridiculous than to claim Ted Kennedy letting a woman to die or that Bill Clinton's rape accusations is anymore indicative to the Democratic party as a whole.
Bill Clinton's various predatory acts isn't indicative, but the decision of the party and its supporters to ignore and normalise his behaviour must be owned by the Democratic Party. And it's been interesting to watch that realisation slowly develop, to see the Democrats start to realise they can't just talk the talk on women's issues, they need to walk the walk and treat predators as they should be treated.
You can recognized that Roy Moore is absolutely unqualified for the senate seat, without dragging the whole party on it's petard to flout out some virtual-signaling dick measuring contest.
The term is virtue signaling, and that's not what is happening. It as though there's a shortage of things to condemn the GOP over. But what Hannity did, what Breitbart did, what various Alabama GOP figures attempted to argue, that stuff shouldn't just be forgotten.
Likewise you can condemn the behaviors of the likes of Weinstein/Spacey/et el without dragging everyone else down in Hollywood.
Absolutely, but we can talk about how a large chunk of Hollywood worked to enable and cover for Weinstein and how that needs to change, just as should happen in many other places.
Ouze wrote: It's like selectively reading the article and then asking why we're lynching Ben Affleck for making Argo.
Not really. It's more a case of not getting caught in the minutia when there are serious allegations going on.
Plus I don't like the knock on effect. Ratpack getting screwed 'cause of Ratner's actions? The Weinstien company being ostracised because of their head's actions? How is that fair to the people who make a living in this companies.
NinthMusketeer wrote: More sophisticated =/= more or less hostile. Also, commenting that Hollywood has a dark side is hardly a blanket comment on Hollywood as a whole. Literal comments aside, I haven't seen anything from him that indicates he is more/less forgiving of one side to the other (on this particular matter). Further, to say "US politics really has a dark side, eh?" is such a baseline assumption it would be like saying "the sky is really blue some days, huh?" verses Hollywood where many people may not/do not take that as a basic trait of the industry.
I included a bunch of quotes above, it should show a pretty different approach, where whembly approaches the Weinstein scandal speculating how deep it goes, then with Moore he suddenly switches to noting (exaggerating) the efforts of Republicans to distance themselves from Moore.
I usually agree with you when calling out other posters but I think past conversations with Whembly may be affecting your objectivity on this one.
Dude, I like whembly. I think he's a good bloke. Probably the only way any part history plays in to this is that I'm trying to have the conversation, there's a lot of other posters who if they'd said the same thing I'd just not bother.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Plus I don't like the knock on effect. Ratpack getting screwed 'cause of Ratner's actions? The Weinstien company being ostracised because of their head's actions? How is that fair to the people who make a living in this companies.
Won't somebody think of the motion picture financing companies!?
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists. If someone said "witch trials are a problem in society" the response would be of confusion over why someone would have such a silly viewpoint. It's like when when people say "racism is dead" or "sexism is dead" if it were actually dead no one would make that statement. No one goes around saying "witch trials are dead" or "slavery is dead" because such a statement is accepted as a basic truth.
That doesn't really follow, just because you have to say that creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution doesn't make creationism a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution
You're presenting an example that supports the argument you're challenging. People only say 'creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution' because there is a significant group of people argue otherwise. The expression only exists because the problem exists.
You misunderstood the argument, NinthMusketeer argued that if people felt a need to deny something, that thing actually exists or at least a strong confirmation of it existing, not just that people that argue for it exists.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists.
So my point was that doesn't make sense and I used the example of denying creationism as legitimate science, in NinthMusketeers world that would be a strong confirmation that creationism was actually a legitimate science
Apples to oranges. Scientific concepts are not social values or practices.
Okay, if I feel the need to deny the existence of bigfoot or the mothman, does that make them real or a "strong confirmation" that they exist? Or if you wanna keep it to social values/practice, if I deny white genocide does that make it real?
sebster wrote: ...when his abuses are revealed then after about a week most of the establishment of the party rejects him, while much of the rest of the party responds with conspiracy theories and arguments that it is okay for men in their 30s to pursue teenage girls, including one girl aged 14... but "hat doesn't reflect the GOP party".
I am jealous of the UK! They can have a legit Politics thread and no one gets all butt hurt. :(
The scary thing about that Rush piece is that 50% of the US will hear that, and that is the only discussion they will hear about the topic. I live in one of those rural parts of a state where the only media you get reliably is Clear Channel.
I guarantee I will hear some one repeat that to me in person almost verbatim at least once this week.
Hannity realized how immoral it was to provide political cover for a sex predator started losing some advertisers, so he's issued an ultimatum to Moore.
So we see the familiar pattern repeat; the morality of powerful institutions is based on how useful the alleged harasser, rapist, or pedophile is to the bottom line.
So we see the familiar pattern repeat; the morality of powerful institutions is based on how useful the alleged harasser, rapist, or pedophile is to the bottom line.
To a certain extent, profit>mortality has always been a thing in human societies, but in the US it has consistently been stronger than average. Which is to say, yeah business as usual :(
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists. If someone said "witch trials are a problem in society" the response would be of confusion over why someone would have such a silly viewpoint. It's like when when people say "racism is dead" or "sexism is dead" if it were actually dead no one would make that statement. No one goes around saying "witch trials are dead" or "slavery is dead" because such a statement is accepted as a basic truth.
That doesn't really follow, just because you have to say that creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution doesn't make creationism a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution
You're presenting an example that supports the argument you're challenging. People only say 'creationism isn't a legitimate scientific counter to the theory of evolution' because there is a significant group of people argue otherwise. The expression only exists because the problem exists.
You misunderstood the argument, NinthMusketeer argued that if people felt a need to deny something, that thing actually exists or at least a strong confirmation of it existing, not just that people that argue for it exists.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think that the funny thing about the rape culture 'debate' is that a need to deny it is pretty strong confirmation it exists.
So my point was that doesn't make sense and I used the example of denying creationism as legitimate science, in NinthMusketeers world that would be a strong confirmation that creationism was actually a legitimate science
Apples to oranges. Scientific concepts are not social values or practices.
Okay, if I feel the need to deny the existence of bigfoot or the mothman, does that make them real or a "strong confirmation" that they exist? Or if you wanna keep it to social values/practice, if I deny white genocide does that make it real?
I'm not sure if you don't know what a straw man is or if you think that is what I actually said. If you don't agree with me that's fine, it's just my opinion, but don't pretend there's some logical flaw in it by creating a fictional argument I didn't make.
NinthMusketeer wrote: More sophisticated =/= more or less hostile. Also, commenting that Hollywood has a dark side is hardly a blanket comment on Hollywood as a whole. Literal comments aside, I haven't seen anything from him that indicates he is more/less forgiving of one side to the other (on this particular matter). Further, to say "US politics really has a dark side, eh?" is such a baseline assumption it would be like saying "the sky is really blue some days, huh?" verses Hollywood where many people may not/do not take that as a basic trait of the industry.
I included a bunch of quotes above, it should show a pretty different approach, where whembly approaches the Weinstein scandal speculating how deep it goes, then with Moore he suddenly switches to noting (exaggerating) the efforts of Republicans to distance themselves from Moore.
I usually agree with you when calling out other posters but I think past conversations with Whembly may be affecting your objectivity on this one.
Dude, I like whembly. I think he's a good bloke. Probably the only way any part history plays in to this is that I'm trying to have the conversation, there's a lot of other posters who if they'd said the same thing I'd just not bother.
Fair enough. Maybe I'm trying to be too apologetic.
d-usa wrote: If he pulls out, will Keurig send everybody a new coffeemaker?
In the old days, before the Internet; you were really never exactly sure how crazy your neighbor was. You could just assume they were decent folks and relatively normal.
Now, the lid has been blown off that kettle!
People are eager to show just how crazy they actually are. Really, destroyng your Keurig over this?
Easy E wrote: People are eager to show just how crazy they actually are. Really, destroyng your Keurig over this?
I honestly wouldn't even know what brand my coffee maker was if I didn't walk over to look. So my question is, did all the people watching Hannity turn off their tv's and walk over to their kitchen to confirm if they were harboring the enemy there
Also this is pretty good advertisement for Keurig, never knew they existed before idiots started destroying their own property.
In response to consumer complaints, Keurig wrote Saturday, “We worked with our media partner and Fox News to stop our ad from airing during The Sean Hannity Show,” in a tweet that has since been deleted. (Keurig CEO Bob Gamgort today clarified that “the decision to communicate our short-term media actions on Twitter was done outside of company protocols.”)
avantgarde wrote: What if I just wanted an excuse to destroy my Keurig because pod coffee sucks?
Get a YouTube account, film yourself admitting that you made a horrible mistake in buying a pod coffee maker, and then come up with the most creative way of destroying it. Only show the actual destruction after 20 minutes of "Hey guys, this is your BOI avantgarde here with another video" and talking about the spiritual journey that lead you to realize the error of your ways and how this decision to destroy it will impact you for the rest of your life. Then show the actual destruction, complete with lots of annoying backup music (preferably awesome epic music though, the kind you would shred some chicken with), from at least two different cameras, including at a minimum a "destruction, reverse scroll back to before the destruction, now destruction in slow motion" scene. Then tell everybody "thanks guys, be sure to SMASH that LIKE BUTTON and subscribe to my channel". Then watch that sweet monetization roll in and use it to buy a french press and some free trade organic coffee.
Ouze wrote: Hannity realized how immoral it was to provide political cover for a sex predator started losing some advertisers, so he's issued an ultimatum to Moore. So we see the familiar pattern repeat; the morality of powerful institutions is based on how useful the alleged harasser, rapist, or pedophile is to the bottom line.
To a certain extent, profit>mortality has always been a thing in human societies, but in the US it has consistently been stronger than average. Which is to say, yeah business as usual :(
That's not entirely fair. I'd rather say that the appearance of morality has been more important in the US than many other western countries. Profit is all nice, but looking good is even more important. You're always so surprised and outraged when a politician or other public figure is caught having an affair and want to kick them, to many others it's just a sign that they're human and let's see if they can still do their jobs. We're just not as shocked at some sex scandal as you are.
Admittedly it IS great fun to see some anti-gay male politician - who built his platform on that - resign after he's caught soliciting random men for sex in a public restroom....
Ouze wrote: Hannity realized how immoral it was to provide political cover for a sex predator started losing some advertisers, so he's issued an ultimatum to Moore. So we see the familiar pattern repeat; the morality of powerful institutions is based on how useful the alleged harasser, rapist, or pedophile is to the bottom line.
To a certain extent, profit>mortality has always been a thing in human societies, but in the US it has consistently been stronger than average. Which is to say, yeah business as usual :(
That's not entirely fair. I'd rather say that the appearance of morality has been more important in the US than many other western countries. Profit is all nice, but looking good is even more important. You're always so surprised and outraged when a politician or other public figure is caught having an affair and want to kick them, to many others it's just a sign that they're human and let's see if they can still do their jobs. We're just not as shocked at some sex scandal as you are.
Admittedly it IS great fun to see some anti-gay male politician - who built his platform on that - resign after he's caught soliciting random men for sex in a public restroom....
I was referring specifically to the 'when it gets in the way of profit' part. Note how there were no issues until there was a financial impact--the network and the show did not care about the morality of the matter one bit, but the slightest hit to income is worth a complete about-face.
I don't think this one was entirely about the ad revenue. It's Keurig, not Nike or Budweiser. I think they just finally realized the potato was getting a bit too hot to hold.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I don't think this one was entirely about the ad revenue. It's Keurig, not Nike or Budweiser. I think they just finally realized the potato was getting a bit too hot to hold.
Keurig was one of nine advertisers to drop out. But apart from that nitpick I agree, the position Hannity staked was starting to look like a really bad idea. Once the Republican party began distancing themselves from Moore, Hannity was becoming a lone voice in the wilderness (unless you count Breitbart, and no-one should ever count Breitbart).
There are times when a career can survive and even flourish by taking a stand on an issue, Hannity got a large boost from backing Trump loud and proud early on, but defending Moore against sex allegations is probably not the place anyone wants to make a defining career moment.
whembly wrote: No... I most certainly did not. I've tried to stay away from politics at the mods behest... my silence on certain topics shouldn't be construed of... well... anything.
Dude. This was you, in this thread;
whembly wrote:Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore.
That doesn't "reflect" the GOP party anymore than Kennedy leaving a women to drown or BIll Clinton's issues reflect the Democratic party.
How is that 'trying to stay away from politics'?
You've known me a while... wasn't that me holding back?
When I started this thread and said I "Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?" that is in NO WAY to be interpreted that I think the pedo/rapist/sexual assaulters of the Hollywood bigwig as somehow be "representative" to Hollywood as a whole. In fact, it's very insulting that *this* is how you're framing your arguments in your attempt to get a pound of whembly-o-flesh.
I don't want a pound of flesh. That is not what this is about. Seriously dude, we've been doing this for years, there's a long list of times I've caught out this or that, I have no need to add one more to the pile.
What I want is there to be some conversation about how we view this stuff, how our bias and our own motivations cause us to view new allegations. Politics is a good way of showing this, because there's such an obvious switch in so many people, not just you, in how the accusation is addressed, based on which side the accuser belongs to.
Will you ever hold up a mirror before you talk about the GOP? Therein lies your answer.
This is you in the first couple of pages of the thread, regarding the accusations against Hollywood.
"its de jour in the industry"
"Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?"
"...and I'm sure there are fethloads of other executives who'd need to be exposed. I guess the whole "Casting Couch™" genre in porn is hitting pretty close to reality...eh?"
"At the same time, this is an industry that requires you to know the right people to be successful... and it appears, that many of those "people" abuse their position of power in despicable ways."
Aye... and? Isn't that an apt description of the "dark side of Hollywood"???
You see... this was me trying to have a discussion about.. yaknow Hollywood.
Later on, you attempt a defense of the GOP on the grounds that most of them had rescinded their support of Moore;
"Dude... most of the GOP party as rescinded their support of Moore. That doesn't "reflect" the GOP party anymore than Kennedy..."
Never mind that at that point there had been very few withdrawals of support, and most of what we'd seen was 'if true' dodges and some extremely weird defenses from Alabama GOP figures, the difference in those two approaches is telling.
Now, once again, this isn't to score internet points. I don't give a feth about that. It's about opening up some understanding about how we all engage with these accusations when they happen, how we will happily believe them when they suit us, but ignore, deny or oppose them when we find them threatening. And more than that, how we will ignore the failings in institutions that let these things happen, when we happen to benefit from or remain supportive of those institutions. Brian Cranston recently said he thought Weinstein and Spacey might find a way back - to people outside of Hollywood that sounds absurd, but we're not in that bubble. To people outside of the Republican bubble, the argument that the GOP mostly rescinded their support of Moore is also absurd.
If you or others think that is absurd, there really isn't much discuss.
I'm well comfortable at my first position in my opposition to Moore. Frankly, I'm very confused how you think I've arrived in opposite direction between Moore and Weinstein.
It is no more ridiculous than to claim Ted Kennedy letting a woman to die or that Bill Clinton's rape accusations is anymore indicative to the Democratic party as a whole.
Bill Clinton's various predatory acts isn't indicative, but the decision of the party and its supporters to ignore and normalise his behaviour must be owned by the Democratic Party. And it's been interesting to watch that realisation slowly develop, to see the Democrats start to realise they can't just talk the talk on women's issues, they need to walk the walk and treat predators as they should be treated.
Too little to late imo. Just this last year, during the runup of the election, you'd have the likes of CNN, MSNBC, WashingtonPost, etc... working oh so very hard to put an accused rapist and his enabler back in the White House.
So, when the Clintons are on the outs with national politics...now? NOW? It's kosher to start believing Clinton's accusers? The courageous thing to do is to believe his accusers then... not now.
You can recognized that Roy Moore is absolutely unqualified for the senate seat, without dragging the whole party on it's petard to flout out some virtual-signaling dick measuring contest.
The term is virtue signaling, and that's not what is happening. It as though there's a shortage of things to condemn the GOP over. But what Hannity did, what Breitbart did, what various Alabama GOP figures attempted to argue, that stuff shouldn't just be forgotten.
There *are* no shortage of things to condemn the GOP over... especially the despicable wagon-circling around Moore when the allegations started.
Likewise you can condemn the behaviors of the likes of Weinstein/Spacey/et el without dragging everyone else down in Hollywood.
Absolutely, but we can talk about how a large chunk of Hollywood worked to enable and cover for Weinstein and how that needs to change, just as should happen in many other places.
whembly wrote: I'm tired, cranky... been working my arse off. So I apologize for flipping out on you.
Hey I'm tired and cranky and I ain't been doing gak lately, so at least you have an excuse
Aye... and? Isn't that an apt description of the "dark side of Hollywood"???
You see... this was me trying to have a discussion about.. yaknow Hollywood.
But that's my point, you were happy to have a conversation about the dark side of Hollywood, you started a thread for that purpose. But when other people in the thread wanted to talk about the dark side of the GOP, you had to come in and give context, and talk about how it wasn't all dark.
In other words, when the subject was a group you don't hold dear, you were happy to focus in on that horrible part. When it is a group you have some level of identification, not only do you not want to focus in on that dark part, but when other people do focus in on it you feel the need to counter, and try and give some context.
I'm well comfortable at my first position in my opposition to Moore. Frankly, I'm very confused how you think I've arrived in opposite direction between Moore and Weinstein.
You haven't, I'm not claiming that. That is not what this is about.
Too little to late imo. Just this last year, during the runup of the election, you'd have the likes of CNN, MSNBC, WashingtonPost, etc... working oh so very hard to put an accused rapist and his enabler back in the White House.
So, when the Clintons are on the outs with national politics...now? NOW? It's kosher to start believing Clinton's accusers? The courageous thing to do is to believe his accusers then... not now.
I'll just look past the enabler stuff, that's a place that will get this thread locked. Enough to say I don't agree, and think that's a dangerous attitude, for reasons that have nothing to do with the Clintons. PM if you're interested.
Anyhow, I agree that there is a large element of political convenience, and I agree that's not good enough, but it is certainly better than never admitting it was ever a problem. It is a good start to finally start some change on this that some left wing commentators come forward and said their position about Clinton was wrong.
There *are* no shortage of things to condemn the GOP over... especially the despicable wagon-circling around Moore when the allegations started.
Yes, thankyou. But I'm trying to open the conversation more, because that in itself is just a beatstick against the Republicans. No different to the GOP moralising while the Democrats drew the wagons around Clinton. It scores points, whips up the base but does nothing to actually change the culture that lets this keep on happening.
What's needed, I think, as a first step is for people to admit that they are less inclined to believe the victim when the accused man fills an important role in institutions they personally benefit from. I've used the political aspect of it only because that's the area most people have been involved in at least a little, because not many of us are Weinstein Company investors, or on the board of New Republic. But most of us had opinions of Clinton, and of Trump and Moore. And if we're honest, we could admit our opinions on them and the organisations that protected them change dramatically based on political loyalties.
So maybe once we think about that, we might realise how it is that Moore is still leading in aggregates of polls in Alabama. How O'Reilly is slowly being welcomed back at FOX. How Clinton didn't just stay in office, but remained popular and was widely regarded as a feminist. How people thought Weiner needed a second chance (that he blew). Because people will ignore allegations if they allegation threaten their own political interests.
From there, when we consider politics is small, then think about stuff that really matters like our workplace and our own career, then its possible to understand why people in whole institutions might go in to denial, or even facilitate cover ups. It doesn't excuse what people did to cover for Weinstein or anyone else, but it helps explain it.
And once we've done all that, then we might start to talk about how we can fight against those tendencies that we all have. And then, maybe, we might start to move towards a place where people can't do this kind of thing for years.
whembly wrote:So, when the Clintons are on the outs with national politics...now? NOW? It's kosher to start believing Clinton's accusers? The courageous thing to do is to believe his accusers then... not now.
sebster wrote:What's needed, I think, as a first step is for people to admit that they are less inclined to believe the victim when the accused man fills an important role in institutions they personally benefit from. I've used the political aspect of it only because that's the area most people have been involved in at least a little, because not many of us are Weinstein Company investors, or on the board of New Republic. But most of us had opinions of Clinton, and of Trump and Moore. And if we're honest, we could admit our opinions on them and the organisations that protected them change dramatically based on political loyalties.
I'm quite sure I've fallen into this exact trap. I always thought Juanita Broaddrick was a little hard to swallow for... well, it was easy to find reasons why. As time has gone by though, I've wondered, especially over the course of the election when it was all rehashed again. I've now come to think that she's almost certainly telling the truth. Why do I believe her now? Her story hasn't changed, she hasn't gotten any more credible. I'd like to say because we've become more aware of how widespread sexual assault actually is, and how much more people understand that victims may take a very long time to come forward, and so on....but on some level I have to wonder how my bias comes into play. As Whembly says, now that it doesn't matter and in fact in some part HRC helped to put Trump in the White House, is that why I'm more inclined to see things in a light less favorable to my team? Just lame ass tribalism? I assume the answer has to be yes.
Don't forget that there was a lot of wolf-crying at the time, with scandals that never amounted to anything and investigations that turned up nada. It made it difficult to take any allegations against Clinton seriously. Now, after there has been time to sort through everything and the rate of claims, false or otherwise, has slowed down, it is easier to measure the accusations on their own merits rather than as a concerted bs blizzard.
Really, if you heard an allegation today that another prominent D was running a sex ring out of a sandwich shop, would you be inclined to take that seriously?
whembly wrote:So, when the Clintons are on the outs with national politics...now? NOW? It's kosher to start believing Clinton's accusers? The courageous thing to do is to believe his accusers then... not now.
sebster wrote:What's needed, I think, as a first step is for people to admit that they are less inclined to believe the victim when the accused man fills an important role in institutions they personally benefit from. I've used the political aspect of it only because that's the area most people have been involved in at least a little, because not many of us are Weinstein Company investors, or on the board of New Republic. But most of us had opinions of Clinton, and of Trump and Moore. And if we're honest, we could admit our opinions on them and the organisations that protected them change dramatically based on political loyalties.
I'm quite sure I've fallen into this exact trap. I always thought Juanita Broaddrick was a little hard to swallow for... well, it was easy to find reasons why. As time has gone by though, I've wondered, especially over the course of the election when it was all rehashed again. I've now come to think that she's almost certainly telling the truth. Why do I believe her now? Her story hasn't changed, she hasn't gotten any more credible. I'd like to say because we've become more aware of how widespread sexual assault actually is, and how much more people understand that victims may take a very long time to come forward, and so on....but on some level I have to wonder how my bias comes into play. As Whembly says, now that it doesn't matter and in fact in some part HRC helped to put Trump in the White House, is that why I'm more inclined to see things in a light less favorable to my team? Just lame ass tribalism? I assume the answer has to be yes.
Good on you for that introspection Ouze, seriously.
Can anything actually come from an ethics investigation? I'm honestly not really sure, but I've always had the impression that they don't accomplish anything meaningful.
The cynic in me, and yes maybe a little bit of partisanship as well, thinks that he may be calling for a toothless ethics investigation, to avoid giving up his seat. He can always say he owned up to it, and "insisted he be investigated" while knowing nothing would ever come of it.
That's why I ask. Cause if the Ethics Committee can do something substantial, then good on him for taking that route. If it's just his play at a get out of jail free card though...
However biased any of us are, at least we can say that calling for an ethics investigation of oneself is a bit more robust than denying everything and getting your friends to monster your accusers.
djones520 wrote: The cynic in me, and yes maybe a little bit of partisanship as well, thinks that he may be calling for a toothless ethics investigation, to avoid giving up his seat. He can always say he owned up to it, and "insisted he be investigated" while knowing nothing would ever come of it.
That's why I ask. Cause if the Ethics Committee can do something substantial, then good on him for taking that route. If it's just his play at a get out of jail free card though...
I guess it could depend on what they find. I assume that he called for it because it was an isolated incident, but I could be wrong. I hope I am right, but I could be wrong.
What I'm getting from all this is that men really are pigs.
I don't even know how much I am joking right now. This is a ripple with the past 40(?) years coming into focus and I am so grateful it is happening.
Imagine the alternative. All these men going through successful, esteemed careers and getting nice garlands on their caskets while their victims live in crazy land.
"No one will ever believe you."
"No one cares."
No wonder people hate existing power structures. No wonder.
djones520 wrote: The cynic in me, and yes maybe a little bit of partisanship as well, thinks that he may be calling for a toothless ethics investigation, to avoid giving up his seat. He can always say he owned up to it, and "insisted he be investigated" while knowing nothing would ever come of it.
That's why I ask. Cause if the Ethics Committee can do something substantial, then good on him for taking that route. If it's just his play at a get out of jail free card though...
I didn't look this up so it's entirely from memory, but I think that the main issue is that the Ethics Committee cannot actually do any sanctioning of any kind (at least in one of the chambers). I thin the way the process is supposed to work is for the Ethics Committee to do the actual investigation, release their findings,and recommend whatever sanctioning they think is appropriate. And then it is up to the Senate itself to actually follow through on that sanctioning to implement it. Basically the Ethics Commission is the prosecutor, and the Senate itself is the Jury/Judge.
But like I said, I'm typing this from memory about the some other time we talked about these bodies, so I could have things turned around in my head. But if that's the case then I think putting it before the Ethics Committee isn't a bad thing, let a bipartisan experienced body investigate if this impacts his work as a senator and then recommend any sanctions. But it's only really helpful if the Senate as a whole is then willing to implement whatever sanctions may be recommended.
Kilkrazy wrote: It would be pretty ballsy to call for an investigation if you know you're actually deep down in the doo-doo.
Though the hyper-cynic might say it was a super-cunning quintuple bluff. Or something.
"Hey guys, good news! I only wrote a script to tongue a female associate behind stage and then take a picture of myself fondling her breasts once so we're all good to go here!"
A hyper-cynic may also say handing it to the Ethics Committee is also a subtle reminder to all of them that they probably have their own skeletons in the closet on the same issue.... so maybe his colleagues should STFU about it?
I mean, didn't we hear their was a special congressional fund for dealing with such claims, and it has been used.... a lot?
Easy E wrote: A hyper-cynic may also say handing it to the Ethics Committee is also a subtle reminder to all of them that they probably have their own skeletons in the closet on the same issue.... so maybe his colleagues should STFU about it?
I mean, didn't we hear their was a special congressional fund for dealing with such claims, and it has been used.... a lot?
So a special fund has paid out 260 settlements totaling $15 million over the past 20 years.
The fund handles all types of workplace discrimination issues, so knowing the percentage of that total paid to victims of sexual harassment or misconduct is unknown. Unless I misread the whole thing...
Also, the details of the claims are not reviewed, even by the senior leadership that approves the payouts.
djones520 wrote: The cynic in me, and yes maybe a little bit of partisanship as well, thinks that he may be calling for a toothless ethics investigation, to avoid giving up his seat. He can always say he owned up to it, and "insisted he be investigated" while knowing nothing would ever come of it.
That's why I ask. Cause if the Ethics Committee can do something substantial, then good on him for taking that route. If it's just his play at a get out of jail free card though...
I guess it could depend on what they find. I assume that he called for it because it was an isolated incident, but I could be wrong. I hope I am right, but I could be wrong.
In my experience, there is very rarely just the single instance. Odds are, he's a repeat offender. Franken was a comedian before right? Wasn't there a discussion in here a little while ago about how the comedian circuit tries to cover this type of stuff up?
"Hey guys, good news! I only wrote a script to tongue a female associate behind stage and then take a picture of myself fondling her breasts once so we're all good to go here!"
Still, if it were true at least he'd be in a better spot than the freaking President of the United States.
Jeez... that's why he got in. It really was locker room talk. God have mercy on us as a nation. Lest we get what we deserve.
djones520 wrote: The cynic in me, and yes maybe a little bit of partisanship as well, thinks that he may be calling for a toothless ethics investigation, to avoid giving up his seat. He can always say he owned up to it, and "insisted he be investigated" while knowing nothing would ever come of it.
That's why I ask. Cause if the Ethics Committee can do something substantial, then good on him for taking that route. If it's just his play at a get out of jail free card though...
I guess it could depend on what they find. I assume that he called for it because it was an isolated incident, but I could be wrong. I hope I am right, but I could be wrong.
In my experience, there is very rarely just the single instance. Odds are, he's a repeat offender. Franken was a comedian before right? Wasn't there a discussion in here a little while ago about how the comedian circuit tries to cover this type of stuff up?
One part of me wants to say that there is a difference between someone who grabs a breast to go “haha funny” and someone who does it to exert power or sexual satisfaction.
But If you are a woman who has a random guy just grab your breast, does it really matter why he grabbed your breast?
djones520 wrote: The cynic in me, and yes maybe a little bit of partisanship as well, thinks that he may be calling for a toothless ethics investigation, to avoid giving up his seat. He can always say he owned up to it, and "insisted he be investigated" while knowing nothing would ever come of it.
That's why I ask. Cause if the Ethics Committee can do something substantial, then good on him for taking that route. If it's just his play at a get out of jail free card though...
I guess it could depend on what they find. I assume that he called for it because it was an isolated incident, but I could be wrong. I hope I am right, but I could be wrong.
In my experience, there is very rarely just the single instance. Odds are, he's a repeat offender. Franken was a comedian before right? Wasn't there a discussion in here a little while ago about how the comedian circuit tries to cover this type of stuff up?
One part of me wants to say that there is a difference between someone who grabs a breast to go “haha funny” and someone who does it to exert power or sexual satisfaction.
But If you are a woman who has a random guy just grab your breast, does it really matter why he grabbed your breast?
The kissing part certainly seemed an exertion of power in my eyes. My eyes are very jaded on the topic though, as I explained towards the beginning of this thread.
I was looking at it more from a generalized “cop a feel to be funny” aspect that happens a lot in society. I admit that I can be inclined to think that “a joke” is different from “an assault”. I had similar thoughts after Bush Sr and thinking “that’s not a sexual predator” and instead thinking “that’s just regular dirty old man stuff”.
My wife is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, and I don’t take sexual abuse lightly. At least I thought I didn’t, but then I look at my internal justifications of “it was a joke” and “dirty old man is gonna be dirty” for situations like that and realize just how easy it is to normalize things like that.
I’ve had to do a lot more soul searching within myself over this past month, that’s for sure. How can I change my own behavior and tolerances for behavior to make this world better for my daughters?
d-usa wrote: I was looking at it more from a generalized “cop a feel to be funny” aspect that happens a lot in society. I admit that I can be inclined to think that “a joke” is different from “an assault”. I had similar thoughts after Bush Sr and thinking “that’s not a sexual predator” and instead thinking “that’s just regular dirty old man stuff”.
My wife is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, and I don’t take sexual abuse lightly. At least I thought I didn’t, but then I look at my internal justifications of “it was a joke” and “dirty old man is gonna be dirty” for situations like that and realize just how easy it is to normalize things like that.
I’ve had to do a lot more soul searching within myself over this past month, that’s for sure. How can I change my own behavior and tolerances for behavior to make this world better for my daughters?
Teach them guns. All the guns. My daughter will be a better shot then both my sons combined.
One part of me wants to say that there is a difference between someone who grabs a breast to go “haha funny” and someone who does it to exert power or sexual satisfaction.
But If you are a woman who has a random guy just grab your breast, does it really matter why he grabbed your breast?
Did you read the Al Franken link Easy E posted? It wasn't a 'haha funny.' It was a 'I'm not going to let you ignore/escape from me.'
In seriousness, that just puts the responsibility for stopping things like that on women. I know this could be part of the whole “sissyfication of America” complaint that gets thrown around at times, but the seeds for behavior like this get started early. “Boys will be boys” is a saying that needs to be gone.
This summer my mother and grandmother were talking about how my 4 year old is going to have a nice butt when she grows up. I asked them to stop sexualizing my pre-schooler because she will have enough time to worry about being “pretty” when she’s older, and to let her be a freaking child. We do the “tell everyone goodnight, give hugs and kisses” routine, and if my daughter doesn’t want to give any hugs and kisses to mom or dad it’s a simple “okay, have a good night”. They are her hugs and kisses to give away, not anyone else’s to take, even at 4 years old. When teaching her to smile for school pictures we focused on telling her to “look happy” and not to “look pretty”. We try to reinforce her measure of herself by what she can do, because everyone telling her “you’re so pretty” just teaches her that looks matter most.
Yesterday we walked by the pool to the gym and she wanted to swim, so I reminded her that we didn’t bring our swimming clothes. She replied “because I don’t have a swimming shirt, and I have to wear a shirt because I’m not a boy”. It’s probably my European upbringing, but that comment made me sad and angry. The fact that my 4-year old daughters chest is a sexual thing that must be hidden says more about us as a society than anything else. And at 4 years old she is already learning that her body is something she must hide.
It’s rambling now, but until we can learn to be comfortable with “normal” sexuality how can we expect to raise children of both genders with healthy outlooks on their bodies, sex, and consent?
One part of me wants to say that there is a difference between someone who grabs a breast to go “haha funny” and someone who does it to exert power or sexual satisfaction.
But If you are a woman who has a random guy just grab your breast, does it really matter why he grabbed your breast?
Did you read the Al Franken link Easy E posted? It wasn't a 'haha funny.' It was a 'I'm not going to let you ignore/escape from me.'
At least from the testimony of the accuser.
If it was a “haha, funny” tit-grab, would it have been okay? Would it have been better?
Scrabb wrote: What I'm getting from all this is that men really are pigs.
I don't even know how much I am joking right now. This is a ripple with the past 40(?) years coming into focus and I am so grateful it is happening.
Imagine the alternative. All these men going through successful, esteemed careers and getting nice garlands on their caskets while their victims live in crazy land.
"No one will ever believe you."
"No one cares."
No wonder people hate existing power structures. No wonder.
As a man, I don't understand it. I do not fething understand what is so goddam hard about just. not. doing. that. How much of a fething animal do you have to be to justify actions like this. I don't get it. I would make a comparison to zoo animals and being locked up like one, but that would be an insult to zoo animals.
@Musketeer, this reminds me of when I learned other kids didn't necessarily have parents with their best interests at heart. It's all I'd ever known so when I heard kids complaining about their parents I'd always go "yeah right, he's exaggerating" in the back of my mind. But they were telling the truth. And I just couldn't wrap my head around it.
djones520 wrote: The cynic in me, and yes maybe a little bit of partisanship as well, thinks that he may be calling for a toothless ethics investigation, to avoid giving up his seat. He can always say he owned up to it, and "insisted he be investigated" while knowing nothing would ever come of it.
That's why I ask. Cause if the Ethics Committee can do something substantial, then good on him for taking that route. If it's just his play at a get out of jail free card though...
I guess it could depend on what they find. I assume that he called for it because it was an isolated incident, but I could be wrong. I hope I am right, but I could be wrong.
In my experience, there is very rarely just the single instance. Odds are, he's a repeat offender. Franken was a comedian before right? Wasn't there a discussion in here a little while ago about how the comedian circuit tries to cover this type of stuff up?
Yes, that is what will help us understand the "nature" of this case. Was it just poor USO tour "locker room" humor, or was it part of a wider predatory nature.
Either way, if he wanted to run for President, the dream is over now that this picture is out.
Al Franken wrote:The first thing I want to do is apologize: to Leeann, to everyone else who was part of that tour, to everyone who has worked for me, to everyone I represent, and to everyone who counts on me to be an ally and supporter and champion of women. There's more I want to say, but the first and most important thing—and if it's the only thing you care to hear, that's fine—is: I'm sorry.
I respect women. I don't respect men who don't. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed.
But I want to say something else, too. Over the last few months, all of us—including and especially men who respect women—have been forced to take a good, hard look at our own actions and think (perhaps, shamefully, for the first time) about how those actions have affected women.
For instance, that picture. I don't know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn't matter. There's no excuse. I look at it now and I feel disgusted with myself. It isn't funny. It's completely inappropriate. It's obvious how Leeann would feel violated by that picture. And, what's more, I can see how millions of other women would feel violated by it—women who have had similar experiences in their own lives, women who fear having those experiences, women who look up to me, women who have counted on me.
Coming from the world of comedy, I've told and written a lot of jokes that I once thought were funny but later came to realize were just plain offensive. But the intentions behind my actions aren't the point at all. It's the impact these jokes had on others that matters. And I'm sorry it's taken me so long to come to terms with that.
While I don't remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does, I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences.
I am asking that an ethics investigation be undertaken, and I will gladly cooperate.
And the truth is, what people think of me in light of this is far less important than what people think of women who continue to come forward to tell their stories. They deserve to be heard, and believed. And they deserve to know that I am their ally and supporter. I have let them down and am committed to making it up to them.
Tweeden has accepted Franken's apology:
Leeann Tweeden wrote:“Yes, people make mistakes and, of course, he knew he made a mistake,” she said at a news conference in Los Angeles, where she works as a radio news anchor for KABC. She said she would leave any disciplinary action up to Senate leaders and was not calling for Franken to step down. “That’s up to them. I’m not demanding that.”
d-usa wrote: I was looking at it more from a generalized “cop a feel to be funny” aspect that happens a lot in society. I admit that I can be inclined to think that “a joke” is different from “an assault”. I had similar thoughts after Bush Sr and thinking “that’s not a sexual predator” and instead thinking “that’s just regular dirty old man stuff”.
My wife is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, and I don’t take sexual abuse lightly. At least I thought I didn’t, but then I look at my internal justifications of “it was a joke” and “dirty old man is gonna be dirty” for situations like that and realize just how easy it is to normalize things like that.
I’ve had to do a lot more soul searching within myself over this past month, that’s for sure. How can I change my own behavior and tolerances for behavior to make this world better for my daughters?
Teach them guns. All the guns. My daughter will be a better shot then both my sons combined.
That's not good enough and it also often doesn't work. Like somebody else already mentioned that puts the burden on women. And further, do you know how she will react under stress (and not in a controlled environment)? What if she just panics and freezes instead of shooting if somebody were to attack her, like this (scroll a bit to the top for the start of the thread)?
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Spoiler:
Scrabb wrote: What I'm getting from all this is that men really are pigs.
I don't even know how much I am joking right now. This is a ripple with the past 40(?) years coming into focus and I am so grateful it is happening.
Imagine the alternative. All these men going through successful, esteemed careers and getting nice garlands on their caskets while their victims live in crazy land.
"No one will ever believe you."
"No one cares."
No wonder people hate existing power structures. No wonder.
As a man, I don't understand it. I do not fething understand what is so goddam hard about just. not. doing. that. How much of a fething animal do you have to be to justify actions like this. I don't get it. I would make a comparison to zoo animals and being locked up like one, but that would be an insult to zoo animals.
It's not just men, women in power do that too but in our society we have more men in power so we end up with many more instances of men doing these horrible things. I think it's probably partly to blame on the hedonic treadmill because we get used to stuff so we need more extreme versions to feel excitement.
Hedonic adaptation is a process or mechanism that reduces the affective impact of emotional events. Generally, hedonic adaptation involves a happiness "set point", whereby humans generally maintain a constant level of happiness throughout their lives, despite events that occur in their environment.[2][4] The process of hedonic adaptation is often conceptualized as a treadmill, since one must continually work to maintain a certain level of happiness. Others conceptualize hedonic adaptation as functioning similarly to a thermostat (a negative feedback system) that works to maintain an individual's happiness set point. One of the main concerns of positive psychology is determining how to maintain or raise one's happiness set point, and further, what kind of practices lead to lasting happiness.
Whatever Weinstein (for example) needed sexually or what he found exciting got worse over time (in addition to him having grown up in a decade with different moral expectations). Add all the power and influence (people do all kinda of stuff for you because you can help them and they tend to not disagree with you too much) and how that also gets affected and you end up with somebody who needs more transgressive experiences because the regular consent is not interesting anymore (and people already do all kinds of things for you). And he can already buy whatever he wants with his money (or hire prostitutes) so things escalate.
This is not an excuse for his behaviour because everybody learns to use their willpower to function in civilised society. Even dogs can be taught/trained to not steal the steak off the plate no matter how longingly they look at it and want a bite. So Weinstein should be able to control himself but with more power come more extreme needs but also means to fulfil them (like hiring ex-Mossad agents to suppress allegations …):
John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men,..."
That's why we find large scale abuse in the shadows of powerful institutions (be it Hollywood, politics, military, academia, religion, corporations, or anything else).
I have no idea if Franken calling for an ethics investigation in to himself is a stunt or not. I do know that both of Franken's apologies were crap. Also a lot of the coverage is also crap. Everyone is focusing on the photo, and calling it evidence he groped her. But he's not touching her. That doesn't make it okay, it's still objectifying her, but the claim of groping elevates the issue, turns the claim in to something this is not, and buries the really serious parts of the allegation. Franken himself buries the worst part of the accusation, that's why his apology is crap.
The first really bad thing Franken was accused of is use his position to contrive a scene where he kisses Tweeden. The second thing he did is after being rebuffed - he isolated her, only spoke to her in petty insults. Both of those things are very serious. In contrast, pretending to grope her in a funny photo is awful, but the other two are direct uses of power to force intimate contact from a women, and then punish her when she refused - and those are despicable acts.
Anyhow, been interesting to follow the reaction to this. On the right it seems all of the people who kept adding 'if true' to their comments about Moore... have given almost identical statements about Franken, albeit without the 'if true' part, somehow this time all their doubts never surfaced. On the left the response has been one of two types on the whole. Well, three types if you include that one guy who claimed Tweeden's statement was linked to Roger Stone, and that Tweeden gave to McCain in 2008 so therefore the claim was dodgy or something... feth that guy, unfollow. But apart from that one guy, what we've seen has been either 'Franken did a horrible thing', or 'Franken did a horrible thing, same as Trump'.
That's not perfect by any means. But there is progress of a sort, because on the right slowly a lot of those right wingers are dropping the 'if true', and on the left that whataboutism appears in the minority to me, and has been of the 'both Franken and Trump should be punished' variety, not the 'Trump isn't punished so nor should Franken be' variety.
So we are in a lot better place than where we've been before now.
Ouze wrote: I'm quite sure I've fallen into this exact trap. I always thought Juanita Broaddrick was a little hard to swallow for... well, it was easy to find reasons why. As time has gone by though, I've wondered, especially over the course of the election when it was all rehashed again. I've now come to think that she's almost certainly telling the truth. Why do I believe her now? Her story hasn't changed, she hasn't gotten any more credible. I'd like to say because we've become more aware of how widespread sexual assault actually is, and how much more people understand that victims may take a very long time to come forward, and so on....but on some level I have to wonder how my bias comes into play. As Whembly says, now that it doesn't matter and in fact in some part HRC helped to put Trump in the White House, is that why I'm more inclined to see things in a light less favorable to my team? Just lame ass tribalism? I assume the answer has to be yes.
Thankyou, well said, and my own experience is much the same. I actually find it quite difficult to explain how there was a time when I saw Clinton actions with Lewinsky as just a blow job, and somehow missed that it was the President of the United States initiating sex with an intern, which is a plainly disgraceful abuse of power. While it's true that almost everyone missed that core issue at the time, including most Republican accusers (who focused instead on the adultery and the perjury), that's not a real excuse, because the primary reason I defined the Lewinsky affair down to something I could ignore is because I supported Clinton politically.
And yeah, whembly is right, this all too late to make a difference to Clinton's time in Washington. But it at least is a chance of changing the conversation, and changing the culture of how we address these things moving forward.
So a special fund has paid out 260 settlements totaling $15 million over the past 20 years.
Nobody reads the posts I make, nobody knows their content...
(sung to the tune of Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen)
Anyhow, I posted that like 4 pages ago You are right that there's a few issues with exactly what that $15m makes up, it could also include non-sexual harrassment elements, which makes the $15m figure meaningless (as other forms of worker's comp could make up $14m of the $15m). But even just failing to seperately track sexual harrassment shows congress has not taken this issue seriously enough.
sebster wrote: And here's a stat for everyone - a member of the House yesterday reported that in the last 10 to 15 years $15 million has been paid out by a special fund to victims of sexual harassment. Whether that's just harrasment by members of the House or if it also includes their senior staff, I don't know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: In my experience, there is very rarely just the single instance. Odds are, he's a repeat offender. Franken was a comedian before right? Wasn't there a discussion in here a little while ago about how the comedian circuit tries to cover this type of stuff up?
Yeah, I posted something a while back, a radio conversation I heard with... some lady... talking about the Cosby scandal. She talked about the comedy industry being a huge number of acts that make little money, with the whole system being propped up by a small number of big name, highly profitable stars, which led to a strong motive to protect those few cash cows. She said Cosby wasn't the only one like that, the interviewer asked if she was asking about Louis CK, and she avoided answering that question while heavily implying yes but not only him, if you get what I mean.
So Franken gets added to that list, and it also makes me suspect there will probably be more accusations coming out against him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: “Boys will be boys” is a saying that needs to be gone.
Yes. Boys will be what we make them to be.
This summer my mother and grandmother were talking about how my 4 year old is going to have a nice butt when she grows up. I asked them to stop sexualizing my pre-schooler because she will have enough time to worry about being “pretty” when she’s older, and to let her be a freaking child. We do the “tell everyone goodnight, give hugs and kisses” routine, and if my daughter doesn’t want to give any hugs and kisses to mom or dad it’s a simple “okay, have a good night”. They are her hugs and kisses to give away, not anyone else’s to take, even at 4 years old. When teaching her to smile for school pictures we focused on telling her to “look happy” and not to “look pretty”. We try to reinforce her measure of herself by what she can do, because everyone telling her “you’re so pretty” just teaches her that looks matter most.
My four year old has started saying she doesn't want any more food because it will make her fat. That is a terrifying thing to hear from a four year old. It's not a huge problem for her at this point, because it's really just a concept a thing she's parroting - at other times she'll sit there eating as many twisties as we'll let her, and other times still she'll eat her whole meal saying she wants to grow strong, and then when she's finished she'll flex her biceps to show how strong she is. But the idea that's she's familiar with that concept at all is terrifying.
sebster wrote: at other times she'll sit there eating as many twisties as we'll let her
As a side note, the next time you guys get bummed over Australian pricing, keep in mind we have to pay 29AUD for a 270g bag of twisties, so who is really suffering.
Ouze wrote: As a side note, the next time you guys get bummed over Australian pricing, keep in mind we have to pay 29AUD for a 270g bag of twisties, so who is really suffering.
Wha? You can get a packet for like 90 cents?
I mean, there's some silly markups on American stuff like Hersheys, but it's more like triple the price, not 30 times, and it doesn't matter because Hershey's sucks.
sebster wrote: I have no idea if Franken calling for an ethics investigation in to himself is a stunt or not. I do know that both of Franken's apologies were crap. Also a lot of the coverage is also crap. Everyone is focusing on the photo, and calling it evidence he groped her. But he's not touching her. That doesn't make it okay, it's still objectifying her, but the claim of groping elevates the issue, turns the claim in to something this is not, and buries the really serious parts of the allegation. Franken himself buries the worst part of the accusation, that's why his apology is crap.
The first really bad thing Franken was accused of is use his position to contrive a scene where he kisses Tweeden. The second thing he did is after being rebuffed - he isolated her, only spoke to her in petty insults. Both of those things are very serious. In contrast, pretending to grope her in a funny photo is awful, but the other two are direct uses of power to force intimate contact from a women, and then punish her when she refused - and those are despicable acts.
On the other hand he could be genuinely sorry for what he did and apologizing for the 'groping' incident as a proxy for the whole thing since that's the buzz word being thrown around by the media right now. He definitely goes out of his way to include more than just the picture. Now I'm not saying he is, it's just that his actions could represent someone repentant or someone acting in order to appear so. That he called for an ethics investigation could be a stunt, but could just as easily be someone trying to turn a corner on their past and do the right thing. I think passing judgement on him either way is premature at the moment, as opposed to individuals like Moore where the evidence is both overwhelming and damming.
NinthMusketeer wrote: On the other hand he could be genuinely sorry for what he did and apologizing for the 'groping' incident as a proxy for the whole thing since that's the buzz word being thrown around by the media right now. He definitely goes out of his way to include more than just the picture. Now I'm not saying he is, it's just that his actions could represent someone repentant or someone acting in order to appear so. That he called for an ethics investigation could be a stunt, but could just as easily be someone trying to turn a corner on their past and do the right thing. I think passing judgement on him either way is premature at the moment, as opposed to individuals like Moore where the evidence is both overwhelming and damming.
Franken's approach has certainly been better than Moore's. But that's a low bar to be honest, Moore was an awful person who did awful things, even before we knew about his predations.
This is the part that in Franken's apology I'm trying to get my head around;
"While I don't remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does, I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences."
It's a good line, if what happened was a genuine misunderstanding. If Franken's actions were as cynical as Tweeden claims, then Franken's comment was just a well crafted line in a damage control exercise. What makes me concerned that it might be the latter is that first awful apology, and that even in the second, much improved apology Franken didn't really address how he treated her after the incident at the audition.
Franken doesn't come out and say "I did it!" and he really shouldn't, as that would make things worse for him politcally/criminally speaking. (Warning: Not an Expert!)
However, he does an excellent job of saying I am sorry, and keeping the focus on the larger issue of women being sexual harassed. That is great spin doctoring and politics. He tries to take himself out of the picture and put the focus on the issue and how he is going to help solve it going forward. PR Master class right there.
He should never have made that Twitter apology and instead kept his powder dry for this one.
**** That being said, I have heard there is similar Sexual Harassment going on in UK politics as well? Is that true? How are the Brits handling the issue?****
loads of behind the scenes talking amongst the leaders about how things have to change but no real action so far
above and beyond the general potential for harassment etc at present every one of the 650 MPs is responsible for hiring their own staff to work for them in parliament so they're the ones their staff would have to take complaints to which clearly isn't going to happen so they might manage to make parliament the employer of all the staff who would then at least be able to have some sort of HR process but we wait to see
and one suspension in the welsh regional assembly with little or no reason given (other than an accusation has been made) lead to the suicide of the suspended MP who felt he couldn't fight things as he didn't know what he was accused of
(he could have been guilty of something significant eg an assault, something much less significant eg a sexually inappropriate environment or even nothing we have no idea and his suicide shouldn't be taken as any sort of admission of wrongdoing as some of the press seems to be doing)
Easy E wrote: Franken doesn't come out and say "I did it!" and he really shouldn't, as that would make things worse for him politcally/criminally speaking. (Warning: Not an Expert!)
However, he does an excellent job of saying I am sorry, and keeping the focus on the larger issue of women being sexual harassed. That is great spin doctoring and politics. He tries to take himself out of the picture and put the focus on the issue and how he is going to help solve it going forward. PR Master class right there.
He should never have made that Twitter apology and instead kept his powder dry for this one.
**** That being said, I have heard there is similar Sexual Harassment going on in UK politics as well? Is that true? How are the Brits handling the issue?****
n a textbook example of why Facebook users should pause for a moment of reflection before they post, a Democratic candidate for Ohio governor sought Friday to get ahead of any potential sex scandals by announcing the details of his relationships with 50 women.
The sexcapade diary was in response to the Al Franken scandal, and included a hayloft romp with a "gorgeous blonde" and a fling with a "red head from Cleveland."
“Now that the dogs of war are calling for the head of Senator Al Franken I believe it is time to speak up on behalf of all heterosexual males,” Ohio Supreme Court Justice Bill O’Neill posted on Facebook. “As a candidate for Governor let me save my opponents some research time.”
O’Neill went on to say: “In the last fifty years I was sexually intimate with approximately 50 very attractive females. It ranged from a gorgeous blonde who was my first true love and we made passionate love in the hayloft of her parent’s barn and ended with a drop dead gorgeous red head from Cleveland.”
n a textbook example of why Facebook users should pause for a moment of reflection before they post, a Democratic candidate for Ohio governor sought Friday to get ahead of any potential sex scandals by announcing the details of his relationships with 50 women.
The sexcapade diary was in response to the Al Franken scandal, and included a hayloft romp with a "gorgeous blonde" and a fling with a "red head from Cleveland."
“Now that the dogs of war are calling for the head of Senator Al Franken I believe it is time to speak up on behalf of all heterosexual males,” Ohio Supreme Court Justice Bill O’Neill posted on Facebook. “As a candidate for Governor let me save my opponents some research time.”
O’Neill went on to say: “In the last fifty years I was sexually intimate with approximately 50 very attractive females. It ranged from a gorgeous blonde who was my first true love and we made passionate love in the hayloft of her parent’s barn and ended with a drop dead gorgeous red head from Cleveland.”
Just...really?
Spoiler:
Because crap like that, boasting about your ability to have lots of women, is part of the fething problem.
n a textbook example of why Facebook users should pause for a moment of reflection before they post, a Democratic candidate for Ohio governor...
As well as being a tone deaf ass who seems to have almost no clue as to what the people in the recent scandals actually did wrong, this idiot should never be elected to a remotely serious job just because he cannot write for gak. Just read this sentence...
"It ranged from a gorgeous personal secretary to Senator Bob Taft (Senior) who was my first true love and we made love in the hayloft of her parent's barn in Gallipolis and ended with a drop dead gorgeous red head who was a senior advisor to Peter Lewis at Progressive Insurance i Cleveland." Sure, if we carry on to the end of that painful run on sentence it eventually becomes clear that it was Bob Taft's personal secretary who was his first love, but I spent most of that wild ride thinking the guy had sex with Bob Taft Sr, who was his first love.
Anyhow, I'm guessing there isn't much to do in Ohio other than get caught up in sex scandals, because...
"On a fall evening two years ago, donors gathered during a conference at a Ritz-Carlton hotel near Washington to raise funds for a 31-year-old candidate for the Ohio legislature who was a rising star in evangelical politics. Hours later, upstairs in a hotel guest room, an 18-year-old college student who had come to the event with his parents said the candidate unzipped his pants and fondled him in the middle of the night. The frightened teenager fled the room and told his mother and stepfather, who demanded action from the head of the organization hosting the conference."
Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council and Council for National Policy, and a very powerful fundraiser and leader in evangelical Republican circles took the matter in hand. He asked the candidate, Wesley Goodman, to step down, and wrote him a letter in which it is clear Perkins knew of other incidets prior to this one. But Goodman did not step down, and Perkins responded to that by keeping silent about the whole thing and watching Goodman win the primary and general and take a seat on the Ohio legislature. After this, Perkins kept silent about this for the next two years, because his priority was to discretely... oh hang on it was a cover up, wasn't it? One of the most powerful evangelical activists in the country was told one his allied politicians preyed on a teenage boy and responded by just covering it up and letting the man continue to accrue political power.
And of course, Perkins wasn't the only person aware of the event, emails have since surfaced showing several insiders discussing the issue. None of them did a thing about Goodman taking and holding his seat in Ohio.
The incident has now come to light and Goodman has stood down from his seat. He's almost certainly toast, whatever has changed lately, the old rule about a dead girl or a live boy still holds. But I wonder if Tony Perkins will manage to slide on this? While he is a very powerful figure, one of the kingmakers who brought Trump the evangelical vote, he isn't a public figure, the people who actually know him are the ones to whom he is very important politically and financially... I think it will barely impact him at all.
ransparent star Jeffrey Tambor has announced he may be leaving the hit Amazon series after two women accused him of sexual harassment.
Tambor continues to deny the allegations leveled this month by one of his co-stars on the show and by his former assistant. But the actor intimated his departure from the show, in a statement provided to NPR, due to a recent "politicized atmosphere" on the set.
"Playing Maura Pfefferman on 'Transparent' has been one of the greatest privileges and creative experiences of my life," Tambor said. "What has become clear over the past weeks, however, is that this is no longer the job I signed up for four years ago. I've already made clear my deep regret if any action of mine was ever misinterpreted by anyone as being aggressive, but the idea that I would deliberately harass anyone is simply and utterly untrue. Given the politicized atmosphere that seems to have afflicted our set, I don't see how I can return to 'Transparent.' "
According to Deadline, which first broke the news on Sunday, the first allegation against Tambor was made by his former assistant and transgender actress Van Barnes. In a private Facebook post earlier this month, Barnes claimed her former boss, without naming Tambor, had sexually harassed and groped her, prompting Amazon Studios officials to open an investigation into the matter.
Just more than a week later, his transgender co-star Trace Lysette released a statement that Tambor "made many sexual advances and comments at me, but one time it got physical." She proceeds to describe an instance in which he pressed up against the actress and "began quick, discreet thrusts back and forth" against her, in between filming.
In response to the allegations, Tambor admitted he "can be volatile and ill-tempered ... But I have never been a predator – ever."
When news dropped of the network's investigation, Deadline reports that Transparent writers considered writing Tambor's central character Maura out of the upcoming fifth season.
Still, Tambor has yet to officially quit the show. A source close to the show says no final decision about next season has been made by Tambor or Amazon.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, a second story comes out about Al Franken....
An Oklahoma state senator, Republican Ralph Shortey, will be pleading guilty this week to child sex trafficking. Which to be honest sounds a lot worse than it really is - what he did was hire a 17 year old boy on craig's list to have sex with him. Which is all kinds of wrong, of course, but not what comes to mind when you hear 'child sex trafficking'. Anyway, it carries a minimum 10 year terms, so police are not screwing around with this.
Easy E wrote: Also, a second story comes out about Al Franken....
Yeah, that's two stories now, in both cases victims told their friends and family at the time, who have verified the story, and while the patterns of behaviour from Franken are not as similar as we see in the Trump or Weinstein claims, they're certainly both of the same kind. Pretty damning for Franken, I think.
This "moment" (for lack of a better word around what is happening now) is going to have a long, long reach in Hollywood, Washington, and the Journalism world. I am surprised we are not hearing more about CEO's and similar business leaders yet.
Seriously, why?
If your anecdote is 'this never happened to me when I was young,' shut your pie-hole.
Because he is Morrissey and he has an album out.
Well that doesn't sound like Morrissey. Wouldn't he have to interact with people to produce an album?
Not sure that weighing in on the wrong side of this mess will help sell an album, either
This "moment" (for lack of a better word around what is happening now) is going to have a long, long reach in Hollywood, Washington, and the Journalism world. I am surprised we are not hearing more about CEO's and similar business leaders yet.
This "moment" (for lack of a better word around what is happening now) is going to have a long, long reach in Hollywood, Washington, and the Journalism world. I am surprised we are not hearing more about CEO's and similar business leaders yet.
My wife and I were talking about this at dinner.
We don't know that gak isn't going down in the business world, do we? These aren't necessarily high profile people (with notable exceptions). Can you name the CEO and officers of Goodyear Tire or Target without using google or wiki-pedia? It's in the business' best interests to keep gak quiet so they don't lose customers/clients. If a CEO, VP, whatever is asked to step down due to gross misconduct (sleeping with a secretary, quid pro quo, hitting on the intern), they may issue a statement like "Bob is leaving the company to pursue other options", throw some $$$ at the victim, and move on.
Through a friend of an HR supervisor, I know of a company just outside of the Fortune 500 that recently lost their CEO for messing around with a director's assistant who turned over the emails from the CEO to HR. Within a few days, his company has a new CEO, the previous CEO is transitioning into a new stage of his personal life or some such BS, and the assistant got a check and some considerable personal leave...
This "moment" (for lack of a better word around what is happening now) is going to have a long, long reach in Hollywood, Washington, and the Journalism world. I am surprised we are not hearing more about CEO's and similar business leaders yet.
My wife and I were talking about this at dinner.
We don't know that gak isn't going down in the business world, do we? These aren't necessarily high profile people (with notable exceptions). Can you name the CEO and officers of Goodyear Tire or Target without using google or wiki-pedia? It's in the business' best interests to keep gak quiet so they don't lose customers/clients. If a CEO, VP, whatever is asked to step down due to gross misconduct (sleeping with a secretary, quid pro quo, hitting on the intern), they may issue a statement like "Bob is leaving the company to pursue other options", throw some $$$ at the victim, and move on.
True, must corporate bigwigs aren't household names, but the corporations themselves are. Anyway, there has been some crossover, as the guy in charge of Amazon's entertainment division is out.
True, must corporate bigwigs aren't household names, but the corporations themselves are. Anyway, there has been some crossover, as the guy in charge of Amazon's entertainment division is out.
That's not to say we won't see it, though. Unless the company is high profile (Amazon), they'll likely just get lost in the local evening news...
True, must corporate bigwigs aren't household names, but the corporations themselves are. Anyway, there has been some crossover, as the guy in charge of Amazon's entertainment division is out.
That's not to say we won't see it, though. Unless the company is high profile (Amazon), they'll likely just get lost in the local evening news...
That is sort of my concern with all of this happening at once. It's hard to keep up with the latest scandal and some names may get brushed aside or forgotten with the sheer glut of it all. Of course, the perceived annonimity may be a reason more women are willing to speak up, which is good, but only exacerbates the glut. People's attention spans are short and limited in scope, so some offenders might get swept under the rug of it all.
As long as this results in a permanently improved environment for everyone involved, does it really matter if we find out about every single person though?
I'm not sure it does though. It sort of feels like spectacle. Some people get fired, others take their place. Are they really any better? It really needs a whole cultural paradigm shift. Maybe this is a sign of that and the individuals don't really matter anyway.
d-usa wrote: As long as this results in a permanently improved environment for everyone involved, does it really matter if we find out about every single person though?
I get my kicks from schadenfreude, but I suppose improving the work environment for everyone is almost as important as my entertainment...
Still bummed about the "Hey, now!" guy. I always like his sad-sap, dead-pan characters.
kronk wrote: We don't know that gak isn't going down in the business world, do we? These aren't necessarily high profile people (with notable exceptions). Can you name the CEO and officers of Goodyear Tire or Target without using google or wiki-pedia? It's in the business' best interests to keep gak quiet so they don't lose customers/clients. If a CEO, VP, whatever is asked to step down due to gross misconduct (sleeping with a secretary, quid pro quo, hitting on the intern), they may issue a statement like "Bob is leaving the company to pursue other options", throw some $$$ at the victim, and move on.
If that is what's happening, it's a vast improvement over the state of play a couple of months ago, when it was standard for the company to throw a pile of money at the woman, and let the predator keep his job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm not sure it does though. It sort of feels like spectacle. Some people get fired, others take their place. Are they really any better? It really needs a whole cultural paradigm shift. Maybe this is a sign of that and the individuals don't really matter anyway.
That's what I'm hoping is happening. Personally, I don't care that much if each individual gets a full public shaming. What I want is to move society forward, to a point where women feel they can come forward without being attacked, and that their stories will be believed. And on that level we've made amazing ground.
I mean, sure Roy Moore might still win his senate seat, but that's just partisan politics, Charles Manson could probably win in Alabama with an R next to his name. What's amazing is that even with such a strong partisan reason to deny the accusations, many people, including Moore supporters, are still saying they believe the women. Compare that to a year ago, when throughout the campaign people fought to get the accusations against Trump put in the spotlight and could not do it, until they finally got it to put in the national media with the Access Hollywood video. Even then many people were comfortable claiming that all those women with similar stories must be lying. That isn't possible now, and that's a great change, if we can sustain it.
I wouldn't count on that, there's still a large chunk who will protect their party members no matter how young of a girl they need to insult and call liars and claim those 14 year old girls seduced them.
it's amazing how many people are actually saying, better a pedophile than a democrat. and it's no surprise which one the pres endorsed.
sirlynchmob wrote: it's amazing how many people are actually saying, better a pedophile than a democrat. and it's no surprise which one the pres endorsed.
Yeah, but in saying 'okay he's a pedophile but at least he's not a Democrat'... that is actually a progress of a kind. Because at least with that we've seen people accept the reality that the women aren't all lying.
A year ago, that didn't happen. Back then, there were 17 women who all had very believable stories, all showing very similar patterns of behaviour against Trump, and then we got a video of Trump bragging about doing exactly what the accuser's claimed... and the response was denial. That Trump's brag was locker room talk, and the women we all liars.
At least now we've got to a point where at least some people will not pretend that all those women must liars. And it's cost Moore enough votes that he might lose despite being a Republican in Alabama.
Sure, the flip side is that Trump and some others like him still think there's scope to call all those women liars, but you'd expect that.
**** For those who do not know the /S means End Sarcasm. This comment was sarcastic and meant to point out the ridiculousness of the situation being reported on.
**** For those who do not know the /S means End Sarcasm. This comment was sarcastic and meant to point out the ridiculousness of the situation being reported on.
I understood before you're disclaimer. Good job. I'm chuckling
Yeah, Breitbart took a shot at undermining the WaPo article, and all their research managed to do was reveal that the WaPo talked the women in to making their complaints against Moore public... which just happened to support exactly what WaPo had reported. And now Project Veritas set out to undermine WaPo, and all they managed to prove was that WaPo has strong vetting standards that quickly identified a dishonest claim against Moore. These guys should probably start to figure out the pattern here.
Anyhow, there's been another serial abuser revealed, this time in Australia. It's Don Burke, who was a celebrity gardener in the 90s. He was a household name and had a high rated prime time show. I can't really explain how a gardener could be that famous, it was just a thing that everyone accepted, this guy would tell you what fertiliser was best for roses and it was on in prime time and lots of people watched it. Honestly its pretty hard to explain a lot about Australia in the 90s.
Anyhow, investigative work by a couple of media sources have released some stories in which a lot of women have no come forward with lots of charges of sexual harassment, and a few cases of sexual assault. On top of that there's also been a whole lot of charges of abuse suffered by both men and women, indicating the guy wasn't so much a predator as just an all purpose jerk who did horrible things to everyone.
Two people who were CEOs Channel 9, his employer, said his behaviour was known but there wasn't anything they could do. They didn't say it, of course, but reality is it was just unthinkable to fire a man who was making the station loads of money. So that's a pretty common thread to most of the cases that are now being revealed - these are men who were protected as long as they were making everyone lots of money.
Burke's defense is something old and something new. He came out and said admitted he had lots of regrets but also this is a 'witchhunt', so that's the same as about half the men have said when confronted - 'I regret this happened but it didn't happen'. But on top of that he also said he has 'undiagnosed Asperger's'. Various spokespeople for many autism groups have told Burke to go feth himself, although disappointingly they didn't use those exact words.
So Kevin Spacey might have a contender for worst apology.
Happened a few days ago, but I thought it was a unique twist that maybe needed some attention.
Another member of Congress ended up being apart of these sexual scandals, but as a victim. Seems someone he had seen in the past decided to post some revenge porn of him on Twitter.
Ouze wrote: Not sure why this dude is apologizing. It doesn't seem like he did anything wrong
Barton runs on a strong family values, socially conservative platform. So he's a pretty clear hypocrite for having affairs with a string of women, some of which he sent that nude picture, as well as video of him masturbating. That kind of thing used to be a big issue for family values politicians, but maybe it isn't now, I don't know. It certainly seems smart to apologise and minimise the risk of damage.
That said, they were all consenting relationships, and none of them were employees, so its really none of our business.
The lady who shared the image should probably be in a fair bit of trouble, though.
sirlynchmob wrote: it's amazing how many people are actually saying, better a pedophile than a democrat. and it's no surprise which one the pres endorsed.
Yeah, but in saying 'okay he's a pedophile but at least he's not a Democrat'... that is actually a progress of a kind. Because at least with that we've seen people accept the reality that the women aren't all lying.
A year ago, that didn't happen. Back then, there were 17 women who all had very believable stories, all showing very similar patterns of behaviour against Trump, and then we got a video of Trump bragging about doing exactly what the accuser's claimed... and the response was denial. That Trump's brag was locker room talk, and the women we all liars.
At least now we've got to a point where at least some people will not pretend that all those women must liars. And it's cost Moore enough votes that he might lose despite being a Republican in Alabama.
Sure, the flip side is that Trump and some others like him still think there's scope to call all those women liars, but you'd expect that.
I think the country lost the thread as soon as it wandered into the political arena and I think the end of #MeToo is in sight. Attempting to oust a congressman, especially powerful ones like Franken and Conyers, provoked a completely different reaction from ousting bankable producers and actors. The difference in the discussion about politicians is their public good in relation to their perceived moral failings. Conyers' civil rights credentials and voting record are being used as a counter weight against his allegations in the same way Moore's known conservative position is being used as an absolution for his alleged proclivities. You didn't see Spacey or Weinstein's charitable donations or artistic merit as an argument for them to retain wealth and position.
Dave Chappelle's bit on Bill Cosby seems sadly prescient now.
I saw this article and had to think about the discussion in this thread about the concept of rape culture in Western society and Peregrine's point about victim blaming:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42149912
Pamplona 'wolf pack' gang rape trial angers Spain Feminists and legal observers in Spain have expressed outrage at what they see as "patriarchal justice" during the trial of five men accused of gang raping an 18-year-old woman during Pamplona's San Fermín bull-running festival in 2016.
The judge, who will consider his verdict after Tuesday's final hearing, has come under fire over his decisions to allow evidence to be presented about the alleged victim's personal life and character, while not permitting the inclusion of texted conversations between the accused in which they apparently discuss plans to rape women.
Searching through conversations in the WhatsApp group called "La manada", or "wolf pack", to which the men belonged, police investigators came across an incident in which video showed some of the individuals apparently abusing another woman, who seemed to be unconscious.
Conversations prior to their journey from Seville to Pamplona mention the need to procure date rape drugs and ropes, "because when we get there, we'll want to rape everything we set eyes on".
A private detective's report, commissioned by one of the accused, was compiled by spying on the alleged victim in the aftermath of the alleged attack, including her activity on social media and a holiday with friends. Two weeks into the trial, the defence decided to withdraw the file as evidence.
The strategy of the defence has been based on an attempt to show that the woman consented to group sex with all five of them. They are men in their late 20s, including a Civil Guard police officer who is also accused of stealing the female student's mobile phone immediately after the incident. If found guilty, the men face prison terms of up to 25 years.
...
Of course this doesn't just happen in Spain (neither the attack part or the curious decisions/comments by judges). It might not neatly fit inside the topic, but I thought it worth mentioning.
sebster wrote: Anyhow, there's been another serial abuser revealed, this time in Australia. It's Don Burke, who was a celebrity gardener in the 90s. He was a household name and had a high rated prime time show. I can't really explain how a gardener could be that famous, it was just a thing that everyone accepted, this guy would tell you what fertiliser was best for roses and it was on in prime time and lots of people watched it. Honestly its pretty hard to explain a lot about Australia in the 90s.
No need to explain, the Netherlands went through the famous gardener phase around the early 2000's, including the guy turning out to be a sexual harasser/assaulter as well.
avantgarde wrote: I think the country lost the thread as soon as it wandered into the political arena and I think the end of #MeToo is in sight. Attempting to oust a congressman, especially powerful ones like Franken and Conyers, provoked a completely different reaction from ousting bankable producers and actors. The difference in the discussion about politicians is their public good in relation to their perceived moral failings. Conyers' civil rights credentials and voting record are being used as a counter weight against his allegations in the same way Moore's known conservative position is being used as an absolution for his alleged proclivities. You didn't see Spacey or Weinstein's charitable donations or artistic merit as an argument for them to retain wealth and position.
Yeah, some Republicans spoke out against Moore, but others rallied around him including the President. At the same time some Democrats spoke out against Conyers and Franken, but now the leadership has rallied around them. In both cases there's a clear political motivation, Republicans giving up Moore would mean losing the Alabama special election, while Democrats forcing out Conyers would mean he would have his replacement picked by a Republican governor.
But the real result, I think, is that the total social condemnation that seemed so strong just a month ago is now disappearing very quickly, and that's a wasted opportunity to change the culture so this kind of thing does not keep happening.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: No need to explain, the Netherlands went through the famous gardener phase around the early 2000's, including the guy turning out to be a sexual harasser/assaulter as well.
That is so weird. I mean, if anyone ever wrote a book about a man who became really famous for gardening, and then used that fame to cover up sex assaults on women, I would think that book was an absurd comedy, and probably a little too silly to be funny.
But now it turns out its happened not once but twice around the world. This is a weird planet.
Vegas should start running odds on who will be accused next.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Damn. I would not have put money on Garrison F-ing Keillor
Minnesota Public Radio said Wednesday it was severing all business ties with Garrison Keillor, the creator and retired host of “A Prairie Home Companion” after allegations of “inappropriate behavior with an individual who worked with him.”
Over four decades, Mr. Keillor, 75, had created a financial juggernaut for the radio network with his weekly broadcast of songs, skits and tales of his fictional hometown Lake Wobegon, along with related books, recordings and other products.
In a statement he provided to The New York Times, Mr. Keillor said, “I’ve been fired over a story that I think is more interesting and more complicated than the version M.P.R. heard. Most stories are.”
Effective immediately, M.P.R. said, it will no longer distribute and broadcast Mr. Keillor’s remaining programs, “The Writer’s Almanac” and “The Best of A Prairie Home Companion Hosted by Garrison Keillor.”
Yeah, Public Radio has been getting hammered lately. The President, their main news director, and now Keilor. I guess NPR has just as toxic of a culture of Sexual Harassment as FOX news does!
Prepare for even more Whataboutism!
Edit: The Main man behind the DC Tv-universe (Supergilr, Legnds of Tomorrow, Arrow, and the Flash) just got fired too.
avantgarde wrote: I think the country lost the thread as soon as it wandered into the political arena and I think the end of #MeToo is in sight. Attempting to oust a congressman, especially powerful ones like Franken and Conyers, provoked a completely different reaction from ousting bankable producers and actors. The difference in the discussion about politicians is their public good in relation to their perceived moral failings. Conyers' civil rights credentials and voting record are being used as a counter weight against his allegations in the same way Moore's known conservative position is being used as an absolution for his alleged proclivities. You didn't see Spacey or Weinstein's charitable donations or artistic merit as an argument for them to retain wealth and position.
Yeah, some Republicans spoke out against Moore, but others rallied around him including the President. At the same time some Democrats spoke out against Conyers and Franken, but now the leadership has rallied around them. In both cases there's a clear political motivation, Republicans giving up Moore would mean losing the Alabama special election, while Democrats forcing out Conyers would mean he would have his replacement picked by a Republican governor.
But the real result, I think, is that the total social condemnation that seemed so strong just a month ago is now disappearing very quickly, and that's a wasted opportunity to change the culture so this kind of thing does not keep happening.
I think if Moore loses the election it will send a strong message that standing by such an individual will damage the party's image while generating no actual gain. What I'm surprised by is how the GOP apparently doesn't see that a successful Moore will lead to them being labelled as 'the party of sexual harassment' in the imminent election cycle. Americans have short memories, but not that short. I can already see the slogan; "'R' stands for 'Rapist'"
I think any possible response I have would stray far too into the 'American Politics ban'. Suffice to say, I'm remain unconvinced all of the above would actually matter.
DC-wise, it seems at the least, the situation looks like it has actively pulled the female cast closer together. I think there might actually be a positive change in Warner Brothers, at least, in the future.
Plus, of course, Gal Gadot's statement on the film side of things. (has there been any response on that yet?)
I will say that one thing that worries me is that we've already seen one person willing to sacrifice their integrity in order to make a false accusation solely for the purpose of trying to get a newspaper into trouble. With the next election season getting closer, I worry how many people might decide it's worth giving up their personal honor in order to do the same to a politician they don't like. Is the story about the little boy who cried "wolf" not taught to people anymore?
Tannhauser42 wrote: I will say that one thing that worries me is that we've already seen one person willing to sacrifice their integrity in order to make a false accusation solely for the purpose of trying to get a newspaper into trouble. With the next election season getting closer, I worry how many people might decide it's worth giving up their personal honor in order to do the same to a politician they don't like. Is the story about the little boy who cried "wolf" not taught to people anymore?
If anything the story has shown that proper vetting is worth the effort on the part of media outlets, which I find encouraging. Certainly I respect WaPo a bit more now, though I've always found they are good about factual references.
avantgarde wrote: I think the country lost the thread as soon as it wandered into the political arena and I think the end of #MeToo is in sight. Attempting to oust a congressman, especially powerful ones like Franken and Conyers, provoked a completely different reaction from ousting bankable producers and actors. The difference in the discussion about politicians is their public good in relation to their perceived moral failings. Conyers' civil rights credentials and voting record are being used as a counter weight against his allegations in the same way Moore's known conservative position is being used as an absolution for his alleged proclivities. You didn't see Spacey or Weinstein's charitable donations or artistic merit as an argument for them to retain wealth and position.
Yeah, some Republicans spoke out against Moore, but others rallied around him including the President. At the same time some Democrats spoke out against Conyers and Franken, but now the leadership has rallied around them. In both cases there's a clear political motivation, Republicans giving up Moore would mean losing the Alabama special election, while Democrats forcing out Conyers would mean he would have his replacement picked by a Republican governor.
But the real result, I think, is that the total social condemnation that seemed so strong just a month ago is now disappearing very quickly, and that's a wasted opportunity to change the culture so this kind of thing does not keep happening.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: No need to explain, the Netherlands went through the famous gardener phase around the early 2000's, including the guy turning out to be a sexual harasser/assaulter as well.
That is so weird. I mean, if anyone ever wrote a book about a man who became really famous for gardening, and then used that fame to cover up sex assaults on women, I would think that book was an absurd comedy, and probably a little too silly to be funny.
But now it turns out its happened not once but twice around the world. This is a weird planet.
Bob Ross will be next, and the world will weep...
My take on the Hollywood harassment scene is that a social group that portrays and condones hedonism and debauchery doesn't surprise me when they PRACTICE hedonism and debauchery. What surprises me more than anything is that media outlets to report this sort of thing have existed for at LEAST two decades, possibly more, and some of these accusations are only NOW coming out. I've personally known assault and harassment victims, none of them let that gak hit a MONTH before they reported it, up to and including one against a teacher. Shining a light on this is by far the most damaging thing they could do to these predators, yet it's taken THIS long.
Its not just Hollywood, if the #metoo has shown anything its that its pretty much society wide.
That it took a long time to come out just shows how much power and special interests are involved. Plus what the victims themselves want to do is important too. The vast majority of sexual assault cases never go public, because the victims don't want it to. Nothing strange about these things only coming out after a long time in that framework.
Just Tony wrote:My take on the Hollywood harassment scene is that a social group that portrays and condones hedonism and debauchery doesn't surprise me when they PRACTICE hedonism and debauchery. What surprises me more than anything is that media outlets to report this sort of thing have existed for at LEAST two decades, possibly more, and some of these accusations are only NOW coming out. I've personally known assault and harassment victims, none of them let that gak hit a MONTH before they reported it, up to and including one against a teacher. Shining a light on this is by far the most damaging thing they could do to these predators, yet it's taken THIS long.
The catholic church has had multiple big sexual abuse scandals but they do literary the opposite of "condoning hedonism and debauchery". It's a power thing and you can find it everywhere. That's also why most of the abusers are male, they are just more often in positions of power but there were also a few accusations against women, who were, of course, in positions of power. It has taken this long because the default has always been to ignore (as long as the abuser was profitable for the milieu they worked in) and not believe accusers/victims (that's just sadly on average the default). A snowball finally managed to start an avalanche and now even more victims who were, or felt, powerless and ignored finally found the courage to go public.
probably that if an individual is driven enough to achieve a position of power
(which usually comes at a significant cost in terms of treading on people to get there or at best prioritising themselves and their career compared to other things in their life like family, friends etc)
that they are likely to be less empathic, more self centred and so more likely to abuse their power, and more likely to cover up such abused in a competent way.
i'm not saying they will all behave badly, I hope it's a minority, but the same personality traits that help people climb the greasy pole of success are likely to be those that make bad behaviour more likely
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think if Moore loses the election it will send a strong message that standing by such an individual will damage the party's image while generating no actual gain. What I'm surprised by is how the GOP apparently doesn't see that a successful Moore will lead to them being labelled as 'the party of sexual harassment' in the imminent election cycle. Americans have short memories, but not that short. I can already see the slogan; "'R' stands for 'Rapist'"
Yeah, I think part of it is Republicans not getting that they might be able to produce a culture of denial in Alabama, but you know, that's Alabama. In the rest of the country there's a lot of purple electorates and even some red/purple ones where that will not fly, and Moore will tar everyone in the party. Especially given Moore's failings are in addition to those against Trump.
The flip side to this is the weakness Dems have shown to Franken and Conyers gives Republicans some wiggle room.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: My take on the Hollywood harassment scene is that a social group that portrays and condones hedonism and debauchery doesn't surprise me when they PRACTICE hedonism and debauchery.
And here again is that super-weird assumption that these allegations are only happening in Hollywood. Far from being only in Hollywood, the bulk of the allegations at this point are probably in the media, and then there's politics on top of that.
It really is like how the pedophile scandal somehow got defined as a Catholic thing, when it happened in all religious institutions, and in lots of non-religious institutions on top of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: That it took a long time to come out just shows how much power and special interests are involved. Plus what the victims themselves want to do is important too. The vast majority of sexual assault cases never go public, because the victims don't want it to. Nothing strange about these things only coming out after a long time in that framework.
Yep. If anyone isn't sure how power can be used to shield powerful people they only have to look at what's happening now. People in positions of weakness like Weinstein, who was a long time past the prime of his career, get outed and universally condemned almost by almost everyone. Meanwhile Franken and Moore are still very important to specific groups in society, so leaders downplay the accusations and the people on the street rally around them, complete with ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Netflix has been really busy this week. Looks like Danny Masterson has been fired from The Ranch. After this next part of the season releases he will no longer be on the show.
Just Tony wrote: My take on the Hollywood harassment scene is that a social group that portrays and condones hedonism and debauchery doesn't surprise me when they PRACTICE hedonism and debauchery.
And here again is that super-weird assumption that these allegations are only happening in Hollywood. Far from being only in Hollywood, the bulk of the allegations at this point are probably in the media, and then there's politics on top of that.
It really is like how the pedophile scandal somehow got defined as a Catholic thing, when it happened in all religious institutions, and in lots of non-religious institutions on top of that.
Can you show me in my original post where I said anything REMOTELY like I assumed that this was only happening in Hollywood? Go ahead and look, I'll wait here.
Back now? Good, I'll clarify just for you.
My comment was on the actual thread title, you know, "Move Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood". In that context, me expressing a total lack of surprise at this sort of behavior from Hollywood, and more surprise that anyone else was surprised by it fits totally in here, and makes no assumption that assaults and harassment only happens in Hollywood. Hell, Melanie Martinez just got accused recently as well.
Since I started posting in the OT, I've had a few of my posts misinterpreted or flat out twisted out of context, but this takes the cake. And to be frank, you of all people, sebster, I expect better from.
Just Tony wrote: Can you show me in my original post where I said anything REMOTELY like I assumed that this was only happening in Hollywood? Go ahead and look, I'll wait here.
What people choose to focus on is just as important as what they actually say.
I mean, if I asked you about the game last where our team lost 27-3, and your response was a single sentence about how good the team's lonley field goal was, I'd reply that you were being a bit optimistic. If you responded by saying you weren't optimistic, and your comment only focusing on that one good bit from the game shouldn't be taken to mean you didn't have lots of (unstated) opinions about everything else, that'd be a very strange argument.
My comment was on the actual thread title, you know, "Move Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood". In that context, me expressing a total lack of surprise at this sort of behavior from Hollywood, and more surprise that anyone else was surprised by it fits totally in here, and makes no assumption that assaults and harassment only happens in Hollywood. Hell, Melanie Martinez just got accused recently as well.
Dude, that thread title was made almost two months ago. There's been around 800 posts since that opening thread, covering new allegations against people from all walks of public life. Weinstein probably hasn't been mentioned in the last few hundred posts. It's fair to say the conversation has moved on from Hollywood alone.
So maybe this is actually just a case of dropping in to a thread without reading any part of what came before then. If so, sorry I read it the wrong way, but it is then a very clear example of why people should read at least some of the thread before commenting.
Since I started posting in the OT, I've had a few of my posts misinterpreted or flat out twisted out of context, but this takes the cake. And to be frank, you of all people, sebster, I expect better from.
Yeah, I get told that a lot. Sometimes it is fair.
I read through almost all of the thread, my comment was dealing solely with the Hollywood portion of it as that seems to have shocked people more than anything. Clergy from any denomination committing vile acts doesn't surprise anyone anymore, and I haven't been phased by politicians misbehaving since Gary Hart's episode. It's par for the course: live a public life and you will be scrutinized. Do something dastardly, be prepared to be called on it.
Hollywood's been under that auspice for a long time. Casting couch, anyone? I'm seriously entertained that anyone would see this as shocking. I'm shocked they aren't simply trying to make it socially acceptable. THAT is the shocking part.
Just Tony wrote: I read through almost all of the thread, my comment was dealing solely with the Hollywood portion of it as that seems to have shocked people more than anything. Clergy from any denomination committing vile acts doesn't surprise anyone anymore, and I haven't been phased by politicians misbehaving since Gary Hart's episode. It's par for the course: live a public life and you will be scrutinized. Do something dastardly, be prepared to be called on it.
Your read that people only seem shocked by the Hollywood stuff is pretty far from base. If anything its the large number of high profile journalists that seems to have thrown people, if anything. There'd always been rumours, but not like there was in politics or movies.
I'm not sure why you raised the clergy in this thread. That was given as an example of a past scandal, where for many people it came to be seen as a Catholic thing, when it was actually endemic across lots of institutions that took responsibility for kids. It isn't actually being discussed as part of this scandal.
Hollywood's been under that auspice for a long time. Casting couch, anyone? I'm seriously entertained that anyone would see this as shocking. I'm shocked they aren't simply trying to make it socially acceptable. THAT is the shocking part.
Just Tony wrote: I read through almost all of the thread, my comment was dealing solely with the Hollywood portion of it as that seems to have shocked people more than anything. Clergy from any denomination committing vile acts doesn't surprise anyone anymore, and I haven't been phased by politicians misbehaving since Gary Hart's episode. It's par for the course: live a public life and you will be scrutinized. Do something dastardly, be prepared to be called on it.
Hollywood's been under that auspice for a long time. Casting couch, anyone? I'm seriously entertained that anyone would see this as shocking. I'm shocked they aren't simply trying to make it socially acceptable. THAT is the shocking part.
You know "Casting Couch" is pornography, meaning it is staged, right? They are not a part of "Hollywood" and they have much much stricter laws which control how they shoot, who they shoot with, and how money is distributed.
It's kinda like when you rip the bandade off and tell somebody Wrestling is fake.
Just Tony wrote: I read through almost all of the thread, my comment was dealing solely with the Hollywood portion of it as that seems to have shocked people more than anything. Clergy from any denomination committing vile acts doesn't surprise anyone anymore, and I haven't been phased by politicians misbehaving since Gary Hart's episode. It's par for the course: live a public life and you will be scrutinized. Do something dastardly, be prepared to be called on it.
Hollywood's been under that auspice for a long time. Casting couch, anyone? I'm seriously entertained that anyone would see this as shocking. I'm shocked they aren't simply trying to make it socially acceptable. THAT is the shocking part.
You know "Casting Couch" is pornography, meaning it is staged, right? They are not a part of "Hollywood" and they have much much stricter laws which control how they shoot, who they shoot with, and how money is distributed.
It's kinda like when you rip the bandade off and tell somebody Wrestling is fake.
I'm pretty sure Just Tony is referring to the "casting couch" aka, "sleep with the producer to get the role" and not casting couch dot com. The Hollywood casting couch is an infamous thing.
Comedienne Whitney Cummings has a joke where she talks about going on two dates on one night because she only had one morning after pill.
The punchline is: "well actually, I had two pills.... but I had an audition the next day."
Embattled Sen. Al Franken will make an announcement Thursday, his office told reporters, as calls for the Minnesota Democrat's resignation rapidly gained momentum Wednesday in dramatic fashion.
Twenty-four Democratic senators -- 12 female and 12 male including the second-ranking Democrat in chamber -- called on Franken to resign as allegations of sexual harassment against him continue to mount. Republican Sen. Susan Collins also called on Franken to quit.
In a statement on Facebook, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand wrote: "While Senator Franken is entitled to have the Ethics Committee conclude its review, I believe it would be better for our country if he sent a clear message that any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn't acceptable by stepping aside to let someone else serve."
RELATED: Army veteran says Franken groped her during USO tour in 2003
Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Kamala Harris of California, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Dianne Feinstein of California, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii also joined in the call for Franken to resign.
Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania was the first male Democratic senator to call on Franken to resign just after noon Wednesday. Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, Tom Carper of Delaware, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Sherrod Brown also called for Franken to step down. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois -- the Democratic whip -- also called on Franken to resign just before 1 p.m. ET.
Notably absent was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York. "No comment at this point," Schumer said entering a lunch Wednesday.
The Senate Ethics Committee is investigating Franken following an account described by Leeann Tweeden, a morning news anchor on KABC radio in Los Angeles, which described Franken groping and forcibly kissing her during a USO tour in 2006, before Franken became a senator.
After that initial account, several other women came forward to say Franken inappropriately touched them. Franken has repeatedly apologized about behavior that he said "crossed a line" for some women. The second-term senator has also said that he has taken thousands of photos with people over the years and that while he doesn't remember specific pictures or campaign events, any inappropriate behavior was unintentional.
At least six women -- three named and three unnamed -- have accused Franken of inappropriately touching them. The most recent accusation came in a Politico report Wednesday, in which, a woman who chose not to be identified alleged Franken tried to forcibly kiss her after a taping of his radio show in 2006. Franken released a statement categorically denying the accusation. "This allegation is categorically not true and the idea that I would claim this as my right as an entertainer is preposterous," the Minnesota senator said. "I look forward to fully cooperating with the ongoing ethics committee investigation." CNN has not verified the accusations in the Politico report.
The calls for Franken to resign come one day after Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan announced he would retire immediately. Conyers had also faced multiple allegations of sexual harassment by former employees, accusations Conyers vehemently he denied.
I heard Cheryl Sandberg (Of Lean In fame) talking about an inevitable "backlash" that will come from the #MeToo movement. Has anyone else read other articles on this subject?
Also, Time Magazine makes #Me Too person of the year.
Easy E wrote: I heard Cheryl Sandberg (Of Lean In fame) talking about an inevitable "backlash" that will come from the #MeToo movement. Has anyone else read other articles on this subject?
That type of "backlash" always happens but it's just a convenient excuse for the people who feel attacked to fight back. Maybe their behaviour was already edging toward the inappropriate or they don't like that they won't be able to behave like an donkey-cave to others without getting pushback anymore. It's the epitome of privilege if the marginalised standing up for themselves feels to you like you are the one being oppressed here.
It's similar to how some people worry that if you call racists people racist "they'll actually become racist" (or Neo-Nazi, or whatever). Somehow there's this expectation that you have to tiptoe around somebody's bigotry or they's get radicalised (and we don't want that to happen). The truth is those people were already scum but they just didn't like being labeled as such and like to think of themselves as being good people. Nothing really changes when you call them out, it's just easier to see who they were all along.
I'll be sorry to see Al Franken go. I thought he was doing good work... but he robs the Democrats of moral authority to call anyone else out and had become a a liability, and that's before we get into the morality of supporting someone who appears to be a serial groper and harasser. I don't know what the exact number of accusers are where I am willing to give a little reasonable doubt to, but it's a number less than 7. Clinging to a serial sex offender just because they are politically useful is pretty much exactly what Roy Moore defenders are doing in spirit if not in degree.
Ouze wrote: I'll be sorry to see Al Franken go. I thought he was doing good work... but he robs the Democrats of moral authority to call anyone else out and had become a a liability, and that's before we get into the morality of supporting someone who appears to be a serial groper and harasser. I don't know what the exact number of accusers are where I am willing to give a little reasonable doubt to, but it's a number less than 7. Clinging to a serial sex offender just because they are politically useful is pretty much exactly what Roy Moore defenders are doing in spirit if not in degree.
I'm sorry that Franken turned out to be a serial groper of women, but once I learned that I'm pleased that he's been pressured in to resigning. The Democrats were pretty disappointing how they delayed on Franken and Conyers for that long, but they did get there. It says something that the party that can respond to multiple, credible accusations of sex offenses with 'okay umm... yeah, hang on, uh, yeah okay, I guess they better go' is miles ahead of the alternative.
When a party is willing to cover for a president who not only has nearly 20 credible allegations against him, and a current senate candidate with multiple credible allegations against him by people who were children at the time... Franks must have done something really messed up to think they won't protect him as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote: That type of "backlash" always happens but it's just a convenient excuse for the people who feel attacked to fight back. Maybe their behaviour was already edging toward the inappropriate or they don't like that they won't be able to behave like an donkey-cave to others without getting pushback anymore. It's the epitome of privilege if the marginalised standing up for themselves feels to you like you are the one being oppressed here.
Thing is, the people forming the backlash aren't necessarily molesters, or even people who might possibly molest one day. Some of them would be, sure, but many wouldn't ever do anything like that. What they are is protective of the social order. Not even necessarily on a conscious level, but on some level they get uncomfortable with the idea of high profile men being able to be challenged and brought down by women. They don't see what's happening and instinctively think of justice, their thought is of chaos.
Ouze wrote: I'll be sorry to see Al Franken go. I thought he was doing good work... but he robs the Democrats of moral authority to call anyone else out and had become a a liability, and that's before we get into the morality of supporting someone who appears to be a serial groper and harasser. I don't know what the exact number of accusers are where I am willing to give a little reasonable doubt to, but it's a number less than 7. Clinging to a serial sex offender just because they are politically useful is pretty much exactly what Roy Moore defenders are doing in spirit if not in degree.
I'm sorry that Franken turned out to be a serial groper of women, but once I learned that I'm pleased that he's been pressured in to resigning. The Democrats were pretty disappointing how they delayed on Franken and Conyers for that long, but they did get there. It says something that the party that can respond to multiple, credible accusations of sex offenses with 'okay umm... yeah, hang on, uh, yeah okay, I guess they better go' is miles ahead of the alternative.
Rumors are that there are about 30-40 Congressional critters going to be exposed for paying out from those settlement funds...
When a party is willing to cover for a president who not only has nearly 20 credible allegations against him, and a current senate candidate with multiple credible allegations against him by people who were children at the time... Franks must have done something really messed up to think they won't protect him as well.
Gotta be more to the story... so far, I've seen Franks asked some staff member(s) to become surrogacy mother for him and his wife?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote: That type of "backlash" always happens but it's just a convenient excuse for the people who feel attacked to fight back. Maybe their behaviour was already edging toward the inappropriate or they don't like that they won't be able to behave like an donkey-cave to others without getting pushback anymore. It's the epitome of privilege if the marginalised standing up for themselves feels to you like you are the one being oppressed here.
Thing is, the people forming the backlash aren't necessarily molesters, or even people who might possibly molest one day. Some of them would be, sure, but many wouldn't ever do anything like that. What they are is protective of the social order. Not even necessarily on a conscious level, but on some level they get uncomfortable with the idea of high profile men being able to be challenged and brought down by women. They don't see what's happening and instinctively think of justice, their thought is of chaos.
The Backlash Ms. Sandberg was referring to was around hiring and promoting women could be hurt as the "Old Boys" network locks ranks and adopts the "Pence" strategy of dealing with the ladies.
sebster wrote:Thing is, the people forming the backlash aren't necessarily molesters, or even people who might possibly molest one day. Some of them would be, sure, but many wouldn't ever do anything like that. What they are is protective of the social order. Not even necessarily on a conscious level, but on some level they get uncomfortable with the idea of high profile men being able to be challenged and brought down by women. They don't see what's happening and instinctively think of justice, their thought is of chaos.
That's true to a degree but I see a lot of people who do (un)intentional borderline soft harassment (or who are donkey-caves online) being wary that this'll make life complicated for them and if that finally makes then reconsider and if it all that exposure leads to more people finding the courage to speak out if somebody else shows that kind of behaviour then that can only be a good thing.
If somebody needs Pence-like rules to feel save in their work environment (or otherwise end up not trusting/hiring/promoting women in the work place) then that says more about them and how they interact with people than about these scandals and their aftereffect.
That was already mentioned a few pages ago when rape culture was mentioned but it's good that people get shocked out of the status quo (that led to this type of behaviour being tolerated in the first place) and are forced to change. Because if that doesn't happen we'll just get another bunch of scandals next year, and the year after that (and people will again be surprised why nobody said anything earlier and why did it take so long to get exposed). Maybe some people need to feel uncomfortable about this to reconsider what is happening around them even if they are not actively and intentionally participating in the harassment.
Easy E wrote:The Backlash Ms. Sandberg was referring to was around hiring and promoting women could be hurt as the "Old Boys" network locks ranks and adopts the "Pence" strategy of dealing with the ladies.
Mario wrote:
sebster wrote:Thing is, the people forming the backlash aren't necessarily molesters, or even people who might possibly molest one day. Some of them would be, sure, but many wouldn't ever do anything like that. What they are is protective of the social order. Not even necessarily on a conscious level, but on some level they get uncomfortable with the idea of high profile men being able to be challenged and brought down by women. They don't see what's happening and instinctively think of justice, their thought is of chaos.
That's true to a degree but I see a lot of people who do (un)intentional borderline soft harassment (or who are donkey-caves online) being wary that this'll make life complicated for them and if that finally makes then reconsider and if it all that exposure leads to more people finding the courage to speak out if somebody else shows that kind of behaviour then that can only be a good thing.
If somebody needs Pence-like rules to feel save in their work environment (or otherwise end up not trusting/hiring/promoting women in the work place) then that says more about them and how they interact with people than about these scandals and their aftereffect.
That was already mentioned a few pages ago when rape culture was mentioned but it's good that people get shocked out of the status quo (that led to this type of behaviour being tolerated in the first place) and are forced to change. Because if that doesn't happen we'll just get another bunch of scandals next year, and the year after that (and people will again be surprised why nobody said anything earlier and why did it take so long to get exposed). Maybe some people need to feel uncomfortable about this to reconsider what is happening around them even if they are not actively and intentionally participating in the harassment.
Okay, I'll bite. "Pence-like rules"? "Pence" strategy? Explain. I'm sure I'll hate myself for it being something well known, but it's faster to simply ask for clarity.
OR you could say "leaves no room for doubt" about someone's behavior in that respect. I'm sure nobody in the history of politics has ever been falsely accused of something like that, especially if that person has some unpopular viewpoints.
It is probably less about lack of willpower and more about maintaining a positive image.
EDIT: Also, I would adore it if you would tell me how the hell avoidance of casual contact adds layers to the "glass ceiling"...
PourSpelur wrote: Pence rule is a rehash of Televangelist Billy Graham's: Do not eat, travel or be alone with any woman that is not your wife. rule.
So, in essence, "You don't get bit by a shark if you don't swim in the ocean" is the logic. I can get behind that.
Or, alternatively in a way that doesn't end up adding another extra dozen levels to the glass ceiling with women, I propose the Austin Powers Rule.
"Don't try to shag someone who doesn't want to shag you."
It's just an awkward position where people don't want awkward situations to arise nor to be falsely accused.
From my understanding (not know anything about Pence specifically) it's not like saying "no gurls allowed", it's just a case of avoiding being alone where those situations might arise, so it doesn't have to contribute to a glass ceiling except maybe in very specific circumstances.
EDIT: But then what do I know, unfortunately I work in a field bereft of women. There aren't many women in engineering, and of the ones that are almost none work in my field.
I work in IT, I'm in a 1 on 1 meeting with a woman regularly. Whether it's my manager, or a coworker I'm helping to train, or it's someone I'm working with on a presentation, or it's a customer.
Sometimes I'm even lucky enough to get a meeting room with a computer inside it. Which has a door.
*Gasp* But the Pence rule!
So much for discussing my career in private.
Or talking with a customer on their project.
Or putting a presentation together without disturbing the open plan office.
PourSpelur wrote: Pence rule is a rehash of Televangelist Billy Graham's: Do not eat, travel or be alone with any woman that is not your wife. rule.
So, in essence, "You don't get bit by a shark if you don't swim in the ocean" is the logic. I can get behind that.
No, its more like "men can't control themselves in the presence of women, so best avoid them entirely". Its a very weird point of view, does it mean Pence can't keep it in his pants if he's alone with a woman that isn't his wife?
PourSpelur wrote: Pence rule is a rehash of Televangelist Billy Graham's: Do not eat, travel or be alone with any woman that is not your wife. rule.
So, in essence, "You don't get bit by a shark if you don't swim in the ocean" is the logic. I can get behind that.
No, its more like "men can't control themselves in the presence of women, so best avoid them entirely". Its a very weird point of view, does it mean Pence can't keep it in his pants if he's alone with a woman that isn't his wife?
You're deliberately trying to misunderstand the purpose of this practice so you can say its rediculous.
The purpose of it is not only to ensure nothing improper happens, weather by the lack of restraint by either the man or the woman, but more importantly that nothing happens which could appear to be improper. Its about being faithful to your mate both in-appearance and in-fact. Its about respecting your wife so much that you never want to even have the cursory appearance of possibly being unfaithful.
It is strictly unnecessary, but going the extra mile is something to be admired and not spat upon.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: No, it makes it impossible to accuse him of anything improper. Which is all it takes to ruin a career these days.
Right?
Man takes steps to ensure that the public knows he won't be conducting any acts like these, that so many of our politicians are being outed for, and people are accusing him of trying to lower the glass ceiling for women. It's like people just want to hate.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: No, it makes it impossible to accuse him of anything improper. Which is all it takes to ruin a career these days.
Right?
Man takes steps to ensure that the public knows he won't be conducting any acts like these, that so many of our politicians are being outed for, and people are accusing him of trying to lower the glass ceiling for women. It's like people just want to hate.
Indeed. If every man acted like Pence, the world would be a better place.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: No, it makes it impossible to accuse him of anything improper. Which is all it takes to ruin a career these days.
Right?
Man takes steps to ensure that the public knows he won't be conducting any acts like these, that so many of our politicians are being outed for, and people are accusing him of trying to lower the glass ceiling for women. It's like people just want to hate.
I'm going to assume that when Pence does this to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he has the best intentions.
However, the side effect is that in practice, women are excluded from a lot of functions. It's going to hurt advancement of a woman when her boss or a coworker is artificially excluded from any sort of meetings or work opportunities where they would be subject to the Pence Rule, and so must be excluded. This isn't strictly a problem for women, since of course if women did the same thing it would hurt male subordinates trying to advance just as much, but in 2017 on average it's going to hurt women more.
I do a lot of work related activities one-on-one with various people, including levels of senior management. There is a specific program at my job where fairly high levels will perform one-on-one sessions irregularly, as their schedule allows, to mid-level superiors who have promise. Ryan is currently being mentored by Ganesh in this manner, sometimes in a free meeting room, and sometimes at a lunch, but under the Pence Rule, it would be impossible (or at least more onerous) for his coworker, Allison, to have those same opportunities.
Sexual impropriety in the workplace is the problem, but this kind of scorched earth solution isn't a great fix.
PourSpelur wrote: Pence rule is a rehash of Televangelist Billy Graham's: Do not eat, travel or be alone with any woman that is not your wife. rule.
So, in essence, "You don't get bit by a shark if you don't swim in the ocean" is the logic. I can get behind that.
No, its more like "men can't control themselves in the presence of women, so best avoid them entirely". Its a very weird point of view, does it mean Pence can't keep it in his pants if he's alone with a woman that isn't his wife?
You're deliberately trying to misunderstand the purpose of this practice so you can say its rediculous.
The purpose of it is not only to ensure nothing improper happens, weather by the lack of restraint by either the man or the woman, but more importantly that nothing happens which could appear to be improper. Its about being faithful to your mate both in-appearance and in-fact. Its about respecting your wife so much that you never want to even have the cursory appearance of possibly being unfaithful.
It is strictly unnecessary, but going the extra mile is something to be admired and not spat upon.
I'm not, its ridiculous either way.
The purpose of it that nothing improper happens means he's protecting himself from it. Either because he doesn't fully trust himself or the women he could be alone with.
If he wants to avoid appearing improper he should avoid meeting people alone alltogether. Both men and women. Men could still accuse him. Who knows everything about Pence's life and deep down urges right? Or is it that easy to brush off any men stepping forward in this case?
Its not about respecting your wife, if your wife can that easily get the suspicion that you're being unfaithful its either a relationship with a severe lack of trust or one in which the wife has some deeper knowledge about his character. Respect for your wife and relationship would mean the confidence to meet women in private and not do anything, and the expectation that she believes you. Its not going the extra mile for anything, its ensuring a working relationship favouring men, who he can work with in private apperently.
The simple solution is to make sure it isn't one on one. Nothing would inherently have to be one on one for that type of thing. Just make sure there are other people in the general area.
Whining that its somehow detrimental to women is just looking for a reason to hate on the person for doing the right thing.
Grey Templar wrote: The simple solution is to make sure it isn't one on one. Nothing would inherently have to be one on one for that type of thing. Just make sure there are other people in the general area.
Whining that its somehow detrimental to women is just looking for a reason to hate on the person for doing the right thing.
If you could read what I posted that would be really neato.
Once a month I meet with my supervisor. This is in a conference room, and these meetings are called... one on ones. So, just the two of us in a room. He's the only supervisor at night, and I work nights. If I were a woman, either we couldn't have one-on-ones, or they would be artificially made so onerous that they'd be avoided.
Maybe we should concentrate on the men who feel they need to masturbate in front of their coworkers in a way that doesn't say being around women one-on-one is inherently dangerous.
I'm not hating on Pence, I think the practice itself is just ridiculous and I would assume here that he wpuldn't need it. Also the 'right' thing to do is debatable.
On the subject of private. I assume he has staff that give him personal briefing or work with him one on one without other people present on ocassion. By the terms of his rule none of those people could be women.
PourSpelur wrote: Pence rule is a rehash of Televangelist Billy Graham's: Do not eat, travel or be alone with any woman that is not your wife. rule.
So, in essence, "You don't get bit by a shark if you don't swim in the ocean" is the logic. I can get behind that.
No, its more like "men can't control themselves in the presence of women, so best avoid them entirely". Its a very weird point of view, does it mean Pence can't keep it in his pants if he's alone with a woman that isn't his wife?
You're deliberately trying to misunderstand the purpose of this practice so you can say its rediculous.
The purpose of it is not only to ensure nothing improper happens, weather by the lack of restraint by either the man or the woman, but more importantly that nothing happens which could appear to be improper. Its about being faithful to your mate both in-appearance and in-fact. Its about respecting your wife so much that you never want to even have the cursory appearance of possibly being unfaithful.
It is strictly unnecessary, but going the extra mile is something to be admired and not spat upon.
I'm not, its ridiculous either way.
The purpose of it that nothing improper happens means he's protecting himself from it. Either because he doesn't fully trust himself or the women he could be alone with.
If he wants to avoid appearing improper he should avoid meeting people alone alltogether. Both men and women. Men could still accuse him. Who knows everything about Pence's life and deep down urges right? Or is it that easy to brush off any men stepping forward in this case?
Its not about respecting your wife, if your wife can that easily get the suspicion that you're being unfaithful its either a relationship with a severe lack of trust or one in which the wife has some deeper knowledge about his character. Respect for your wife and relationship would mean the confidence to meet women in private and not do anything, and the expectation that she believes you. Its not going the extra mile for anything, its ensuring a working relationship favouring men, who he can work with in private apperently.
Yup, just looking for reasons to hate. Respect means both being able to be trusted, and not putting yourself in situations where there would be potential for violations of that trust. Its going the extra mile for your relationship by keeping everything in the open. Its not some secret conspiracy to keep women from experiencing opportunities, its about being and appearing faithful to his wife, who by the way is also a women. If he didn't respect women he wouldn't be going out his way to show faithfulness to his wife.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: No, it makes it impossible to accuse him of anything improper. Which is all it takes to ruin a career these days.
Right?
Man takes steps to ensure that the public knows he won't be conducting any acts like these, that so many of our politicians are being outed for, and people are accusing him of trying to lower the glass ceiling for women. It's like people just want to hate.
I'm going to assume that when Pence does this to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he has the best intentions.
However, the side effect is that in practice, women are excluded from a lot of functions. It's going to hurt advancement of a woman when her boss or a coworker is artificially excluded from any sort of meetings or work opportunities where they would be subject to the Pence Rule, and so must be excluded. This isn't strictly a problem for women, since of course if women did the same thing it would hurt male subordinates trying to advance just as much, but in 2017 on average it's going to hurt women more.
I do a lot of work related activities one-on-one with various people, including levels of senior management. There is a specific program at my job where fairly high levels will perform one-on-one sessions irregularly, as their schedule allows, to mid-level superiors who have promise. Ryan is currently being mentored by Ganesh in this manner, sometimes in a free meeting room, and sometimes at a lunch, but under the Pence Rule, it would be impossible (or at least more onerous) for his coworker, Allison, to have those same opportunities.
Sexual impropriety in the workplace is the problem, but this kind of scorched earth solution isn't a great fix.
Writing my response I missed this appearing shortly before finishing mine. The article and your good points summarize why its kind of a ridiculous policy.
Grey Templar wrote: The simple solution is to make sure it isn't one on one. Nothing would inherently have to be one on one for that type of thing. Just make sure there are other people in the general area.
Whining that its somehow detrimental to women is just looking for a reason to hate on the person for doing the right thing.
If you could read what I posted that would be really neato.
Once a month I meet with my supervisor. This is in a conference room, and these meetings are called... one on ones. So, just the two of us in a room. He's the only supervisor at night, and I work nights. If I were a woman, either we couldn't have one-on-ones, or they would be artificially made so onerous that they'd be avoided.
Maybe we should concentrate on the men who feel they need to masturbate in front of their coworkers in a way that doesn't say being around women one-on-one is inherently dangerous.
Or maybe you could focus on those perverts instead of picking on men who are just trying to be decent human beings instead of getting worked up over minor inconveniences.
That article again falls into a trap of looking for fault where there is none, and then turning what is ultimately a good thing into a bad thing through twisted logic. Sure, some practicioners of this rule take it too far. But that's a minor problem and not something to get worked up over. Not when there are still Wiensteins prowling around.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: No, it makes it impossible to accuse him of anything improper. Which is all it takes to ruin a career these days.
Right?
Man takes steps to ensure that the public knows he won't be conducting any acts like these, that so many of our politicians are being outed for, and people are accusing him of trying to lower the glass ceiling for women. It's like people just want to hate.
I'm going to assume that when Pence does this to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he has the best intentions.
However, the side effect is that in practice, women are excluded from a lot of functions. It's going to hurt advancement of a woman when her boss or a coworker is artificially excluded from any sort of meetings or work opportunities where they would be subject to the Pence Rule, and so must be excluded. This isn't strictly a problem for women, since of course if women did the same thing it would hurt male subordinates trying to advance just as much, but in 2017 on average it's going to hurt women more.
I do a lot of work related activities one-on-one with various people, including levels of senior management. There is a specific program at my job where fairly high levels will perform one-on-one sessions irregularly, as their schedule allows, to mid-level superiors who have promise. Ryan is currently being mentored by Ganesh in this manner, sometimes in a free meeting room, and sometimes at a lunch, but under the Pence Rule, it would be impossible (or at least more onerous) for his coworker, Allison, to have those same opportunities.
Sexual impropriety in the workplace is the problem, but this kind of scorched earth solution isn't a great fix.
Writing my response I missed this appearing shortly before finishing mine. The article and your good points summarize why its kind of a ridiculous policy.
Maybe if its taken to extremes, but not as a general practice. You're being a hippocrit by getting worked up over this while also getting worked up over the Wiensteins of the world.
Purge the perverts, and only when they are gone do you have any room to get worked up over men not wanting to be alone with women other than their wives or other closer relatives.
And how helps the "Don't be alone with a woman" when this case of using power to manipulate/violate someone in a sexual way, happens with someone of your same sex?
Or when the "boss" is the woman and the "victim" a male. "Oh man, the one that is gonna interview me is a woman, better to bring my mum with me, if the interviewer tries to do anything bad, or worse, my men impulses make me do something bad!"
As others have said, is not about wanting to hate someone. Is just in any shape or form, a stupid measure.
PourSpelur wrote: Pence rule is a rehash of Televangelist Billy Graham's: Do not eat, travel or be alone with any woman that is not your wife. rule.
So, in essence, "You don't get bit by a shark if you don't swim in the ocean" is the logic. I can get behind that.
No, its more like "men can't control themselves in the presence of women, so best avoid them entirely". Its a very weird point of view, does it mean Pence can't keep it in his pants if he's alone with a woman that isn't his wife?
You're deliberately trying to misunderstand the purpose of this practice so you can say its rediculous.
The purpose of it is not only to ensure nothing improper happens, weather by the lack of restraint by either the man or the woman, but more importantly that nothing happens which could appear to be improper. Its about being faithful to your mate both in-appearance and in-fact. Its about respecting your wife so much that you never want to even have the cursory appearance of possibly being unfaithful.
It is strictly unnecessary, but going the extra mile is something to be admired and not spat upon.
I'm not, its ridiculous either way.
The purpose of it that nothing improper happens means he's protecting himself from it. Either because he doesn't fully trust himself or the women he could be alone with.
If he wants to avoid appearing improper he should avoid meeting people alone alltogether. Both men and women. Men could still accuse him. Who knows everything about Pence's life and deep down urges right? Or is it that easy to brush off any men stepping forward in this case?
Its not about respecting your wife, if your wife can that easily get the suspicion that you're being unfaithful its either a relationship with a severe lack of trust or one in which the wife has some deeper knowledge about his character. Respect for your wife and relationship would mean the confidence to meet women in private and not do anything, and the expectation that she believes you. Its not going the extra mile for anything, its ensuring a working relationship favouring men, who he can work with in private apperently.
Yup, just looking for reasons to hate. Respect means both being able to be trusted, and not putting yourself in situations where there would be potential for violations of that trust. Its going the extra mile for your relationship by keeping everything in the open. Its not some secret conspiracy to keep women from experiencing opportunities, its about being and appearing faithful to his wife, who by the way is also a women. If he didn't respect women he wouldn't be going out his way to show faithfulness to his wife.
You keep saying reasons to hate, but I have absolutly no beef with Pence, just with the ridiculous rule. You know how ridiculous "situations where there would be potential for violations" sounds in the larger context of shutting out women one on one entirely? Every situation in which you and a woman are unaccompanied by a third person risks cheating and sexual assault? Really? How would you leave your house? What if you get stuck in an elevator alone with a woman?
Its going the extra mile in a relationship that doesn't work based on trust. In a relationship based on trust you should be able to have work or business related one on one meetings without your partner thinking you might be cheating.
I never said it was some sort of conspiracy to keep women from experiencing opportunities. But practically it does, if he needs a secretary he could never hire a woman, as he might end up alone with her kn his office. It creates the subconcious bias of only hiring women if you can make absolutly sure you're never alone with her during the entire working relationship. If he respected womem more he wouldn't have this rule, as he would either trust himself not to assault them or himself enough to say "no" for his wife.
Grey Templar wrote: You're being a hippocrit by getting worked up over this while also getting worked up over the Wiensteins of the world.
Purge the perverts, and only when they are gone do you have any room to get worked up over men not wanting to be alone with women other than their wives or other closer relatives.
1.) It's possible for a problem to have a bad solution. I don't want a spider in my house, but a flamethrower isn't a reasonable response, even if it technically fixes the problem.
2.) "We can't fix a problem we artificially create until we first solve a problem that has always existed and probably always will" is a pretty pants on head answer no matter how you slice it, to be honest.
Maybe if its taken to extremes, but not as a general practice. You're being a hippocrit by getting worked up over this while also getting worked up over the Wiensteins of the world.
Purge the perverts, and only when they are gone do you have any room to get worked up over men not wanting to be alone with women other than their wives or other closer relatives.
No worries, my brain can handle doing more than one thing at a time and focus on multiple problems. I can voice myself against the Weinsteins in this world while still pointing out the ridiculousness of rules like that. Nothing hypocritical about it
Galas wrote: And how helps the "Don't be alone with a woman" when this case is behind using power to manipulate/violate someone in a sexual way of your same sex?
Or when the "boss" is the woman and the "victim" a male. "Oh man, the one that is gonna interview me is a woman, better to bring my mum with me, if the interviewer tries to do anything bad, or worse, my men impulses make me do something bad!"
As others have said, is not about wanting to hate someone. Is just in any shape or form, a stupid measure.
I would say meeting secretly and clandestinely with anybody should be avoided, regardless of their sex.
If you need to have a one on one meeting, do it in a public place with other people around, but not necessarily listening.
Just because you think its stupid doesn't mean you have the right to hate on that person. Especially when it's in place for good reasons and its not actually harming anybody. And no, you can work around it if you are a women and need to have a meeting with your boss, it just needs someone else there. Say maybe someone from human resources. A minor inconvenience at worst, the benefits of which far outweigh it.
You may not like it or feel the need to personally do this, but let other people do this without you just hating on them for being different. Especially when there are bigger fish to fry.
Galas wrote: And how helps the "Don't be alone with a woman" when this case is behind using power to manipulate/violate someone in a sexual way of your same sex?
Or when the "boss" is the woman and the "victim" a male. "Oh man, the one that is gonna interview me is a woman, better to bring my mum with me, if the interviewer tries to do anything bad, or worse, my men impulses make me do something bad!"
As others have said, is not about wanting to hate someone. Is just in any shape or form, a stupid measure.
I would say meeting secretly and clandestinely with anybody should be avoided, regardless of their sex.
If you need to have a one on one meeting, do it in a public place with other people around, but not necessarily listening.
Just because you think its stupid doesn't mean you have the right to hate on that person. Especially when it's in place for good reasons and its not actually harming anybody. And no, you can work around it if you are a women and need to have a meeting with your boss, it just needs someone else there. Say maybe someone from human resources. A minor inconvenience at worst, the benefits of which far outweigh it.
You may not like it or feel the need to personally do this, but let other people do this without you just hating on them for being different. Especially when there are bigger fish to fry.
Well. Now we can't discuss something without being it considered "hating" someone? Can't I express my opinion in that solution without being automatically understood as attacking the people that decides to do that?
I have no problems with anybody that want to do that. As you said, it doesn't hurt anybody. More power to them. But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion in that specific "solution" to this problem.
I believe that solution isn't a real solution in the long run. Not in the short one to be honest.
And I wasn't talking about meeting secretly, just in 1 to 1 situations. At least in my work place those are very common. All of them in the offices building, but in "private" rooms, without glass walls, etc...
Grey Templar wrote: If you need to have a one on one meeting, do it in a public place with other people around, but not necessarily listening.
Do you really, truly not see how inane this is?
Grey Templar wrote: And no, you can work around it if you are a women and need to have a meeting with your boss, it just needs someone else there. Say maybe someone from human resources. A minor inconvenience at worst, the benefits of which far outweigh it.
My company works three shifts. With this "solution" no woman with a male supervisor could have a one-on-one on 66% of the shifts we work because HR only is present on first.
What happens when my rotation is myself as a TL, with my co-workers April and Woody, and Woody has to go to the bathroom or pick up food? This is in no way a hypothetical situation. This is my current rotation on quiet nights. Should April not be able to work on 2nd or third shift? She goes to school in the day, and those shifts pay a shift differential.
Grey Templar wrote: The simple solution is to make sure it isn't one on one. Nothing would inherently have to be one on one for that type of thing. Just make sure there are other people in the general area.
Whining that its somehow detrimental to women is just looking for a reason to hate on the person for doing the right thing.
Because nobody has ever been sexually assaulted whilst other people were in the general area. Nobody has ever been raped in a public place with other people present but still unaware. /sarcasm
Pence's rule is garbage, because hundreds of thousands of happily-married people manage to be alone with members of both sexes without sexually assaulting them or being accused of such, whilst his rule actually does little to actually protect people from sexual assault unless he is literally incapable of restraining himself without a third party present. And are his whereabouts accounted for 24 hours a day? How do we know he isn't going off to a cheap motel and throwing a pile of cash down for a prostitute? Presumably the possibility of him doing so doesn't impact his marriage so why would him being alone with a woman coworker be so damaging?
As said earlier, a relationship where you have to cut off all potential one-on-one contact with a member of the other sex, partner excluded, is insane and not at all an indicator of a healthy relationship.
How good/bad of a rule it is aside, the Pence rule would become an excuse. "Well it was a one-on-one meeting, I couldn't control myself!" "Men can't be expected to control themselves, that's why we have the Pence rule!" Or even "Wow he went into a one-on-one and violated the Pence rule, he must be trying to assault her."
The simple solution is to not harass women. Being afraid of false accusations isn't a legitimate fear when -actual- accusations so often have little impact. Not to mention the whole idea is based off of men being somehow unable to control themselves, which is rape culture at it's finest.
Just Tony wrote: OR you could say "leaves no room for doubt" about someone's behavior in that respect. I'm sure nobody in the history of politics has ever been falsely accused of something like that, especially if that person has some unpopular viewpoints.
It is probably less about lack of willpower and more about maintaining a positive image.
EDIT: Also, I would adore it if you would tell me how the hell avoidance of casual contact adds layers to the "glass ceiling"...
Well, because it is segregation.
How well do you think this rule would work out in a Hospital?
1.) It's possible for a problem to have a bad solution. I don't want a spider in my house, but a flamethrower isn't a reasonable response, even if it technically fixes the problem.
Dude, have you seen some of the spiders they've got in Australia? Flamethrowers are the only solution for them.
Anyway, yes, this "Pence Rule" is bad in practice. It's exclusionary in nature.
Compel wrote: I work in IT, I'm in a 1 on 1 meeting with a woman regularly. Whether it's my manager, or a coworker I'm helping to train, or it's someone I'm working with on a presentation, or it's a customer.
Sometimes I'm even lucky enough to get a meeting room with a computer inside it. Which has a door.
*Gasp* But the Pence rule!
So much for discussing my career in private. Or talking with a customer on their project. Or putting a presentation together without disturbing the open plan office.
And so on.
The entire concept is ridiculous.
I was more thinking in terms of bosses (since we're discussing people in power). It's very hard to have a Pence rule if you're an underling because you have limited control over your interactions with others.
But as a boss, you can go out of your way to have windows in your office, so you can have a private conversation with an employee or client or whatever without actually being "alone" with them, then outside of work (lunches or dinners or whatever) invite more than 1 person and cancel if only 1 person can make it.
The only time it would be awkward in my job is sometimes my boss asks me to work overtime with him to get a project done, which becomes more costly and awkward if you have to ask 2 people to stay back. Or having to travel separately on work trips.
Depends on your job I guess. If you're not in any real position of power you likely don't have the control to institute such a rule. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: And how helps the "Don't be alone with a woman" when this case of using power to manipulate/violate someone in a sexual way, happens with someone of your same sex?
I actually envisaged it more as being a universal rule; avoid being alone with subordinates when you're in a position of power.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: No, it makes it impossible to accuse him of anything improper. Which is all it takes to ruin a career these days.
Right?
Man takes steps to ensure that the public knows he won't be conducting any acts like these, that so many of our politicians are being outed for, and people are accusing him of trying to lower the glass ceiling for women. It's like people just want to hate.
I'm going to assume that when Pence does this to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he has the best intentions.
However, the side effect is that in practice, women are excluded from a lot of functions. It's going to hurt advancement of a woman when her boss or a coworker is artificially excluded from any sort of meetings or work opportunities where they would be subject to the Pence Rule, and so must be excluded. This isn't strictly a problem for women, since of course if women did the same thing it would hurt male subordinates trying to advance just as much, but in 2017 on average it's going to hurt women more.
I do a lot of work related activities one-on-one with various people, including levels of senior management. There is a specific program at my job where fairly high levels will perform one-on-one sessions irregularly, as their schedule allows, to mid-level superiors who have promise. Ryan is currently being mentored by Ganesh in this manner, sometimes in a free meeting room, and sometimes at a lunch, but under the Pence Rule, it would be impossible (or at least more onerous) for his coworker, Allison, to have those same opportunities.
Sexual impropriety in the workplace is the problem, but this kind of scorched earth solution isn't a great fix.
Maybe it is or isn't a great fix, but it's certainly not a bad one. So people getting their panties all in a wad about it should just chill the hell out. Mr Wienstein could certainly have used a dose of it. I think it's more of a case by case basis on if it works or not.
Just like how recovering alcoholics should avoid being in situations where there is a temptation to drink, if you have a problem around people of the opposite sex(or same sex if thats your thing) then you should probably avoid situations where you are one on one with them. We don't know what Pence's, or anybody else who follows this rule, situation might be. But if they're following it we shouldn't mock them for it.
You wouldn't mock a recovering alcoholic who avoids parties where alcohol is served. Or someone who avoids high fat foods because they gain weight if they so much as look at a cheeseburger.
So no, its not a stupid rule. Its a rule that some people choose to follow for reasons, and you are mocking them just because it offends your sensibilities.
The "Pence Rule" is inane and impractical, and even if it does reduce unwanted sexual behavior it would encourage the segregation of the sexes as people have noted above. However, Title IX enforcement is basically the Pence Rule made into official policy, and unless we all want to enter into a new Victorian-style era of sexual repression and paranoia, we have a very fine line to walk between seeking justice for victims of abuse and ensuring that due process and objectivity don't become mere memories. College campuses have been here before and they really messed it up; here's hoping the rest of the public and private sectors don't do the same.
Except the context of the discussion was that more/everyone should be following that rule in most/all situations.
Additionally, we're talking about living, breathing people here.
If someone is *that* badly 'tempted' that they cannot mentally cope with "hey, why don't I try not assaulting another living, breathing, human being" they should be in jail or in some other sort of institutional care.
That's why I brought up the climate on college campuses. I'm sure we all remember how big a deal sexual abuse on campus already has been for several years. Well, the solutions sought there basically made the Pence Rule the ONLY way to behave appropriately. Like I said, the result is basically the segregation of the sexes and the codification of a majority of contact between them as an actionable offense. Title IX basically takes the view that no man is capable of not assaulting another human being, and the end result of that worldview made into official policy is extremely destructive for men AND women.
whembly wrote: Rumors are that there are about 30-40 Congressional critters going to be exposed for paying out from those settlement funds...
Yeah, and I think any congress critter who was found using the settlement fund to payout for their own sexual harassment needs to be run out of town on a rail. But there needs to be some care with that figure, because the fund was used for more than sexual harassment. Trey Gowdy, who you know is perhaps my most hated Washington politician, has just had his use of the fund made public. But Gowdy used it to pay out an unfair dismissal charge, after he fired a guy for refusing to focus their part of the Benghazi investigation work on Clinton, which was what Gowdy wanted. So it was sleaze, but it was the kind of political sleaze that is normal for guys like Gowdy, an unfortunate part of politics and not something that's going to be fixed any time soon.
Its likely that a lot of those 30-40 names aren't related to sex crimes from congressmen.
Gotta be more to the story... so far, I've seen Franks asked some staff member(s) to become surrogacy mother for him and his wife?
The story is that Franks didn't want any kind of medical professional getting involved in the impregnation of the surrogate, if you get my meaning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: The Backlash Ms. Sandberg was referring to was around hiring and promoting women could be hurt as the "Old Boys" network locks ranks and adopts the "Pence" strategy of dealing with the ladies.
Ah, fair enough. Thanks. That is a real risk, certainly in areas where there are still very few women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote: That's true to a degree but I see a lot of people who do (un)intentional borderline soft harassment (or who are donkey-caves online) being wary that this'll make life complicated for them and if that finally makes then reconsider and if it all that exposure leads to more people finding the courage to speak out if somebody else shows that kind of behaviour then that can only be a good thing.
I think the two things are linked. Some men being uncomfortable that they might have new rules and expectations to follow is resisted in part because some men they like doing that stuff, and in part because some men don't like that new rules are seen as rules women are enforcing on men.
If somebody needs Pence-like rules to feel save in their work environment (or otherwise end up not trusting/hiring/promoting women in the work place) then that says more about them and how they interact with people than about these scandals and their aftereffect.
I read an interesting argument years ago, arguing that the burka and western stuff like g-bangers might be opposites in how much flesh they expose, but they come from the same thing - a fixation on a woman as a body and not a person. Not equating the two, just commenting on the origin. And the same thing is true with the sexual harassment and the Pence rule - the two are nowhere near equal, but they do both start with the same unhealthy fixation on woman as bodies, not as people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: So, in essence, "You don't get bit by a shark if you don't swim in the ocean" is the logic. I can get behind that.
Women aren't sharks, though. They're people.
The logic that you don't want to end up in a sexually charged situation with a woman who isn't your wife, therefore you'll never be alone with a woman who isn't your wife makes exactly as much sense as saying you don't want to play tennis so you make sure to never end up alone with a tennis player.
Luciferian wrote: That's why I brought up the climate on college campuses. I'm sure we all remember how big a deal sexual abuse on campus already has been for several years. Well, the solutions sought there basically made the Pence Rule the ONLY way to behave appropriately. Like I said, the result is basically the segregation of the sexes and the codification of a majority of contact between them as an actionable offense. Title IX basically takes the view that no man is capable of not assaulting another human being, and the end result of that worldview made into official policy is extremely destructive for men AND women.
Hm... from Wikipedia, Title IX refers to:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
— Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute (20 U.S. Code § 1681 - Sex)
How exactly is that used to discriminate? I assume that is used in some combulated way to make it something different that the obvious original intent?
Just Tony wrote: EDIT: Also, I would adore it if you would tell me how the hell avoidance of casual contact adds layers to the "glass ceiling"...
Because major decisions are made away from the office, often after hours. A politician on the road will be meet with many representatives from all kinds of business and community groups. And close working relationships and alliances are made over dinners. Most politicians are men so if the Pence rule was standard then women would be shut out of access to power, and unable to do the work and form the relationships needed to rise up the ranks.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: No, it makes it impossible to accuse him of anything improper. Which is all it takes to ruin a career these days.
Right?
Man takes steps to ensure that the public knows he won't be conducting any acts like these, that so many of our politicians are being outed for, and people are accusing him of trying to lower the glass ceiling for women. It's like people just want to hate.
I'm going to assume that when Pence does this to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he has the best intentions.
However, the side effect is that in practice, women are excluded from a lot of functions. It's going to hurt advancement of a woman when her boss or a coworker is artificially excluded from any sort of meetings or work opportunities where they would be subject to the Pence Rule, and so must be excluded. This isn't strictly a problem for women, since of course if women did the same thing it would hurt male subordinates trying to advance just as much, but in 2017 on average it's going to hurt women more.
I do a lot of work related activities one-on-one with various people, including levels of senior management. There is a specific program at my job where fairly high levels will perform one-on-one sessions irregularly, as their schedule allows, to mid-level superiors who have promise. Ryan is currently being mentored by Ganesh in this manner, sometimes in a free meeting room, and sometimes at a lunch, but under the Pence Rule, it would be impossible (or at least more onerous) for his coworker, Allison, to have those same opportunities.
Sexual impropriety in the workplace is the problem, but this kind of scorched earth solution isn't a great fix.
Maybe it is or isn't a great fix, but it's certainly not a bad one. So people getting their panties all in a wad about it should just chill the hell out. Mr Wienstein could certainly have used a dose of it. I think it's more of a case by case basis on if it works or not.
Just like how recovering alcoholics should avoid being in situations where there is a temptation to drink, if you have a problem around people of the opposite sex(or same sex if thats your thing) then you should probably avoid situations where you are one on one with them. We don't know what Pence's, or anybody else who follows this rule, situation might be. But if they're following it we shouldn't mock them for it.
You wouldn't mock a recovering alcoholic who avoids parties where alcohol is served. Or someone who avoids high fat foods because they gain weight if they so much as look at a cheeseburger.
So no, its not a stupid rule. Its a rule that some people choose to follow for reasons, and you are mocking them just because it offends your sensibilities.
You just used alcohol and cheeseburgers, items purchased for consumption, as stand-ins for actual human beings. I find your position LESS legitimate now than before I read your post.
Grey Templar wrote: Its about being faithful to your mate both in-appearance and in-fact. Its about respecting your wife so much that you never want to even have the cursory appearance of possibly being unfaithful.
It is strictly unnecessary, but going the extra mile is something to be admired and not spat upon.
Making a big public show of fidelity, instead of trusting your wife and having their trust, is not a healthy thing.
How exactly is that used to discriminate? I assume that is used in some combulated way to make it something different that the obvious original intent?
Under Obama era policy, universities are told to basically throw out any measure of due process when enforcing Title IX. Basically, every accused person is presumed guilty, even for mundane things that would not typically be considered sexual harassment or assault. Even women making innocent jokes have been targeted for punitive action under Title IX. It is required that interim punitive measures are taken against the accused before an investigation is even begun, including barring them from campus. Universities are also not required to even notify the accused that there are charges against them, what those charges are, or who is serving as witness against them.
I am basically stealing this perspective from a paper written by four feminist law professors at Harvard:
djones520 wrote: Man takes steps to ensure that the public knows he won't be conducting any acts like these, that so many of our politicians are being outed for, and people are accusing him of trying to lower the glass ceiling for women. It's like people just want to hate.
No, the step you take to avoid multiple claims of sexual harassment is to... not commit sexual harassment multiple times.
What Pence is doing is something else entirely. It is a big show of personal purity that treats a woman not as a human being, but as an object of temptation. It is all kinds of fethed up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. If every man acted like Pence, the world would be a better place.
What the actual feth? Do you have no friends who happen to have a different gender? Do you work in an a place with both male and female employees?
How does anyone think this rule could exist without destroying opposite gender friendships, and make it near impossible for many people to do their jobs well? Does it just not bother you that men and women could no longer be close friends? Do you just not care that many people would suddenly find it impossible to work in environments where the majority of employees are of the opposite sex?
How exactly is that used to discriminate? I assume that is used in some combulated way to make it something different that the obvious original intent?
Under Obama era policy, universities are told to basically throw out any measure of due process when enforcing Title IX. Basically, every accused person is presumed guilty, even for mundane things that would not typically be considered sexual harassment or assault. Even women making innocent jokes have been targeted for punitive action under Title IX. It is required that interim punitive measures are taken against the accused before an investigation is even begun, including barring them from campus. Universities are also not required to even notify the accused that there are charges against them, what those charges are, or who is serving as witness against them.
I am basically stealing this perspective from a paper written by four feminist law professors at Harvard:
djones520 wrote: Man takes steps to ensure that the public knows he won't be conducting any acts like these, that so many of our politicians are being outed for, and people are accusing him of trying to lower the glass ceiling for women. It's like people just want to hate.
No, the step you take to avoid multiple claims of sexual harassment is to... not commit sexual harassment multiple times.
What Pence is doing is something else entirely. It is a big show of personal purity that treats a woman not as a human being, but as an object of temptation. It is all kinds of fethed up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. If every man acted like Pence, the world would be a better place.
What the actual feth? Do you have no friends who happen to have a different gender? Do you work in an a place with both male and female employees?
How does anyone think this rule could exist without destroying opposite gender friendships, and make it near impossible for many people to do their jobs well? Does it just not bother you that men and women could no longer be close friends? Do you just not care that many people would suddenly find it impossible to work in environments where the majority of employees are of the opposite sex?
Sure makes going to the doctor or getting a job interview troublesome. Or what if you're a student who stays a minute after class to ask the teacher a quick question? Obviously sexual harassment took place, it violated the Pence rule.
Grey Templar wrote: The simple solution is to make sure it isn't one on one. Nothing would inherently have to be one on one for that type of thing. Just make sure there are other people in the general area.
I've just seen someone try to argue 'never be alone with anyone for any reason' is a sensible approach.
Sounds terrible. I'm glad that message didn't get sent to any of the universities myself and everyone I've ever know have gone to.
Well it was federal policy, so if you or anyone you know went to a university in the states after 2011, the message was quite literally sent to that university in the form of an infamous "Dear College" letter.
Grey Templar wrote: Especially when it's in place for good reasons and its not actually harming anybody. And no, you can work around it if you are a women and need to have a meeting with your boss, it just needs someone else there. Say maybe someone from human resources. A minor inconvenience at worst, the benefits of which far outweigh it.
Either you've never worked in an office or you just don't care about how little sense you're making. Short private meetings are called constantly. There are days where I'll have a half dozen closed door private meetings, because it involves staff reviews or redundancies, or cabinet in confidence meetings, or just stuff where the conversation is complex and we don't want to be interrupted so we close the door. The idea that you'd have to drag in someone from HR for everyone of those meetings, some of which might go 5 minutes, is just incredible beyond words.
Something is seriously wrong here. I woke up this morning in a world where Pence's rule was something that was understood as the quirk of a man known for his big shows of puritanism, that people understood was a stupid but at least functional way that governor/VP could do business. Now I'm reading people trying to argue the rule could be practically used in the wider world with no impact on people's careers or their friendships.
It's just... damn. Truly there is nothing so needless, so badly informed, so fundamentally horrible that it won't be defended. There is no bottom.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Wouldn't FaceTime solve a large portion of the perceived issues with the Pence Rule?
So that's how we have private conversations between people in the same office now? You go in to one small room, and I go in to an adjacent room, and then we communicate via FaceTime. Because the only way we can trust men and women to be in private together is if there is a wall presenting any kind of physical contact?
Holy fething gak everything has gone absolutely fething crazy.
Sounds terrible. I'm glad that message didn't get sent to any of the universities myself and everyone I've ever know have gone to.
Well it was federal policy, so if you or anyone you know went to a university in the states after 2011, the message was quite literally sent to that university in the form of an infamous "Dear College" letter.
I was being sarcastic. Probably should have labelled it as such.
Sounds terrible. I'm glad that message didn't get sent to any of the universities myself and everyone I've ever know have gone to.
Well it was federal policy, so if you or anyone you know went to a university in the states after 2011, the message was quite literally sent to that university in the form of an infamous "Dear College" letter.
Strange, the only effect of title IX at the university where I teach has been to take a few online seminars about what constitutes and how to handle sexual harassment. Really, if I had to live by the Pence rule, I would never have students coming in to ask me questions during office hours.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Wouldn't FaceTime solve a large portion of the perceived issues with the Pence Rule?
So that's how we have private conversations between people in the same office now? You go in to one small room, and I go in to an adjacent room, and then we communicate via FaceTime. Because this is the only way we can trust men and women to be in private together?
Holy fething gak everything has gone absolutely fething crazy.
The Pence rule is simply that the VP doesn’t dine alone with women or attend events where alcohol is served without his wife by his side.
This is what we're talking about... right? This isn't some prohibition for one-on-ones at the office...
Ta-Nehisi Coates opined pretty much the same was as he wouldn't put himself in that situation...
Maybe Coates articulated this better than the Pence Rulez.
Reading the first article, I can respect the relation between this Pence man and his wife. I still thing that "Pence Rule" is absurd and not something that should be in any shape or form become "popular" or "mainstream", or be used as some form of "solution" to sexual harassment problems, but ey, he is free to do as he wants. It works for him.
NinthMusketeer wrote: You just used alcohol and cheeseburgers, items purchased for consumption, as stand-ins for actual human beings. I find your position LESS legitimate now than before I read your post.
Grey Templar wrote: The simple solution is to make sure it isn't one on one. Nothing would inherently have to be one on one for that type of thing. Just make sure there are other people in the general area.
I've just seen someone try to argue 'never be alone with anyone for any reason' is a sensible approach.
The back and forth with him in this thread, at least on my part, was to try and illustrate the issues with the Pence rule to some of the more reasonable people on here who spoke about it, like Djones.
On the other hand, in terms of "Reasonable", we're now in a thread were people are suggesting, I assume with a straight face, that the proper remedy for sexual predators and men who masturbate in front of their coworkers is that any one-on-one male and female interactions be handled via Facetime.
Yes, you are. While we are perhaps incorrectly using the term "Pence Rule" instead of the more accurate "Billy Graham Rule". Pence's version appears to be less restrictive, but it doesn't change the larger points being made.
Yes, you are. While we are perhaps incorrectly using the term "Pence Rule" instead of the more accurate "Billy Graham Rule". Pence's version appears to be less restrictive, but it doesn't change the larger points being made.
Yeah, my bad - I'm using them interchangeably and they're not actually the same thing. I've been referring to the more restrictive one, but they still generally have the same problems, just not in degree.
Pence is not the only powerful man in Washington who goes to great lengths to avoid the appearance of impropriety with the opposite sex. An anonymous survey of female Capitol Hill staffers conducted by National Journal in 2015 found that “several female aides reported that they have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression.” One told the reporter Sarah Mimms that in 12 years working for her previous boss, he “never took a closed door meeting with me. ... This made sensitive and strategic discussions extremely difficult.”
Social-science research shows this practice extends beyond politics and into the business world, and it can hold women back from key advancement opportunities. A 2010 Harvard Business Review research report led by Sylvia Ann Hewlett, the president of the Center for Work-Life Policy think tank, found that many men avoid being sponsors—workplace advocates—for women “because sponsorship can be misconstrued as sexual interest.”
Hewlett’s surveys, interviews, and focus groups found that 64 percent of executive men are reluctant to have one-on-one meetings with junior women, and half of junior women avoid those meetings in turn. Perhaps as a result, 31 percent of women in her sample felt senior men weren’t willing to “spend their chips” on younger women in office political battles. What’s more, “30 percent of them noted that the sexual tension intrinsic to any one-on-one relationship with men made male sponsorship too difficult to be productive.”
And that’s too bad, because according to the Harvard study and some others, women prefer male sponsors, perceiving them to be better-connected and more powerful. And they’re right: According to some analyses, men hold more than 85 percent of top management positions in big companies.
Because of that, when men avoid professional relationships with women, even if for noble reasons, it actually hurts women in the end. “The research is irrefutable: Those with larger networks earn more money and get promoted faster. Because men typically dominate senior management, there’s evidence that the most valuable network members may be men,” wrote Kim Elsesser, a research scholar at the UCLA Center for the Study of Women, in the Los Angeles Times recently. “Without access to beneficial friendships and mentor relationships with executive men, women won’t be able to close the gender gap that exists in most professions.”
whembly wrote: The Pence rule is simply that the VP doesn’t dine alone with women or attend events where alcohol is served without his wife by his side.
This is what we're talking about... right? This isn't some prohibition for one-on-ones at the office...
The Pence rule is derived from the Billy Graham rule, which was about never being alone with a woman. Pence's own interpretation narrows that down to never dining with a woman alone. But there's two big problems with that as a defense;
1) The people defending here were unaware of that distinction, and were happy to defend the hardline, Graham version of the rule. 2) It wouldn't have stopped Weinstein's abuses, or almost anyone else of the recent offenders, because very few of the attacks came out of dinners. So you can't have your cake (Pence's rule would have stopped this) and eat it too (Pence's rule only impacts dinners and drinking events).
Ta-Nehisi Coates opined pretty much the same was as he wouldn't put himself in that situation...
Maybe Coates articulated this better than the Pence Rulez.
No, Coates gave a totally different rule. He said he avoids drinking to the point where his judgement is impaired. Pence avoids being around women. Very different things.
I see it a little differently. The thing I've learned in the last couple of years is that so many of the really out there opinions, exactly like that amazing death penalty thread, can't be assumed to be rare just because they're weird and indefensible.
So the back and forth, to me, is about finally coming to terms with exactly what we're up against.
On the other hand, in terms of "Reasonable", we're now in a thread were people are suggesting, I assume with a straight face, that the proper remedy for sexual predators and men who masturbate in front of their coworkers is that any one-on-one male and female interactions be handled via Facetime.
So, I guess that's where the OT is, now.
It's so bad and there's so many things wrong with all of it that I didn't even notice that that one really obvious problem.
You knew this would happen... (note mods: if this is too much into politics, feel free to edit)
CBS NewsVerified account
@CBSNews
More
NEW: Women who have publicly accused President Trump of sexual harassment and assault will speak at a news conference, hosted by @bravenewfilms, Monday at 10:30 a.m. ET. The women are calling for an investigation by Congress of sexual misconduct by the president.
I was going to dissect several parts of the thread since I posted, but most was covered. A few key points are necessary to address:
1. The shark analogy was referring to accusations, not actually being bit.
2. Pence is a very large target for both liberal groups and mainstream media. Going out of his way to make sure that they have less ammunition shouldn't be that hard to understand. Also with respecting his wife's wishes. I know my wife would not be thrilled with any social one on one meeting between me and another woman, regardless of why it was happening. DOUBLY so if alcohol was present. That doesn't speak of my willpower as much as it does her self-consciousness. Though in my mind, no other woman would have as bad of taste in men as her...
3: I've been in the Indiana Army National Guard since 1993. Most, if not all, of you know this. There is a soldier at the unit I just transferred out of for a promotion named SGT Grubb (Might be SSG Grubb, but I'm not sure if she also promoted recently) who worked for Governor Pence, and was brought onto his staff when he became Vice President. There is no glass ceiling for her, nor any of the other women who work on his staff. They just don't get the chance to slam Harvey Wallbangers with him solo. That, of course, doesn't fit the rhetoric which is why I will open the floor to the obligatory "anecdotal evidence" commentary.
And as far as the actual topic, bringing to light this criminal behavior can only be looked at as a good thing. I'm only hoping that this galvanization of legitimate victims doesn't pull in any false allegations.
Just Tony wrote: I was going to dissect several parts of the thread since I posted, but most was covered. A few key points are necessary to address:
1. The shark analogy was referring to accusations, not actually being bit.
2. Pence is a very large target for both liberal groups and mainstream media. Going out of his way to make sure that they have less ammunition shouldn't be that hard to understand. Also with respecting his wife's wishes. I know my wife would not be thrilled with any social one on one meeting between me and another woman, regardless of why it was happening. DOUBLY so if alcohol was present. That doesn't speak of my willpower as much as it does her self-consciousness. Though in my mind, no other woman would have as bad of taste in men as her...
3: I've been in the Indiana Army National Guard since 1993. Most, if not all, of you know this. There is a soldier at the unit I just transferred out of for a promotion named SGT Grubb (Might be SSG Grubb, but I'm not sure if she also promoted recently) who worked for Governor Pence, and was brought onto his staff when he became Vice President. There is no glass ceiling for her, nor any of the other women who work on his staff. They just don't get the chance to slam Harvey Wallbangers with him solo. That, of course, doesn't fit the rhetoric which is why I will open the floor to the obligatory "anecdotal evidence" commentary.
And as far as the actual topic, bringing to light this criminal behavior can only be looked at as a good thing. I'm only hoping that this galvanization of legitimate victims doesn't pull in any false allegations.
Do you not have any female friends? I regularly got hammered with my roommates girlfriend while she was at the house waiting for him to get home. Not once did he walk in and accuse us of doing anything. Nor did anything ever happen. It is kind of ridiculous to make that assumption.
There is a glass ceiling. She cannot have a private 1 on 1 convo with him, ever. She must have a chaperone, however her male counterparts do not have that same issue, do you not see the problem with that?
Dreadwinter wrote: Do you not have any female friends? I regularly got hammered with my roommates girlfriend while she was at the house waiting for him to get home. Not once did he walk in and accuse us of doing anything. Nor did anything ever happen. It is kind of ridiculous to make that assumption.
It must be very awkward. I have several female friends and my partner has several male friends. We have drinks or dinners with them individually. There is a chance some friends might have feelings for either my partner or me (at least she thinks its the case for at least one of my friends, we know of one in her case). Yet it doesn't stop me or my partner from meeting them, because we are still friends and I'm in a comitted relationship that I fully intend to stay true on just as my partner is. Frankly I don't think I could be in a relationship were I'm not 'allowed' to do that because A. weirdly controlling and B. is that really the person you take me for? It doesn't seem healthy for that distrust to exist, are they always doubting and second guessing what you do or what?
Just Tony wrote: 1. The shark analogy was referring to accusations, not actually being bit.
The shark analogy still relies on the idea that women can be reduced down to simple threats. They can't, because a woman is more than a sexual temptation, she's also a human being.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: It must be very awkward. I have several female friends and my partner has several male friends. We have drinks or dinners with them individually. There is a chance some friends might have feelings for either my partner or me (at least she thinks its the case for at least one of my friends, we know of one in her case). Yet it doesn't stop me or my partner from meeting them, because we are still friends and I'm in a comitted relationship that I fully intend to stay true on just as my partner is. Frankly I don't think I could be in a relationship were I'm not 'allowed' to do that because A. weirdly controlling and B. is that really the person you take me for? It doesn't seem healthy for that distrust to exist, are they always doubting and second guessing what you do or what?
It's also because you're adults, and should be able to make your own adult decisions. When fixed rules or the spouse's control become the only way to keep a person from keeping the core promises of the relationship, then the relationship is fethed. Not necessarily fethed as in break up is imminent, but maybe just fethed in the 'this relationship will hurt everyone involved' sense.
I remember years ago, long before I met my wife, I was in town with a friend and his partner. We passed a GW store and me and my friend wanted to go in. After a short, awkward conversation my friend was 'allowed to go in', but my friend had to give his wallet to his wife before he went in. They're still together, I don't see them much, so I can't say how happily overall, but I know that over time he's taken on more and more of the man-child role, and his (now) wife has taken on more and more of the long suffering mother role. I know they've got a pile of debt and a house full of impulse buys.
End of the day, if you're decent and a responsible adult, you don't need these stupid rules, either for your life or your relationship. And if you aren't a decent and responsible adult, no rule is ever going to change that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Oh, I see the backlash has all ready hit this thread!
Disciple of Fate wrote: It must be very awkward. I have several female friends and my partner has several male friends. We have drinks or dinners with them individually. There is a chance some friends might have feelings for either my partner or me (at least she thinks its the case for at least one of my friends, we know of one in her case). Yet it doesn't stop me or my partner from meeting them, because we are still friends and I'm in a comitted relationship that I fully intend to stay true on just as my partner is. Frankly I don't think I could be in a relationship were I'm not 'allowed' to do that because A. weirdly controlling and B. is that really the person you take me for? It doesn't seem healthy for that distrust to exist, are they always doubting and second guessing what you do or what?
It's also because you're adults, and should be able to make your own adult decisions. When fixed rules or the spouse's control become the only way to keep a person from keeping the core promises of the relationship, then the relationship is fethed. Not necessarily fethed as in break up is imminent, but maybe just fethed in the 'this relationship will hurt everyone involved' sense.
I remember years ago, long before I met my wife, I was in town with a friend and his partner. We passed a GW store and me and my friend wanted to go in. After a short, awkward conversation my friend was 'allowed to go in', but my friend had to give his wallet to his wife before he went in. They're still together, I don't see them much, so I can't say how happily overall, but I know that over time he's taken on more and more of the man-child role, and his (now) wife has taken on more and more of the long suffering mother role. I know they've got a pile of debt and a house full of impulse buys.
End of the day, if you're decent and a responsible adult, you don't need these stupid rules, either for your life or your relationship. And if you aren't a decent and responsible adult, no rule is ever going to change that.
I thought the adult part spoke for itself, guess that isn't true for the maturity level of some now that I think about it
Yeah, when rules like this are required for the functioning of a relationship there is an immense risk of it failling anyway, from either the reason the rules needed to be there in the first place or just distrust.
That is a bizarre story. I never get why people get satisfaction out of relationships that are controlling/take control away from them. I have seen a similar relationship amongst two not too close friends. Just being around them for the afternoon is tiresome because of their relationship dynamics being much of what you described in your example. Still, its lasted about a decade and it shows no signs of a breakup. They don't seem to especially enjoy their relationship, but I guess something is keeping them together (guess its a time invested fallacy). I don't get how people can get any joy out of such relationships.
Just Tony wrote: I was going to dissect several parts of the thread since I posted, but most was covered. A few key points are necessary to address:
1. The shark analogy was referring to accusations, not actually being bit.
2. Pence is a very large target for both liberal groups and mainstream media. Going out of his way to make sure that they have less ammunition shouldn't be that hard to understand. Also with respecting his wife's wishes. I know my wife would not be thrilled with any social one on one meeting between me and another woman, regardless of why it was happening. DOUBLY so if alcohol was present. That doesn't speak of my willpower as much as it does her self-consciousness. Though in my mind, no other woman would have as bad of taste in men as her...
3: I've been in the Indiana Army National Guard since 1993. Most, if not all, of you know this. There is a soldier at the unit I just transferred out of for a promotion named SGT Grubb (Might be SSG Grubb, but I'm not sure if she also promoted recently) who worked for Governor Pence, and was brought onto his staff when he became Vice President. There is no glass ceiling for her, nor any of the other women who work on his staff. They just don't get the chance to slam Harvey Wallbangers with him solo. That, of course, doesn't fit the rhetoric which is why I will open the floor to the obligatory "anecdotal evidence" commentary.
And as far as the actual topic, bringing to light this criminal behavior can only be looked at as a good thing. I'm only hoping that this galvanization of legitimate victims doesn't pull in any false allegations.
Do you not have any female friends? I regularly got hammered with my roommates girlfriend while she was at the house waiting for him to get home. Not once did he walk in and accuse us of doing anything. Nor did anything ever happen. It is kind of ridiculous to make that assumption.
There is a glass ceiling. She cannot have a private 1 on 1 convo with him, ever. She must have a chaperone, however her male counterparts do not have that same issue, do you not see the problem with that?
Her career isn't hampered by not being able to go solo to dinner with a married man, or to go out drinking with a married man. So yes, no glass ceiling there. It's an old-fashioned mindset, from back when people had principles, I understand why people who weren't raised in that time fail to understand it.
And I don't have female friends that I just go hang out with. I have coworkers that I am friends with, and battle buddies from my old unit, that are female. Guess what? I don't go out to dinner with them, nor would I slam drinks with them in the off hours. In the military, it's pretty much an unspoken rule that any sort of alcohol based festivities involve multiple people, and nobody views that as any sort of glass ceiling, or as a harmful thing.
But yeah, you won't change your mind on this, and I won't come around to your viewpoint.
sebster wrote:
Just Tony wrote: 1. The shark analogy was referring to accusations, not actually being bit.
The shark analogy still relies on the idea that women can be reduced down to simple threats. They can't, because a woman is more than a sexual temptation, she's also a human being.
In what possible way could you interpret that as distilling the woman down to being nothing more than a threat? It's not about sexual temptation, it's about the part regarding him being a constant target by virtue of his position. I didn't think it needed spelled out THAT far.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I thought the adult part spoke for itself, guess that isn't true for the maturity level of some now that I think about it
Yeah, I think the adult part was implied in your post. I just wanted to expand on it
That is a bizarre story. I never get why people get satisfaction out of relationships that are controlling/take control away from them. I have seen a similar relationship amongst two not too close friends. Just being around them for the afternoon is tiresome because of their relationship dynamics being much of what you described in your example. Still, its lasted about a decade and it shows no signs of a breakup. They don't seem to especially enjoy their relationship, but I guess something is keeping them together (guess its a time invested fallacy). I don't get how people can get any joy out of such relationships.
Yep, and the couple I mentioned are still together, and I know other couples with other similarly weird dynamics that have been together for ages. As to why this works, probably the sunk cost fallacy plays a part as you say, but also I think its also a case of people choosing it. Their relationship is in large part a product of who they are as people. Not wanting to have any discipline over money, my friend built a relationship where his partner takes control of money (she's also gak with money, by the way, really they're just a mess financially speaking).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: In what possible way could you interpret that as distilling the woman down to being nothing more than a threat? It's not about sexual temptation, it's about the part regarding him being a constant target by virtue of his position. I didn't think it needed spelled out THAT far.
Because the way the shark metaphor works is that running in to a shark in the water has huge consequences, and zero benefits. It's a shark. Best case scenario is it ignores you, but it's highly likely that it will attack.
On other hand a woman is a human being. There is a very small chance that the dinner or whatever might go wrong despite the man's best intentions, either because something was misunderstood, or even because the woman is evil and tells a lie about what happens. But there's also lots of good that could come out of it, enjoyable company, improved professional relationships etc. All the good stuff you get from talking to human beings, you know?
Steelmage99 wrote: So we went from business meetings to slamming drinks.
You can put the goal post down, Just Tony.
Pay attention to the thread. The Pence rule covers dinner or drinks, that sort of thing. the Graham rule covers EVERYTHING. People are still conflating the two to push their agenda. Period. It's also why the "glass ceiling" debate is still up and running.
Just Tony wrote: In what possible way could you interpret that as distilling the woman down to being nothing more than a threat? It's not about sexual temptation, it's about the part regarding him being a constant target by virtue of his position. I didn't think it needed spelled out THAT far.
Because the way the shark metaphor works is that running in to a shark in the water has huge consequences, and zero benefits. It's a shark. Best case scenario is it ignores you, but it's highly likely that it will attack.
On other hand a woman is a human being. There is a very small chance that the dinner or whatever might go wrong despite the man's best intentions, either because something was misunderstood, or even because the woman is evil and tells a lie about what happens. But there's also lots of good that could come out of it, enjoyable company, improved professional relationships etc. All the good stuff you get from talking to human beings, you know?
Try again.
I've been in the ocean several times in my life. I know that I won't get bitten by a shark every time I set foot in the water. I also know, however, that I won't get bit AT ALL if I'm not in the water in the first place.
I don't assume in that instance that the shark is solely out there to bite my fat ass. I also make the assumption that every woman on the planet isn't out to have a meeting with Mike Pence to get assaulted, OR to put themselves in a position to be able to make that claim. Chuck Schumer was just accused of misconduct, which he labels as false, and seems to hold water as a false accusation. If THIS is the sort of thing that can happen, you break it down and do the math. Statistically speaking, the chances of any sort of valid accusation being leveled are the same as the chances of me being attacked by a shark sitting here in a machine shop in Indiana. I don't see why this is so hard to understand, why hyperbole needs to be thrown in to attempt to prove a point or discredit the tactic as unviable, or why it needs to be redirected as evidence of misogyny when it clearly is not.
So, once again, it comes down to that point that you KEEP IGNORING, which is the fact that Pence is a highly targetable person by the left and by the left-supporting media just by virtue of being who he is. So ANY weighing of the good and bad of interactions need to be viewed through that lens.
Just Tony wrote: I don't assume in that instance that the shark is solely out there to bite my fat ass. I also make the assumption that every woman on the planet isn't out to have a meeting with Mike Pence to get assaulted, OR to put themselves in a position to be able to make that claim.
To explain it, again, the shark isn't certain to bite you, but not only is that quite possible, there is no upside. There is no chance that the shark will start up a conversation that you will enjoy, and maybe even find enlightening. There's no chance that the shark might become a valuable professional association, on whom you come to rely for advice.
A better analogy would be to a dog.* It is possible for a person to say they never go near dogs, because it might bite them. That's there's choice, but in doing so we can easily see they're missing out on a lot of stuff, because dogs are fun to play with. And we can see how if lots of people made that choice, life would be much harder for the dogs.
Do you get it now? Because the relationship between sharks and men is purely conflict, its a gak analogy. Using a different animal, where as well as a small risk of danger there's lots of upside, we can see the choice made by Pence more clearly.
*I apologise that it sounds like I'm saying women and dogs are the same, that's not my intent. I'd think of a way of explaining this without using dogs as a stand in for women, but I'm not very imaginative.
Just Tony wrote: I don't assume in that instance that the shark is solely out there to bite my fat ass. I also make the assumption that every woman on the planet isn't out to have a meeting with Mike Pence to get assaulted, OR to put themselves in a position to be able to make that claim.
To explain it, again, the shark isn't certain to bite you, but not only is that quite possible, there is no upside. There is no chance that the shark will start up a conversation that you will enjoy, and maybe even find enlightening. There's no chance that the shark might become a valuable professional association, on whom you come to rely for advice.
A better analogy would be to a dog.* It is possible for a person to say they never go near dogs, because it might bite them. That's there's choice, but in doing so we can easily see they're missing out on a lot of stuff, because dogs are fun to play with. And we can see how if lots of people made that choice, life would be much harder for the dogs.
Do you get it now? Because the relationship between sharks and men is purely conflict, its a gak analogy. Using a different animal, where as well as a small risk of danger there's lots of upside, we can see the choice made by Pence more clearly.
*I apologise that it sounds like I'm saying women and dogs are the same, that's not my intent. I'd think of a way of explaining this without using dogs as a stand in for women, but I'm not very imaginative.
I do get it: it's better to twist the intention of a comment to foster a political agenda than to simply see the comment for the principle behind it. It is always much better to drag a thread through the mud just to prove a point and try to make yourself to look more noble than your verbal jousting partner. I get it perfectly.
And I wouldn't worry about apologizing about your comparison. Not everyone on this site eviscerates a person's words in the name of social justice, just a few people...
All meetings between any two people of any gender be chaperoned by at least four independent observers of various gender types, to ensure there is no possibility of a false accusation.
My favorite part of this thread was when you thought you were engaging in a good faith discussion despite the fact he's raised the spectre of a vast, left wing conspiracy several times.
Just Tony wrote: which is the fact that Pence is a highly targetable person by the left and by the left-supporting media just by virtue of being who he is. So ANY weighing of the good and bad of interactions need to be viewed through that lens.
This applies to pretty much every republican politician. Remind us how many false accusations have gained traction and resulted in damage against republican politicians?
Even when right wing groups tried to give false accusations to the papaersto prove that it could be done they failed as the papers saw through the ploy whilst performimg research into it prior to running the story.
Just Tony wrote: Her career isn't hampered by not being able to go solo to dinner with a married man, or to go out drinking with a married man. So yes, no glass ceiling there. It's an old-fashioned mindset, from back when people had principles, I understand why people who weren't raised in that time fail to understand it.
It may well be. You're giving male co-workers access to their management that females are denied. She's missing out on networking opportunities, on being able to pitch ideas in a casual setting and in general just preventing her from getting to know her boss (and vice-versa) in the same way that everyone else does.
What "principle", by the way? That you can't be trusted around women? Or that all women are all harlots who try to seduce innocent men?
Kilkrazy wrote: All meetings between any two people of any gender be chaperoned by at least four independent observers of various gender types, to ensure there is no possibility of a false accusation.
Preferably in FEMA camps under the supervision of the U.N AFTER confiscating all the guns.
Kilkrazy wrote: All meetings between any two people of any gender be chaperoned by at least four independent observers of various gender types, to ensure there is no possibility of a false accusation.
This last few pages were certainly interesting.
I travel for work a lot. 3 years running with Gold status with United, but they have yet to beat my ass and drag me off a plane despite me being me. Anyway, I have binders full of women in my department that sometimes travel with me. We fly on the same plane, share a rental car, have dinners (and drinks! gasp!) alone if the local employees aren't free, and drive to and from our hotel together. Having a 3rd person would add 50% more to travel costs. Having separate cars is a no-go as at least one of my fellow employees can't drive, and would add to the costs. The Billy Graham rule wouldn't let that happen, I suppose.
Just Tony wrote: I do get it: it's better to twist the intention of a comment to foster a political agenda than to simply see the comment for the principle behind it. It is always much better to drag a thread through the mud just to prove a point and try to make yourself to look more noble than your verbal jousting partner. I get it perfectly.
No, I just thought it was a crap analogy because it walked past half of the issue. All the stuff about twisting intentions, fostering political agenda, mud dragging and making myself look noble... that sounds like a lot of work. All I did was see crap analogy and decide to point out that's a crap analogy,
And I wouldn't worry about apologizing about your comparison. Not everyone on this site eviscerates a person's words in the name of social justice, just a few people...
I'm not an donkey-cave, so I don't just apologise to avoid someone else complaining.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: My favorite part of this thread was when you thought you were engaging in a good faith discussion despite the fact he's raised the spectre of a vast, left wing conspiracy several times.
I think he's debating in good faith, I think when he makes references to vast conspiracies he genuinely believes in them.
Well, it seems that more and more skeletons are bursting from their closets, animated by the fel magic of past sins once hidden, and rising up to destroy their keepers.
While some Democrats like Al Frankin were thrown under the bus, one Republican decided to take the coward's way out.
I don't think Rose McGowan started it. The NYT broke the story on Weinstein and she didn't say anything until a few weeks later about him specifically. The #MeToo hashtag was started by someone else as well.
Kilkrazy wrote: All meetings between any two people of any gender be chaperoned by at least four independent observers of various gender types, to ensure there is no possibility of a false accusation.
This last few pages were certainly interesting.
I travel for work a lot. 3 years running with Gold status with United, but they have yet to beat my ass and drag me off a plane despite me being me. Anyway, I have binders full of women in my department that sometimes travel with me. We fly on the same plane, share a rental car, have dinners (and drinks! gasp!) alone if the local employees aren't free, and drive to and from our hotel together. Having a 3rd person would add 50% more to travel costs. Having separate cars is a no-go as at least one of my fellow employees can't drive, and would add to the costs. The Billy Graham rule wouldn't let that happen, I suppose.
So I assume by that line you mean you aren't the boss?
To me the Billy Graham rule only makes sense if you are in a position of reasonable power (which is relevant to the discussion at hand because we're talking about folks in power abusing that power).
I can't tell my boss that I'm not going to work alone with a woman, it's not up to me, at best my boss would stop putting me on important projects and at worst I'd get fired.
But my boss on the other hand, it's really not hard for him to arrange his time such that he's not really spending 1-on-1-closed-room time with any employees regardless of whether they're female or male. At my last job I don't think I ever engaged 1 on 1 in a closed room with my boss in a year and a half of working there, even when we were both going to a conference he'd organise his own travel and accommodation while his employees would organise theirs (which usually meant the employees rent a van and travel together and share a room; while the boss rents his own car or flies in and stays in a private room).
