As toxic as Moore was, a lot of people still voted for him. The Democrats won't hold that seat for long, unless Moore wins the upcoming primary in the regular election cycle. Man, that could actually happen, couldn't it? /facepalm
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).
As a boss, that is utter tosh. How do you have coaching meetings and project meetings with your project managers without it being one-on-one? What about disciplinary or mentoring meetings?
The entire idea of this Pence/Graham rule is rubbish, stupid, and demeaning. Men are not toddlers who can not behave themselves and therefore need to segregate themselves from half of the workforce/society.
If you (The universal YOU) fear "unfounded" accusations you might want to look at the underlying dynamics of your work team (and yourself). I mean, the foundation of a functional team is trust, and if you don't think you can trust your co-workers to not accuse you falsely, you might want to go join another team, or work independently out of a remote location. Perhaps even a hermitage is the best response.
Breotan wrote: As toxic as Moore was, a lot of people still voted for him. The Democrats won't hold that seat for long, unless Moore wins the upcoming primary in the regular election cycle. Man, that could actually happen, couldn't it? /facepalm
That is harder to say as the resultws show a big shift like the rest of the country between rural and city voters, education levels, etc. Like all future elections, it will depend a lot on who turns out.
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).
Correct. There is only one case where I "outrank" the other person, but that's a researcher vs technician thing, and she doesn't report to me.
My boss (male), has 3 female employees. They have 1 on 1 meetings all of the time and have also traveled to our manufacturing plants and to conferences together in the past and will continue to do so. And no, it is NOT easy for him to change those arrangements to 3+ people. We all have our own damn projects. Mine often don't have ANYTHING to do with what they are meeting/traveling about.
I guess I'm a bit baffled by the shock or revelation that any of this is to someone. While I'm fine with it being news, I guess I'm unimpressed by the pretend "What!? No way!" face that the entire country seems to be putting on. This kind of stuff has been ever-present since humans began gathering in societies.
Let's punish the people who broke laws, molested kids, etc.: 100%. But let's not pretend this is something new or something that was hidden from public view.
Let's also separate the real victims from the hangers on. In typical witch hunt fashion you have some very real victims, then some people just trying to get in on the action and get their moment in the sun.
I do think that we're setting a pretty terrible precedent in modern times though. In our ever increasing "emotions first, facts second", the suggestion of crime or misbehavior is more damaging than actual crime or misbehavior - that's opening a huge door to tons of abuse, particularly amongst the people who are opposed to someone. You can see it when companies are toppled because of a single employee acting like a jackass, or a false report of misbehavior. This kind of nonsense which goes viral and has an impact far above what it should. I think a boss in today's America should genuinely consider how open they are to accusations, even false ones. The damage will be done before anything is proven either way. With social media and a generally poor media situation in our country it's just bad news across the board.
The one where people try to slander you, call you a prude, claim you are lying, accuse you of being an attention whore, and accuses you of being a slut? And in return, you get..... nothing?
Elbows wrote: Would you prefer "fifteen minutes of ill-gotten fame"?
And what does that "fame" usually get them. Nothing besides abuse. Who would want to bet their future on such odds? Might as well try to win a million dollar by running through a minefield. Sure, occasionally somebody makes it (if they are lucky) but on average it's just a lot of pain with no upside.
The occasional sociopath probably has much better ways to mess with you if they really wanted to feth with you life (and without getting dragged into the whole ordeal).
I always hear vague claims about how companies/individuals who were hung because of false accusations, yet I what actually see is companies/individuals who get off with little to no punishment against actual accusations. False accusations do happen on occasion, but really that issue is a boogeyman thrown out to discourage reform.
Elbows wrote: I guess I'm a bit baffled by the shock or revelation that any of this is to someone. While I'm fine with it being news, I guess I'm unimpressed by the pretend "What!? No way!" face that the entire country seems to be putting on. This kind of stuff has been ever-present since humans began gathering in societies.
The shock isn't because some of this stuff happened. The shock is because of the vast amount of this stuff that happened and how sick some of it is. Seriously, read Salma Hayek's recent account of her experience when making Frida.
Who's discouraging reform? More importantly what reform do you imagine is going to happen?
This isn't some law someone is going to repeal and suddenly Hollywood (and every other money-driven large industry) is going to shape up. People in power (and/or with money) have been doing this for thousands of years.
I suppose my consideration of what is "sick" is pretty numbed, because I'm not terribly shocked by any of what I've read. Perhaps my history has exposed me to things of a far worse nature, so my definition of "shocking" is far different than yours.
Disregarding feeder's pathetic attempt at sarcasm, my main concern is when people with minor or trivial incidents try to join the victim-train of people were actually molested/abused/etc. To me that's an insult to actual victims of actual crimes and abuse. But, by all means continue to be shocked.
Elbows wrote: Who's discouraging reform? More importantly what reform do you imagine is going to happen?
This isn't some law someone is going to repeal and suddenly Hollywood (and every other money-driven large industry) is going to shape up. People in power (and/or with money) have been doing this for thousands of years.
I suppose my consideration of what is "sick" is pretty numbed, because I'm not terribly shocked by any of what I've read. Perhaps my history has exposed me to things of a far worse nature, so my definition of "shocking" is far different than yours.
Disregarding feeder's pathetic attempt at sarcasm, my main concern is when people with minor or trivial incidents try to join the victim-train of people were actually molested/abused/etc. To me that's an insult to actual victims of actual crimes and abuse. But, by all means continue to be shocked.
So Morgan Spurlock has come out with a short bit about his own issues. He's the guy that made Supersize Me, an inexplicably popular documentary that turned out to be mostly bs. He's made other documentaries since then that I'm not sure anyone saw, so I don't know if he still counts as famous, but his confession is kind of interesting all the same.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqc244
And I mean interesting in the 'this is really problematic'. I mean, I don't want to dump of Spurlock, because he did this of his own volition and he has been a victim of abuse himself, so hopefully this is part of his own recovery, and an end to his own problematic behaviour. But from reading his letter, man does Spurlock still have a lot of work to do. He tells of a college incident in which he was told no at two different points, but continued to kiss the girl, and it led to sex before her crying caused him to stop. He recognises this was bad, but in a weird kind of way, where what he did isn't a bad thing he did by himself, but part of a greater social problem, "I am part of the problem". I probably wouldn't have thought too much about that, except Spurlock then describes his personal revelation that calling an employee 'hot pants' or 'sex pants' caused her to feel objectified. No fething kidding Morgan.
Probably the biggest issue is that he know declares he is part of the solution, despite having done nothing beyond write a short essay in which he kind of almost takes responsibilibty for having done bad stuff.
I mean, I feel for the guy because he was a victim of abuse, which led to a lifelong drinking problem. And he chose to make this stuff public, it wasn't like Kevin Spacey who only came forward once a victim spoke out. But at the same time, damn does this fall short of what's needed to actually start being part of the solution.
Breotan wrote: As toxic as Moore was, a lot of people still voted for him. The Democrats won't hold that seat for long, unless Moore wins the upcoming primary in the regular election cycle. Man, that could actually happen, couldn't it? /facepalm
Maybe, but I doubt it. It was important for many Republicans to deny what Moore did, as long as he was their senate candidate. The level of motivated reasoning was very strong. But now that Moore has lost, and is not only irrelevant to the Republican cause, but can also be blamed by many for Republicans losing a senate seat in Alabama, that protection is gone and if anything Republicans are now motivated to be hostile against Moore. I think it is more likely than not Moore will be a pariah among a majority of Republicans, including Alabama Republicans, within a year or so.
Something similar is happening with Bill Clinton right now. First it was important for Democrats to defend him because he was a Democratic president, then it was important to defend him because he linked closely to Hillary's own presidential bid. Now that's over lots of Democrats are seeing Bill Clinton with new eyes, and are starting to accept that his sexual behaviour was predatory and should not have been defended.
It's the same dynamic that's protected most of these offenders. People will never say they're okay with protecting abusers, but as long as that abuser is part of a system that people don't want to lose or endanger, then they find a way to dismiss, deny, or ignore the charges against that abuser.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: Who's discouraging reform? More importantly what reform do you imagine is going to happen?
Moore's accusers were called liars. People falsely claimed they were just telling their story for money. One Alabama Republican said the girls should be prosecuted, either for lying or for not telling their stories sooner, whatever would shut them up, basically. The Moore campaign distributed advice to its staff, telling them what strategies to use to discredit and attack the women. Conservative aligned media like The Daily Wire and Breitbart ran daily stories trying to discredit the women, and call them liars.
People in power (and/or with money) have been doing this for thousands of years.
The reality people need to come terms with is that these don't happen because money and power exist. They happen because people who know what the abuser is doing choose to do nothing or even cover up the crimes, because they don't want to risk their own money and power to help out a victim. That's something that can change, if we want it to.
Just because of the hilarity of it all, it seems that Bill Mitchell, who dismissed the accusations against Moore as "rumors" is now spreading "rumors" (and by rumors I mean lies so bald faced its either sad or baffling that he thought no one would notice), that Moore only lost because "someone" sent a bunch African Americans from Mississippi to vote for Doug Jones.
The more the world changes the more it stays the same. Some of the troll tweets in response are pretty damn funny.
LordofHats wrote: Just because of the hilarity of it all, it seems that Bill Mitchell, who dismissed the accusations against Moore as "rumors" is now spreading "rumors" (and by rumors I mean lies so bald faced its either sad or baffling that he thought no one would notice), that Moore only lost because "someone" sent a bunch African Americans from Mississippi to vote for Doug Jones.
The more the world changes the more it stays the same. Some of the troll tweets in response are pretty damn funny.
This wins so much:
Kyle Dreamboat @KyleDreamboat wrote:If people had the means to get out of MS I'm sure they wouldn't go to AL
Elbows wrote: Who's discouraging reform? More importantly what reform do you imagine is going to happen?
This isn't some law someone is going to repeal and suddenly Hollywood (and every other money-driven large industry) is going to shape up. People in power (and/or with money) have been doing this for thousands of years.
I suppose my consideration of what is "sick" is pretty numbed, because I'm not terribly shocked by any of what I've read. Perhaps my history has exposed me to things of a far worse nature, so my definition of "shocking" is far different than yours.
Disregarding feeder's pathetic attempt at sarcasm, my main concern is when people with minor or trivial incidents try to join the victim-train of people were actually molested/abused/etc. To me that's an insult to actual victims of actual crimes and abuse. But, by all means continue to be shocked.
Boy, we're all so honoured you took time out of your undoubtedly busy and important day to come down here and tell all us common folk what actually constitutes real abuse.
We're ever so grateful to be graced by such a mysterious and enigmatic leader of men
Elbows wrote: I suppose my consideration of what is "sick" is pretty numbed, because I'm not terribly shocked by any of what I've read. Perhaps my history has exposed me to things of a far worse nature, so my definition of "shocking" is far different than yours.
Oh man, so have I! I once spent 2 1/2 hours bandaging a man with gangrene on his foot so bad you could see past the tendons to the bone. His family basically left him in a bed all day in the same position and never moved him. His foot became so infected it began rotting off. They ended up taking the leg off just below the knee, but sadly the man did not make it after the surgery. We had to report the family for neglect. The family was very upset because we threw one of his shoes away. They wanted to give them to another family member.
But yet, I can still understand how sick and disgusting all of this is without the whole "I've seen it all this isn't that bad" schtick. It sounds like you have issues compartmentalizing these horrific things you have seen which is leading to a lack of empathy. My suggestion is maybe seeing a counselor so you can get a better grasp on reality.
Not sure if she's the first female reported during this period of holding people accountable, but she's definitely the first one I've SEEN a story on. Also, would it count as the accusations are older? It certainly wound up ending her political career.
Not sure if she's the first female reported during this period of holding people accountable, but she's definitely the first one I've SEEN a story on. Also, would it count as the accusations are older? It certainly wound up ending her political career.
Melanie Martinez was accused of essentially raping her roommate. It was about a week and several pages ago.
UK rape trial collapsed spectacularly this week when the police were forced to admit they had not divulged the alleged victim's mobile phone messages which showed how much she enjoyed sex with the man she later accused of rape.
False accusations do happen, but it is rare compared to the number of real rapes and assaults.
sebster wrote: So Morgan Spurlock has come out with a short bit about his own issues. He's the guy that made Supersize Me, an inexplicably popular documentary that turned out to be mostly bs. He's made other documentaries since then that I'm not sure anyone saw, so I don't know if he still counts as famous, but his confession is kind of interesting all the same.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqc244
And I mean interesting in the 'this is really problematic'. I mean, I don't want to dump of Spurlock, because he did this of his own volition and he has been a victim of abuse himself, so hopefully this is part of his own recovery, and an end to his own problematic behaviour. But from reading his letter, man does Spurlock still have a lot of work to do. He tells of a college incident in which he was told no at two different points, but continued to kiss the girl, and it led to sex before her crying caused him to stop. He recognises this was bad, but in a weird kind of way, where what he did isn't a bad thing he did by himself, but part of a greater social problem, "I am part of the problem". I probably wouldn't have thought too much about that, except Spurlock then describes his personal revelation that calling an employee 'hot pants' or 'sex pants' caused her to feel objectified. No fething kidding Morgan.
Probably the biggest issue is that he know declares he is part of the solution, despite having done nothing beyond write a short essay in which he kind of almost takes responsibilibty for having done bad stuff.
I mean, I feel for the guy because he was a victim of abuse, which led to a lifelong drinking problem. And he chose to make this stuff public, it wasn't like Kevin Spacey who only came forward once a victim spoke out. But at the same time, damn does this fall short of what's needed to actually start being part of the solution.
Breotan wrote: As toxic as Moore was, a lot of people still voted for him. The Democrats won't hold that seat for long, unless Moore wins the upcoming primary in the regular election cycle. Man, that could actually happen, couldn't it? /facepalm
Maybe, but I doubt it. It was important for many Republicans to deny what Moore did, as long as he was their senate candidate. The level of motivated reasoning was very strong. But now that Moore has lost, and is not only irrelevant to the Republican cause, but can also be blamed by many for Republicans losing a senate seat in Alabama, that protection is gone and if anything Republicans are now motivated to be hostile against Moore. I think it is more likely than not Moore will be a pariah among a majority of Republicans, including Alabama Republicans, within a year or so.
Something similar is happening with Bill Clinton right now. First it was important for Democrats to defend him because he was a Democratic president, then it was important to defend him because he linked closely to Hillary's own presidential bid. Now that's over lots of Democrats are seeing Bill Clinton with new eyes, and are starting to accept that his sexual behaviour was predatory and should not have been defended.
It's the same dynamic that's protected most of these offenders. People will never say they're okay with protecting abusers, but as long as that abuser is part of a system that people don't want to lose or endanger, then they find a way to dismiss, deny, or ignore the charges against that abuser.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elbows wrote: Who's discouraging reform? More importantly what reform do you imagine is going to happen?
Moore's accusers were called liars. People falsely claimed they were just telling their story for money. One Alabama Republican said the girls should be prosecuted, either for lying or for not telling their stories sooner, whatever would shut them up, basically. The Moore campaign distributed advice to its staff, telling them what strategies to use to discredit and attack the women. Conservative aligned media like The Daily Wire and Breitbart ran daily stories trying to discredit the women, and call them liars.
People in power (and/or with money) have been doing this for thousands of years.
The reality people need to come terms with is that these don't happen because money and power exist. They happen because people who know what the abuser is doing choose to do nothing or even cover up the crimes, because they don't want to risk their own money and power to help out a victim. That's something that can change, if we want it to.
I wouldn't say that Dailywire was part of that, though possibly Brietbart. Ben Shapiro, one of the main people at Daily Wire was heavily against Moore period and called others out for supporting him.
NenkotaMoon wrote: I wouldn't say that Dailywire was part of that, though possibly Brietbart. Ben Shapiro, one of the main people at Daily Wire was heavily against Moore period and called others out for supporting him.
That's fair. On this issue The Daily Wire were good. I threw them in there without thinking back to who was bad on this particular issue, and I shouldn't have. In fact, The Daily Wire were better than most MSM publications when reporting the text under the yearbook signature, they made it clear in the headline of their article it was just the text under the signature that was added by another party, a distinction not that many other's made immediately clear.
So, Hollywood is now setting up an anti-abuse committee. Good idea. Bad execution
Because who is in these commissions? The CEOs of Disney, Warner Bros, Unviersal Music Group, Paramount, Sony, and a high-up from Netflix.
Basically, the people in power are head of the committee that's supposed to stop sexual abuse by people in power.
Note: I'm not claiming that any of these people are abusers themselves. Merely pointing out the logical inconsistency.
Bran Dawri wrote: So, Hollywood is now setting up an anti-abuse committee. Good idea. Bad execution
Because who is in these commissions? The CEOs of Disney, Warner Bros, Unviersal Music Group, Paramount, Sony, and a high-up from Netflix.
Basically, the people in power are head of the committee that's supposed to stop sexual abuse by people in power.
Note: I'm not claiming that any of these people are abusers themselves. Merely pointing out the logical inconsistency.
No I think your right. Even if these guys were really good at it and completely fair there would always be an air of suspicion just because the watchers shouldn't be the same people supposedly being watched (like how we really shouldn't put former corporate CEO's on commissions charged with regulating said corporations... which we do a lot). They should have selected people from outside the corporate structure, but who were still part of the industry if they wanted an in house watch dog. They could have even gone mixed. Pick members from the financial end, the production end, writer's guild, stage crew union (?), and the actors guild so that all concerned parties could have equal representation. No solution is really perfect, but the one they picked is easily one of the worst options.
But on the other hand, a panel of independent arbiters with no actual power over the people being accused could result in issues being raised and then nothing happening as the people doing the watching have no way to enforce changes.
Tricky issue to set up an independent watchbody whilst ensuring it actually has teeth to enforce its findings.
You would need to have people in positions of power on board with the committee to ensure it had clout to actually force companies to act when necessary. I think Hats proposal, where you have a larger panel which includes the CEOs, Union representatives etc., would be the best, especially if you shape it so that there are more "little voices" on it than the big CEOs, so even if the CEOs try to band together (say someone is being accused of something they all did, too, and don't want it to set a precedent of the punishment being dismissal), they can be outvoted.
A Town Called Malus wrote: But on the other hand, a panel of independent arbiters with no actual power over the people being accused could result in issues being raised and then nothing happening as the people doing the watching have no way to enforce changes.
The thing is that you don't need actual power over the people accused.
You just need to be able to make enough noise and back up your claims. These things are beaten by the powerful because their money and position offers a better support network than what is available to their accusers and they can drown out their victims. Trying the potentially guilty is the job of the justice system. What is need is not power over the guilty but a voice loud enough and with enough credibility that it can't be easily silenced.
Mario wrote: And what does that "fame" usually get them. Nothing besides abuse. Who would want to bet their future on such odds? Might as well try to win a million dollar by running through a minefield. Sure, occasionally somebody makes it (if they are lucky) but on average it's just a lot of pain with no upside.
Bran Dawri wrote: So, Hollywood is now setting up an anti-abuse committee. Good idea. Bad execution
Because who is in these commissions? The CEOs of Disney, Warner Bros, Unviersal Music Group, Paramount, Sony, and a high-up from Netflix.
Basically, the people in power are head of the committee that's supposed to stop sexual abuse by people in power.
Note: I'm not claiming that any of these people are abusers themselves. Merely pointing out the logical inconsistency.
I beleive I heard that the "president" of this new group would be Law Professor Anita Hill. Yes, THAT Anita Hill!
Actually even a 'gentlemans club' of senior execs from different studios may well work,
if only because sinking a rival studio in bad press because of the behaviour of a colleague is just the sort of think that will appeal to the sort of alpha personalities that get these jobs
Mario wrote: And what does that "fame" usually get them. Nothing besides abuse. Who would want to bet their future on such odds? Might as well try to win a million dollar by running through a minefield. Sure, occasionally somebody makes it (if they are lucky) but on average it's just a lot of pain with no upside.
I might not go on record making false accusations (but no charges) for the price of a good home. I'd be tempted though.
“Donors reached out to my firm directly to help some of the women I represented,” said Bloom, whose clients have also included accusers of Bill Cosby and Bill O’Reilly.
Bloom said her goal in securing money was not to pressure the women to come forward, but rather to help them relocate or arrange security if they felt unsafe during the waning days of a vitriolic election. She declined to identify any of the donors.
“Our standard pro bono agreement for legal services provides that if a media entity offers to compensate a client for sharing his or her story we receive a percentage of those fees. This rarely happens. But, on occasion, a case generates media interest and sometimes (not always) a client may receive an appearance fee,” she said.
Not even that, but nothing in the article suggests any of the women were being coaxed to make false accusations. From the article at worst a lawyer was being sleazy in trying to capitalize on their story.
Bran Dawri wrote: So, Hollywood is now setting up an anti-abuse committee. Good idea. Bad execution Because who is in these commissions? The CEOs of Disney, Warner Bros, Unviersal Music Group, Paramount, Sony, and a high-up from Netflix.
Basically, the people in power are head of the committee that's supposed to stop sexual abuse by people in power.
Note: I'm not claiming that any of these people are abusers themselves. Merely pointing out the logical inconsistency.
It's actually a gender equality committee, which was being worked towards for a long time before the sex abuse allegations came to light. Originally it was more focused about getting equal pay for men and women.
And its worth noting that the committee has more people on it than just the major studio heads, although it is definitely weighted towards studio power players, rather than activists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Not even that, but nothing in the article suggests any of the women were being coaxed to make false accusations. From the article at worst a lawyer was being sleazy in trying to capitalize on their story.
It isn't ideal that accusers aren't all making their claims with money never being raised, but this is the real world. It says something that the person who did look for some money was the women who'd been through it before. She knew how the media and accused's reactions can cost the accuser a small fortune.
So rather than insist that accusers accept being out of pocket a lot of money just to keep their accusation completely pure, what we should do is just look at the accusation and see if it is credible. With almost 20 women making allegations against Trump, if they were lying there should be plenty of holes to find. Yet there's none found. There's reasons for that.
Well, how can we say the accusers are "Not Credible" when we have a tape of Trump himself saying that he does harrass women when he talked with Billy Bush. It was the good old Access Hollywood tape.
One person in that tape got fired and has no career, the other is now President. Let's think about that for a moment. I would like to think we would hold politicians to a higher standard than Hollywood types, but I know that idea is incredibly naive. Ideally, we hold them all to a high standard and act accordingly when they do not meet those standards.
.... but her Emails.
We should talk more about how European Politics leads to World Wars. It lowers my blood pressure.
Kilkrazy wrote: UK rape trial collapsed spectacularly this week when the police were forced to admit they had not divulged the alleged victim's mobile phone messages which showed how much she enjoyed sex with the man she later accused of rape.
False accusations do happen, but it is rare compared to the number of real rapes and assaults.
Though enjoying sex with someone doesn’t mean you can’t be raped by them, what was the strength of other evidence in the trial? It’s not been discussed, but it hugely undermines the validity of all case evidence when the police were excluding a large volume of material that didn’t suit the prosecution. The implication made by one BBC article is that after years of police not believing rape victims and wanting to improve the poor conviction rates on rape, are now overcompensating by going the other way and believing everything a victim says and assembling the evidence in a manner required to get a conviction. They can’t seem to get a reasonable middle ground on this.
sebster wrote: With almost 20 women making allegations against Trump, if they were lying there should be plenty of holes to find. Yet there's none found. There's reasons for that.
Easy E wrote: Well, how can we say the accusers are "Not Credible" when we have a tape of Trump himself saying that he does harrass women when he talked with Billy Bush. It was the good old Access Hollywood tape.
Never happened. He specifically explained that (in his experience as a star, and around stars) women consent to any and all advances by stars- offering an extreme hypothetical of grabbing them by the nethers.
If you haven't found any holes in the accuser stories then you've not been paying attention.
We can say the accusers are not credible when they claim Trump cornered them in dressing rooms which were crowded and chaperoned with zero witnesses.
We can say the accusers are not credible when after the alleged misconduct they reached out to Trump for aid in promoting products or services or otherwise remained good friends.
We can say the accusers are not credible when they make claims decades old right before a presidential election, providing zero evidence or witnesses that could be challenged to confirm their stories/clear his name.
Crucially, when charges are not filed, the accusation is certainly an appeal to the court of public opinion rather than to any court of justice. Without any formal investigation. allegations will linger indefinitely and can always be called upon when needed to smear a mans name.
Rowanne Brewer Lane, Trump's former girlfriend, was quoted at length in the article and was featured in the opening anecdote. Following the article's publication, Brewer Lane accused The Times of taking her quotes out of context and said that she was "flattered" and not insulted by Trump. Trump spokesperson Barry Bennett responded to the story by stating: "They talked to 50 women and managed to put seven or eight in the story. Over half of them had great things to say. The one that had great things to say, they twisted it and called her debased which is not how she feels." The Times defended the story and said Brewer Lane was "quoted fairly, accurately and at length"
Smear a man's name? Trump and his supporters obviously couldn't care less. So why would they keep up 'fake' accusations that don't even do anything useful in the polarized political climate.
But sure, dozens of women are all lying because they love being smeared themselves and receiving death threats! No downsides at all besides those sweet 15 minutes of fame right?
So please no-one ever ask again why women don't come forward with accusations straight away. Against anyone with the slightest hint of status or respectability there is tremendous danger in making an accusation.
=Angel= wrote: If you haven't found any holes in the accuser stories then you've not been paying attention.
Rowanne Brewer Lane
Here's a list of Trump's accusers*
Jessica Leeds
Jill Harth
Kristen Anderson
Lisa Boyne
Cathy Heller
Temple Taggart
Mariah Billado
Karena Virginia
Bridget Sullivan
Tasha Dixon
Melinda McGillivray
Jennifer Murphy
Rachel Crooks
Natasha Stoynoff
Ninni Laaksonen
Jessica Drake
Samantha Holvey
Summer Zervos
Cassandra Searles
You know what's missing from that list? The person you chose to talk about. She isn't one of Trump's accusers. Your argument becomes 'someone who isn't listed as one of Trump's accusers disputes the media's reporting of her story, therefore the actual accusers shouldn't be believed'. It's an argument of the most incredible nonsense. It is so plainly absurd, so extraordinarily terrible that I think you, me, and everyone else who is engaged in US politics in any way needs to spend a lot of time thinking about what you just tried to argue. Because if we can get just a little understanding in to why you posted something so utterly bonkers, then maybe we'll be a step closer to understanding the thought patterns that led to something as ridiculous as Donald Trump's presidency.
*Ivanka Trump not included as it is hard to know what to make of that one. Unlike every other accuser on that list, Ivanka had plenty to gain when she made her original accusation, as she was in the process of divorcing Donald. And she retracted her accusation, sort of, but even the retracted version is rapey. So whatever actually happened there it's probably best just to leave it off the list and focus on the other 19 women who's cases form a clear pattern of molestation on the part of Trump.
So please no-one ever ask again why women don't come forward with accusations straight away. Against anyone with the slightest hint of status or respectability there is tremendous danger in making an accusation.
While I can respect what you’re saying, lets hold off on the conspiracy or sensationalism in this case.
Below is from the source linked in your article. The relevant details that somehow didn’t make it into the Politico article :
That fire is still under investigation by the Etowah County Arson Task Force," said Natalie Barton, public information officer with the Etowah County Sheriff's Department. "A suspect of interest is being spoken to. But there have been no charges, to my knowledge, related to the fire at this time."
Barton later released a statement, saying, "The ongoing investigation does not lead us to believe that the fire is in any way related to Roy Moore or allegations made against him. More details will be released when warrants are obtained."
According to Johnson and neighbor Kevin Tallant, other neighbors witnessed a young man who had a history of public intoxication walking around the house before and during the blaze.
"He's been trouble in the neighborhood for a while," said Tallant, who lives across the street from Johnson and her family. He got a call from another neighbor that morning who said smoke was coming from the home and that somebody might be inside.
"I threw on my coveralls and took off down the driveway," he said. His wife called 911 at 8:26 a.m. but the dispatcher said they'd already received a call about the fire. "I got up there," he said, "and (the fire) was already pretty well started. When the fire department got there, I started helping them."
Johnson said she has not yet heard from law enforcement how or why the fire started, except that it started at the back of the house.
She said a woman neighbor told her that the young man in question approached her as she was getting in her car that morning and asked if she thought Johnson's house was going to burn. The neighbor didn't know what he was talking about, she said, because flames weren't visible at the time.
I find it hard to believe it was total coincidence it was her and not any other house in the neighborhood. No conspiracy needed, just an angry (and drunk?) Moore supporter.
nels1031 wrote: While I can respect what you’re saying, lets hold off on the conspiracy or sensationalism in this case.
You're right. I read a piece the day before (I think) that didn't have that extra police statement. When I got on dakka I just went and grabbed a new link for everyone, but didn't check the if any new information had been added. As a result I went with the more sensationalist early take. Cheers for picking up my mistake.
We can wait and watch to see how this develops. No value speculating right now, like I did.
Allegations this morning were made against Craig McLachlan. To be honest the guy is only marginally famous in Australia, so this is hardly a big story. What's interesting is how closely it mirrors so many other stories. McLachlan has been a regular in lots of TV shows, but has never been a huge TV star despite beinga household name since the 80s. But McLachlan regularly headlines in performances of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, where he is a big draw and a major reason the show is a reliable cash cow for decades. That's where McLachlan is alleged to have kissed and groped his female costars. Like so many others, when McLachlan was confronted he used his star power to threaten the women, telling them he could ruin them. Like in so many other cases, the show runners ignored complaints, likely because they didn't want to lose their meal ticket. And like in so many other cases, as his behaviour went unchecked McLachlan got worse and worse.
Like in so many other cases, we have many women making these statements, and two who have now made formal complaints to the police. Like in so many other cases, McLachlan denies it, saying the women are looking for money or notoriety, and asking why none of these women came forward before now.
It's just the same story, playing out almost exactly the same as it did everywhere else.
So this adds a new reason to keep quiet: sometimes the scumbag literally holds your life in his hands. I think we all understood women kept quiet in Hollywood because it was about making or breaking your career in the game of influence. But, damn, what do you do when the gakhole could theoretically get you killed and make it look like an accident?
But it's ok everyone because he "Already apologised".
The #metoo movement is an important step in recognizing the ongoing problem of sexual harassment and molestation of women, often brought about because of unequal power dynamics. It is a very good thing that women's stories are being brought into the open for people to see, as it's the only way it will be solved.
This story... does not help do that. This is a story about a woman who didn't say no wondering why her non-verbal signals were completely missed and having sex anyway, with someone who had no power of position over her, nor had made any threats against her. It does show that women must be able to say "No" explicitly, and be taught that, especially in sexual encounters with a person you don't know very well, you cannot rely on non-verbal signals alone. Well, a slap would work, but that's still assault if nothing has been done to you. This story is not what needs to be focused on, like Weinstein or Spacey, or even the Orange Menace, along with hundreds of others who use their positions to push others into sex under duress.
While the Aziz Ansari is not about workplace harassment, it definitely was about him ignoring her feelings and statements and continuing to pressure her to get what he wanted. If you read her original statement on Babe.net, she told him she was uncomfortable and asked him to stop pressuring her multiple times. He said they would just "chill," wait a few moments, and then start pressuring her again.
The reason why people are upset about his behavior is because he wrote a book about dating that basically said not to do crap like that and respect what the woman says.
It doesn't help that articles are ignoring the verbal communication that she said multiple times. She told him “I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you.” He acknowledged her statement, stopped for a little while, then started right back up again.
While it is not a workplace harassment issue, it is totally a part of the conversation.
Maddermax wrote: This story... does not help do that. This is a story about a woman who didn't say no wondering why her non-verbal signals were completely missed and having sex anyway, with someone who had no power of position over her, nor had made any threats against her. It does show that women must be able to say "No" explicitly, and be taught that, especially in sexual encounters with a person you don't know very well, you cannot rely on non-verbal signals alone. Well, a slap would work, but that's still assault if nothing has been done to you. This story is not what needs to be focused on, like Weinstein or Spacey, or even the Orange Menace, along with hundreds of others who use their positions to push others into sex under duress.
Maybe stories like this are even more important to tell because while what happened it's a lot less awful than Weinstein, Trump and the other predators, events like this are way more common.
And it isn't just about women saying no. I think we need to stop putting solutions for this on to women. It is really important for men to realise that when placed in situation where they are scared or intimidated, people will often go passive or even compliant. This isn't the same as forcing yourself on someone, but it's still something we can all agree is horrible and not what any decent person would want to do to someone else.
What it means for men is that it isn't enough to say you never heard 'no'. It means what you need to in order to proceed you should be looking for a clear, enthusiastic 'yes'. It means that if a girl is showing signals you can't quite figure out or if you think she's a bit a unsure then for feth's sake please stop. Don't think you'll convince her just by carrying on, and it's okay because she hasn't said no. Because there's a chance like Ansari you'll end up forcing yourself on a woman who is unsure about how far you'll go to pressure her, and so she's opted to just go quiet.
So yeah, it isn't the same as those really despicable predators. But it's still a story that really needs to be told.
sebster wrote: Maybe stories like this are even more important to tell because while what happened it's a lot less awful than Weinstein, Trump and the other predators, events like this are way more common.
And it isn't just about women saying no. I think we need to stop putting solutions for this on to women. It is really important for men to realise that when placed in situation where they are scared or intimidated, people will often go passive or even compliant. This isn't the same as forcing yourself on someone, but it's still something we can all agree is horrible and not what any decent person would want to do to someone else.
My fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones. They're not angels, incapable of wrongdoing. If they were, we wouldn't need a legal system.
Nor do I believe that women are children, incapable of agency or of making moral decisions. If they were, we're back to the 19th century, and women should not own property, have credit cards, have access to higher education, control their own reproduction or vote.
...
There are, at present, three kinds of "witch" language. 1) Calling someone a witch, as applied lavishly to Hillary Clinton during the recent election. 2) "Witchhunt," used to imply that someone is looking for something that doesn't exist. 3) The structure of the Salem witchcraft trials, in which you were guilty because accused. I was talking about the third use.
This structure – guilty because accused – has applied in many more episodes in human history than Salem. It tends to kick in during the "Terror and Virtue" phase of revolutions – something has gone wrong, and there must be a purge, as in the French Revolution, Stalin's purges in the USSR, the Red Guard period in China, the reign of the Generals in Argentina and the early days of the Iranian Revolution. The list is long and Left and Right have both indulged. Before "Terror and Virtue" is over, a great many have fallen by the wayside. Note that I am not saying that there are no traitors or whatever the target group may be; simply that in such times, the usual rules of evidence are bypassed.
Such things are always done in the name of ushering in a better world. Sometimes they do usher one in, for a time anyway. Sometimes they are used as an excuse for new forms of oppression. As for vigilante justice – condemnation without a trial – it begins as a response to a lack of justice – either the system is corrupt, as in prerevolutionary France, or there isn't one, as in the Wild West – so people take things into their own hands. But understandable and temporary vigilante justice can morph into a culturally solidified lynch-mob habit, in which the available mode of justice is thrown out the window, and extralegal power structures are put into place and maintained. The Cosa Nostra, for instance, began as a resistance to political tyranny.
The #MeToo moment is a symptom of a broken legal system. All too frequently, women and other sexual-abuse complainants couldn't get a fair hearing through institutions – including corporate structures – so they used a new tool: the internet. Stars fell from the skies. This has been very effective, and has been seen as a massive wake-up call. But what next? The legal system can be fixed, or our society could dispose of it. Institutions, corporations and workplaces can houseclean, or they can expect more stars to fall, and also a lot of asteroids.
If the legal system is bypassed because it is seen as ineffectual, what will take its place? Who will be the new power brokers? It won't be the Bad Feminists like me.
I think I can summarize her points as:
-Women have agency. To put the onus of Aziz's encounter entirely on him partially denies 'Grace' had agency.
-#MeToo is a reaction against an intolerable legal situation where the police and judiciary didn't protect people against sexual assault by people in positions of power. What is legally intolerable about Aziz's situation? If it was rape it occurred last year and he can be still be prosecuted. So why accuse him anonymously without involving law enforcement?
-#MeToo is a reaction against an intolerable legal situation where the police and judiciary didn't protect people against sexual assault by people in positions of power. What is legally intolerable about Aziz's situation? If it was rape it occurred last year and he can be still be prosecuted. So why accuse him anonymously without involving law enforcement?
Because many people do not have faith in the legal system to actually bring rapists to justice. Whereas the public accusations against high profile people have done more to hold people accountable than the perception of what the police would do.
avantgarde wrote: So why accuse him anonymously without involving law enforcement?
The standard for "gakky Behavior", "Skeevy" and "donkey-cave" are different than the standards for any particular crime. One can share a story of being treated poorly or in a manner that is disrespectful and harmful without meeting any particular standard for prosecution.
Regardless this situation like every other could have easily been avoided with some damn common sense. Here is a very simple metric for if you should get out your dick:
Is someone asking you to do so in way that seems sincere? * If they are it is probably OK to take out your dick.
* If they aren't, leave your dick in your pants.
It's seriously not complicated. Nobody ever got in trouble or hurt somebody by keeping one-eyed willy in his house.
If that's your opinion. Then you should just throw out the legal system and conduct these #MeToo judgements entirely in some ad hoc hybrid court of public opinion and corporate HR sterility.
Because that's the new system, waiting for anonymous denunciations to come down the pipe to furnish clicks for blog level "news" sites like Babe.net and pray our beneficent corporate overlords profits are hurt enough for them toss out scraps.
Gucci.
The solution for #MeToo is not to cast aside institutions and do this all extra judicially but to correct the legal system. Otherwise you're just beholdened to the same power brokers who allowed Weinstein and Spacey to rape to pass judgement and punishment on them for you.
It's seriously not complicated. Nobody ever got in trouble or hurt somebody by keeping one-eyed willy in his house.
One could argue one of the causes of royal unpopularity in pre-Revolutionary France was Louis the XVI's reluctance to smash Marie Antoninette for the first 7 years of their marriage.
avantgarde wrote: If that's your opinion. Then you should just throw out the legal system and conduct these #MeToo judgements entirely in some ad hoc hybrid court of public opinion and corporate HR sterility.
Because that's the new system, waiting for anonymous denunciations to come down the pipe to furnish clicks for blog level "news" sites like Babe.net and pray our beneficent corporate overlords profits are hurt enough for them toss out scraps.
Gucci.
There is no reason to throw out the legal system just because not all kinds of gakky behavior rise to the point of criminal offense and yet people are still willing to hold folks socially accountable for said gakky behavior. If some guy goes around parading about in a nazi uniform shouting racial slurs, he probably hasn't committed a crime in most cases. He is however demonstrating that he's an donkey-cave and folks would be within their rights to condemn him and his behavior with no particular need for the courts to get involved. If he refrained from doing so in public and only did the yelling nazi act in the privacy of his own home with invited guests, folks would still be within their rights to codemn him and his behavior should one of his guests choose to spill the beans.
The courts & the criminal process are for dealing with specifically defined behaviors given specifically defined standards evidence. It has nothing to do with the fact that folks are well within their rights to hear a story say "That sounds credible, and that also sounds gakky". Particularly when the dude in question is going "Yeah, sorry. I guess I didn't realize I was being so gakky"
But that's not the argument because we already defined a singular punishment for the accused in #MeToo.
Permanent career damage and social ostracisation.
All behavior that falls within that hashtag are subject to that punishment. Fondling a 14 year old girl while you're a district attorney is on a completely different level of acceptable behavior then being too aggressive on a date. Any reasonable person would think the punishment for the former should be more severe than the latter.
In the same way parading around in Nazi regalia professing white supremacy should not be tolerated but hanging that person like he's Amon Goth is not the answer.
It's the lack of nuance in punishment that upsets people not whether the behavior is acceptable.
avantgarde wrote: But that's not the argument because we already defined a singular punishment for the accused in #MeToo.
Permanent career damage and social ostracisation.
All behavior that falls within that hashtag are subject to that punishment. Fondling a 14 year old girl while you're a district attorney is on a completely different level of acceptable behavior then being too aggressive on a date. Any reasonable person would think the punishment for the former should be more severe than the latter.
In the same way parading around in Nazi regalia professing white supremacy should not be tolerated but hanging that person like he's Amon Goth is not the answer.
It the lack of nuance in punishment that upsets people not the whether the behavior is acceptable.
Last I checked nobody is being hanged and no body official or otherwise is sanctioning specific punishments. People are telling stories and folks are deciding for themselves how credible those stories seem and then deciding to what extent they do or don't want to change their interactions and opinions of people based on that. In this particular case the credibility issue isn't a factor as the dude confirmed the events in question took place.
That now some people will think less of him and certain businesses or other entities may choose to no association with him is their own business. "Creeper" is not a protected class.
If you personally want to remain skeptical of people's stories until a greater standard of evidence has been reached, that is your right.
If you personally have no desire to lower your opinion of people or how you interact with them based on these stories confirmed or otherwise, that is your right.
However there is nothing wrong with folks hearing a story, finding it credible and informing their behavior based on that.
avantgarde wrote: So why accuse him anonymously without involving law enforcement?
Regardless this situation like every other could have easily been avoided with some damn common sense. Here is a very simple metric for if you should get out your dick:
Is someone asking you to do so in way that seems sincere? * If they are it is probably OK to take out your dick.
* If they aren't, leave your dick in your pants.
It's seriously not complicated. Nobody ever got in trouble or hurt somebody by keeping one-eyed willy in his house.
This seems like the male equivalent of using aspirin as contraceptive.
Where is the need for the woman to exhibit common sense?
Chongara wrote: In this particular case the credibility issue isn't a factor as the dude confirmed the events in question took place.
That now some people will think less of him and certain businesses or other entities may choose to no association with him is their own business. "Creeper" is not a protected class.
To be clear Ansari didn't confirm that the events in question took place as the accuser is framing them. He acknowledged that he went out on a date with the person who later felt uncomfortable with the events that occurred. Big difference there. He isn't admitting to inappropriate actions.
Which brings me back to my original question, what about the woman's actions in the Ansari case? Is he really a "creeper" in this situation or was he a person trying to clumsily get laid? Everything I have read about the encounter places the situation in the "bad date" category and nowhere near harassment or inappropriate actions taken on Ansari's part. But headlines about Aziz Ansari's "harassment" flood the internet over the weekend, made the rounds on morning talk shows and now randoms on a miniature gaming board are calling him a "creeper" based on a one-sided, anonymous account. And this is okay in your opinion? All of that character assassination based on one person's account over a date? Why? Because Ansari has a penis and wants to orgasm? Seems pretty Puritanical to me.
And again, what about "Grace's" agency in the situation? She wasn't helpless. She wasn't drugged. She was in no way prevented from interrupting the events that transpired in his apartment. She consented to receiving and providing oral sex and when pushed for more by Ansari, "Grace" declined, and was sent home in an Uber. What part of that encounter is creepy, or makes Ansari a creeper worthy of public shame and potential financial hardship? It sounds like a misfiring date, a scenario that happens on the weekly around the world between singles. Lumping Ansari in with C.K., or Cosby or Spacey does a disservice to the victims of those actual harassers, and gets us no closer to finding a proper way forward in dealing with the actual problem of sexual harassment.
Chongara wrote: However there is nothing wrong with folks hearing a story, finding it credible and informing their behavior based on that.
Sure there is, especially if there are real world consequences attached to people believing a false story. A story isn't fact, necessarily. There is a lot of bs and misinformation floating around and often people are unwilling or unable to vet credible sources. Coupled with any retractions to false stories being lost in the ever changing news cycle and "folks hearing a story" can lead to some pretty fethed up consequences for those caught up in nonsense.
This quote from the Atlantic sums up the Ansari situation best in my opinion:
The Atlantic wrote:But we’re at warp speed now, and the revolution—in many ways so good and so important—is starting to sweep up all sorts of people into its conflagration: the monstrous, the cruel, and the simply unlucky. Apparently there is a whole country full of young women who don’t know how to call a cab, and who have spent a lot of time picking out pretty outfits for dates they hoped would be nights to remember. They’re angry and temporarily powerful, and last night they destroyed a man who didn’t deserve it.
So if what he did was not so bad, then why are people worried that it will "destroy" him?
As she has stated, Aziz made a decision to ignore her feelings and her statements. Her agency is that she can tell the world what he did. If he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it.
I don't know why Affirmative Consent is so difficult...Or just not being pushy against resistance.
AdeptSister wrote: So if what he did was not so bad, then why are people worried that it will "destroy" him?
Because we are currently in a culture where accusations are taken as fact. Where "facts" are relative, and people just skim headlines and move on.
AdeptSister wrote: As she has stated, Aziz made a decision to ignore her feelings and her statements. Her agency is that she can tell the world what he did. If he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it.
I don't know why Affirmative Consent is so difficult...Or just not being pushy against resistance.
Where these her "non-verbal cues"? "Grace" wasn't very proactive in removing herself from the situation based on what I have read.
Also, "if he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it" sounds an awful lot like the bad logic used to victim blame women in the past. Can't we apply that here to "Grace"? If she didn't want to be "assaulted" by a man, maybe she shouldn't have gone to his apartment to have wine, gone to dinner and had more wine, and then returned to his apartment to engage in oral sex. Again, where is her part in this? Are we infantilizing her because she is a women? If so, that is horribly sexist! Why is "Grace" immune from any culpability in her actions?
AdeptSister wrote: If you read her original statement on Babe.net, she told him she was uncomfortable and asked him to stop pressuring her multiple times. He said they would just "chill," wait a few moments, and then start pressuring her again.
The reason why people are upset about his behavior is because he wrote a book about dating that basically said not to do crap like that and respect what the woman says.
It doesn't help that articles are ignoring the verbal communication that she said multiple times. She told him “I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you.” He acknowledged her statement, stopped for a little while, then started right back up again.
To be clear Ansari didn't confirm that the events in question took place as the accuser is framing them. He acknowledged that he went out on a date with the person who later felt uncomfortable with the events that occurred. Big difference there. He isn't admitting to inappropriate actions.
He's admitting to getting his dick out. Framing and appropriateness are subjective, a matter left to the individual. At the end of the day we wouldn't be having this conservation if he'd left it in his pants until asked to otherwise. There would be nothing to interpret, nothing to frame.
Seriously this isn't complicated. Dicks stay in pants, nobody gets in trouble, nobody gets upset. Leaving your pants on is not difficult I manage it all the time and I'm sure you do too.
AdeptSister wrote: If you read her original statement on Babe.net, she told him she was uncomfortable and asked him to stop pressuring her multiple times. He said they would just "chill," wait a few moments, and then start pressuring her again.
The reason why people are upset about his behavior is because he wrote a book about dating that basically said not to do crap like that and respect what the woman says.
It doesn't help that articles are ignoring the verbal communication that she said multiple times. She told him “I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you.” He acknowledged her statement, stopped for a little while, then started right back up again.
To be clear Ansari didn't confirm that the events in question took place as the accuser is framing them. He acknowledged that he went out on a date with the person who later felt uncomfortable with the events that occurred. Big difference there. He isn't admitting to inappropriate actions.
He's admitting to getting his dick out. Framing and appropriateness are subjective, a matter left to the individual. At the end of the day we wouldn't be having this conservation if he'd left it in his pants until asked to otherwise. There would be nothing to interpret, nothing to frame.
Seriously this isn't complicated. Dicks stay in pants, nobody gets in trouble, nobody gets upset. Leaving your pants on is not difficult I manage it all the time and I'm sure you do too.
Aspirin then. Good enough for women and men for contraception. Got it!
Aspirin then. Good enough for women and men for contraception. Got it!
Aspirin has no functionality whatsoever as a contraceptive. It literally does nothing. In contrast not taking your dong out is remarkably effective at keeping people from thinking you got your dong out at the wrong time. I'm not suggesting some crack pot methodology with no basis in reality, I'm just describing not doing the thing at the center of thise very issue.
Aspirin then. Good enough for women and men for contraception. Got it!
Aspirin has no functionality whatsoever as a contraceptive. It literally does nothing. In contrast not taking your dong out is remarkably effective at keeping people from thinking you got your dong out at the wrong time. I'm not suggesting some crack pot methodology with no basis in reality, I'm just describing not doing the thing at the center of thise very issue.
Swing and a miss.
The phrase I am making a play on regards the idea that the best form of contraceptive for women was to keep an aspirin tightly held in place between their legs. I.e. if you don't want to have consequences of sex, don't have sex. It is a stupid argument best left in the past. You've seemed to revive it with your "don't take your dick out" argument.
The phrase I am making a play on regards the idea that the best form of contraceptive for women was to keep an aspirin tightly held in place between their legs. I.e. if you don't want to have consequences of sex, don't have sex. It is a stupid argument best left in the past. You've seemed to revive it with your "don't take your dick out" argument.
TIL. First time in my life I've hears that particular colloquialism. Perhaps it is regional?
The key qualifier which I have been very consistent with is "unless asked". It's fine to get your dick out when invited to do so. Don't break it out on a hunch. Don't break it out simply because they haven't said "Please don't get it out". Don't get it out because this one time your buddy got it out in roughly the same circumstances and it worked out fine.
Get it out because you are specifically asked to do so in a way that seems sincere and you're golden.
I get that willy wants to party, but willy has to wait for an invitation. He can't just show up and hope people are gonna be OK with him. Even if they kind of let him stick around without complaining when he shows up out of nowhere, it's possible he's still ruining the festivities.
AdeptSister wrote: So if what he did was not so bad, then why are people worried that it will "destroy" him?
Because we are currently in a culture where accusations are taken as fact. Where "facts" are relative, and people just skim headlines and move on.
AdeptSister wrote: As she has stated, Aziz made a decision to ignore her feelings and her statements. Her agency is that she can tell the world what he did. If he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it.
I don't know why Affirmative Consent is so difficult...Or just not being pushy against resistance.
Where these her "non-verbal cues"? "Grace" wasn't very proactive in removing herself from the situation based on what I have read.
Also, "if he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it" sounds an awful lot like the bad logic used to victim blame women in the past. Can't we apply that here to "Grace"? If she didn't want to be "assaulted" by a man, maybe she shouldn't have gone to his apartment to have wine, gone to dinner and had more wine, and then returned to his apartment to engage in oral sex. Again, where is her part in this? Are we infantilizing her because she is a women? If so, that is horribly sexist! Why is "Grace" immune from any culpability in her actions?
First, you mentioned and are focused on the non- verbal cues. I have been focused on the verbal ones, which have been noted in the my posts and her original post.
Second, your points seem to be arguing that her not violently reacting or her fruitlessly trying to recover the night, is somehow the equivalent of his behavior to decide to continue to pressure her. Her part in this is that she thought/hoped that he would stop. He finally did but it was after she felt victimized. She will have to deal with that for the rest of her life. If you don't think that is so bad, so be it. Making a choice to go on a date is not an invitation to be coerced into sexual activity. You seem to think so.
She has the right to make an accusation. If you do not believe her accusation, that is fine. But you seem to arguing that she shouldn't have made a public statement because you don't think Aziz's behavior was bad enough to warrant it. But the circumstances is that some of his "appeal" is that he was supposed to be a "good dude." People are allowed to challenge that.
AdeptSister wrote: So if what he did was not so bad, then why are people worried that it will "destroy" him?
Because we are currently in a culture where accusations are taken as fact. Where "facts" are relative, and people just skim headlines and move on.
AdeptSister wrote: As she has stated, Aziz made a decision to ignore her feelings and her statements. Her agency is that she can tell the world what he did. If he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it.
I don't know why Affirmative Consent is so difficult...Or just not being pushy against resistance.
Where these her "non-verbal cues"? "Grace" wasn't very proactive in removing herself from the situation based on what I have read.
Also, "if he didn't want it to come out, he should have not done it" sounds an awful lot like the bad logic used to victim blame women in the past. Can't we apply that here to "Grace"? If she didn't want to be "assaulted" by a man, maybe she shouldn't have gone to his apartment to have wine, gone to dinner and had more wine, and then returned to his apartment to engage in oral sex. Again, where is her part in this? Are we infantilizing her because she is a women? If so, that is horribly sexist! Why is "Grace" immune from any culpability in her actions?
First, you mentioned and are focused on the non- verbal cues. I have been focused on the verbal ones, which have been noted in the my posts and her original post.
Which largely seemed feeble up until the point when she wanted the evening to stop, at which point she found her voice and a short time later was safely in an Uber. So, again, why is she immune from accountability for her part of the evening? You and Chongra seem to be arguing that it is all on Ansari to dictate what is and is not appropriate behavior. Why are we infantilizing "Grace?"
AdeptSister wrote: Second, your points seem to be arguing that her not violently reacting or her fruitlessly trying to recover the night, is somehow the equivalent of his behavior to decide to continue to pressure her. Her part in this is that she thought/hoped that he would stop. He finally did but it was after she felt victimized.
So he did honor her verbal cues? Not after sticking his penis in her? But before? So, where was the assault?
AdeptSister wrote: She will have to deal with that for the rest of her life. If you don't think that is so bad, so be it. Making a choice to go on a date is not an invitation to be coerced into sexual activity. You seem to think so.
Here is where this gak always devolves. You are making assumptions about my position on sexual assault which are so far from the truth that they are laughable. Stop it. Stop it right fething now. I. Do. Not. Think. That. Accepting. An. Invitation. To. A. Date. Is. Grounds. For. Coercered. Sexual. Activity. Full stop. Do not put words in my mouth. Do not make assumptions about this crap, and don't levy your bs accusations against me. Okay?
On point, based on her account I do not see a person who was victimized. I see a person who regretted how a date went and is using that regret as a weapon. She agreed to a date with Ansari. She drank wine with Ansari. She returned to Ansari's apartment for mutual oral sex, and when she didn't want to have penetrative sex she was ushered home in an Uber. Remind me where the coercion took place? Oh, it was Ansari asking repeatedly to have penetrative sex? So what? That is when "Grace" puts on her big girl pants and says "no" and leaves. Which she did. That is called a gakky date, not assault.
AdeptSister wrote: She has the right to make an accusation. If you do not believe her accusation, that is fine. But you seem to arguing that she shouldn't have made a public statement because you don't think Aziz's behavior was bad enough to warrant it. But the circumstances is that some of his "appeal" is that he was supposed to be a "good dude." People are allowed to challenge that.
Sure, she can make an accusation. Did I or anyone stat she couldn't? I am arguing that groundless accusations are bad. They are bad for the "cause," which is to destroy a pernicious culture of sexual harassment and assault, because they muddy the waters on what is or is not seen as harassment and assault by the general public. This seems like a groundless accusation, much like the one you made about me a few lines up. This sort of atmosphere where people can make any sort of accusation they please is problematic when the definitions of what is or is not harassment, assault, and rape are becoming further and further unclear.
You think this "Grace" person was victimized. I do not. We both have our "camps" but when actually trying to stamp out this sort of harmful behavior in society we cannot rely on feelings alone to get the job done. That is why the "Grace"/Ansari situation is so problematic to me, because you and others are willing to lump what seems to be a bad date as assault. In what world can we positively move forward as a society if every personal encounter can be labeled as assault? It dilutes the word down to meaningless drivel.
Which largely seemed feeble up until the point when she wanted the evening to stop, at which point she found her voice and a short time later was safely in an Uber. So, again, why is she immune from accountability for her part of the evening? You and Chongra seem to be arguing that it is all on Ansari to dictate what is and is not appropriate behavior. Why are we infantilizing "Grace?
I've done no such divvying of responsibility and haven't spoken one way or another about her behavior, experience or responsibility at all. Certainly far from any extent that one could fairly call it "infantilizing".
Her role in the matter and whatever mistakes she may or may not have made aren't the subject of my posts even tangentially. I'm speaking specifically to a handful of simple facts:
He got his dick out.
He was not asked to get his dick out.
He was forward about getting her to do stuff with his dick.
gak hit the fan as a direct result of that behavior.
Her actions at the time and reaction later one way or another just aren't particularly material to my point: That one should wait for an invitation before trying to get other people to interact with one's junk. Even if her handling of the situation was the most asinine possible, and the reaction the most overblown possible it has no bearing on that fact.
Even if she is in the wrong in some large capacity (and again, I'm not speaking to that one way or another) he clearly is as well and two wrongs don't suddenly make a right, or a nothing. The fact remains that if he'd done things correctly and waited for a proper explicit invitation this conversation wouldn't be happening. Dude didn't do his due diligence, full stop. Sure there might be other factors and they might have merit to look at in some context but those simply isn't what I'm speaking to.
Even if we throw out the idea of the other persons comfort and look at it from the most cynical, self-interested CYA perspective the proper course of action is still the same on his part.
avantgarde wrote:But that's not the argument because we already defined a singular punishment for the accused in #MeToo.
Permanent career damage and social ostracisation.
All behavior that falls within that hashtag are subject to that punishment. Fondling a 14 year old girl while you're a district attorney is on a completely different level of acceptable behavior then being too aggressive on a date. Any reasonable person would think the punishment for the former should be more severe than the latter.
In the same way parading around in Nazi regalia professing white supremacy should not be tolerated but hanging that person like he's Amon Goth is not the answer.
It's the lack of nuance in punishment that upsets people not whether the behavior is acceptable.
If you put everything under the #MeToo banner in the same bucket then that's about you and your lack of nuance or willingness to actually look into each case. You complain about about cases being different but being seen as the same by doing that but nobody is advocating for that approach. The hashtag/movement is about sharing experiences but if you are not willing to actually read and interpret each case on its own merit that's on you being lazy and not on the movement.
DarkTraveler777 wrote:Sure, she can make an accusation. Did I or anyone stat she couldn't? I am arguing that groundless accusations are bad. They are bad for the "cause," which is to destroy a pernicious culture of sexual harassment and assault, because they muddy the waters on what is or is not seen as harassment and assault by the general public. This seems like a groundless accusation, much like the one you made about me a few lines up. This sort of atmosphere where people can make any sort of accusation they please is problematic when the definitions of what is or is not harassment, assault, and rape are becoming further and further unclear.
You think this "Grace" person was victimized. I do not. We both have our "camps" but when actually trying to stamp out this sort of harmful behavior in society we cannot rely on feelings alone to get the job done. That is why the "Grace"/Ansari situation is so problematic to me, because you and others are willing to lump what seems to be a bad date as assault. In what world can we positively move forward as a society if every personal encounter can be labeled as assault? It dilutes the word down to meaningless drivel.
"cause"… like the situation around reporting sexual harassment and assault was so much better before and now it's all getting worse.
A bad date is, if starts to rain and you have to change plans or something like that. The Ansari situation is about him pushing for more even after she decided that she doesn't want to. Not all situations are just about one person forcefully raping somebody. And look at that, we are actually talking about a more grey area-ish situation where things get more complicated like, for example, how women often don't dare to say no just to get it over with and/or because they feel like otherwise the situation could escalate and get even worse (like getting attacked, or this example).
People were even defending Trump's “When you’re a star, they let you do it” comments as if the women wanted it instead of seeing it as what it is: Sexual assault by a person who abused his position of power and influence over other people. Power dynamics are more complicated than just things like that or the Weinstein example. It goes all the way to a waitress not making a fuss when she get harassed/touched because doing so might lead to her losing their job. Should we just ignore that type of behaviour because power asymmetry makes it harder to say something? That's why the #MeToo movement exists so more people find the courage to tell their stories and so that we as society change and make it better for everyone instead of just passively accepting that something bad is happening but ignoring it as long as it's not affecting us.
Is it really only then harassment/assault when you feel like it? Or is it harassment/assault when the victim thinks it was (and this is not about the legal definition, which is a hurdle that's needed in front of a judge)? If a person feels violated then most probably they were violated and you handwringing about the credibility of accusations doesn't change that it was a gakky situation for that person.
I think that is the crux of the issue: You don't think that the date had sexual coercion that reaches a level that you find problematic. Is that correct? Or am I misunderstanding?
But what I don't understand is that based on your understanding of the date, how it can both be a groundless accusation and something that is no big deal. If what he did was no big deal, then why is bad that she told the public?
EDIT: To be clear, I DON'T see the statements "I don't think that a 'bad date' is newsworthy" and "This is a baseless accusation that is tarnishing someone unfairly "to be the same.
avantgarde wrote:But that's not the argument because we already defined a singular punishment for the accused in #MeToo.
Permanent career damage and social ostracisation.
All behavior that falls within that hashtag are subject to that punishment. Fondling a 14 year old girl while you're a district attorney is on a completely different level of acceptable behavior then being too aggressive on a date. Any reasonable person would think the punishment for the former should be more severe than the latter.
In the same way parading around in Nazi regalia professing white supremacy should not be tolerated but hanging that person like he's Amon Goth is not the answer.
It's the lack of nuance in punishment that upsets people not whether the behavior is acceptable.
If you put everything under the #MeToo banner in the same bucket then that's about you and your lack of nuance or willingness to actually look into each case. You complain about about cases being different but being seen as the same by doing that but nobody is advocating for that approach. The hashtag/movement is about sharing experiences but if you are not willing to actually read and interpret each case on its own merit that's on you being lazy and not on the movement.
My argument is not all #MeToo claims are the same but that #MeToo "punishments" are binary. It's either your ass is grass or it's not. If I thought all the claims (you're implying I think they're all bogus ) were the same why would I advocate nuance in reaction? You wouldn't need it if everything could be labelled cleanly.
Forgive me but you do not get to define what the movement means. Not because you lack authority or wokeness or whatever. But because it's a twitter hashtag that means something different to different people. To some it means an end of powerful people abusing their positions for sexual gratification, to some it's about justice, to others it means an end to sexual harassment/coercion and to others it's a support group for people with similar experiences to share them without being shamed. It's easily a mix and people are going to place more value on certain parts and that's there prerogative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdeptSister wrote: I think that is the crux of the issue: You don't think that the date had sexual coercion that reaches a level that you find problematic. Is that correct? Or am I misunderstanding?
But what I don't understand is that based on your understanding of the date, how it can both be a groundless accusation and something that is no big deal. If what he did was no big deal, then why is bad that she told the public?
You could make the argument the easily attacked claims delegitimizes the movement. I don't think that's a very good one though... Since the point is to allow people to speak without recriminations.
You could also approach it as 'Grace' is sincere but chose a poor writer and poor outlet. Which I think she did. If the story came out from the NYT, WaPo or even Buzzfeed I think it would be treated differently.
Which segues into the anonymity. This opens her up to criticism along the lines of lacking courage, while protecting yourself from backlash is more intelligent then cowardly and having her go public for the sake of credibility is unfair to Grace, it creates an unfair social dynamic where only Aziz has something to lose.
avantgarde wrote:But that's not the argument because we already defined a singular punishment for the accused in #MeToo.
Permanent career damage and social ostracisation.
All behavior that falls within that hashtag are subject to that punishment. Fondling a 14 year old girl while you're a district attorney is on a completely different level of acceptable behavior then being too aggressive on a date. Any reasonable person would think the punishment for the former should be more severe than the latter.
In the same way parading around in Nazi regalia professing white supremacy should not be tolerated but hanging that person like he's Amon Goth is not the answer.
It's the lack of nuance in punishment that upsets people not whether the behavior is acceptable.
If you put everything under the #MeToo banner in the same bucket then that's about you and your lack of nuance or willingness to actually look into each case. You complain about about cases being different but being seen as the same by doing that but nobody is advocating for that approach. The hashtag/movement is about sharing experiences but if you are not willing to actually read and interpret each case on its own merit that's on you being lazy and not on the movement.
My argument is not all #MeToo claims are the same but that #MeToo "punishments" are binary. It's either your ass is grass or it's not. If I thought all the claims (you're implying I think they're all bogus ) were the same why would I advocate nuance in reaction? You wouldn't need it if everything could be labelled cleanly.
Forgive me but you do not get to define what the movement means. Not because you lack authority or wokeness or whatever. But because it's a twitter hashtag that means something different to different people. To some it means an end of powerful people abusing their positions for sexual gratification, to some it's about justice, to others it means an end to sexual harassment/coercion and to others it's a support group for people with similar experiences to share them without being shamed. It's easily a mix and people are going to place more value on certain parts and that's there prerogative.
I agree that the punishments should not be binary. Like you said, there are nuances. Not all on the #metoo are being treated the same; its based on the level of the crime. Ben Vereen versus Casey Affleck versus Kevin Spacey have all been treated differently.
Which largely seemed feeble up until the point when she wanted the evening to stop, at which point she found her voice and a short time later was safely in an Uber. So, again, why is she immune from accountability for her part of the evening? You and Chongra seem to be arguing that it is all on Ansari to dictate what is and is not appropriate behavior. Why are we infantilizing "Grace?
I've done no such divvying of responsibility and haven't spoken one way or another about her behavior, experience or responsibility at all. Certainly far from any extent that one could fairly call it "infantilizing".
From my perspective you were divvying out responsibility when you stated things like:
Last I checked nobody is being hanged and no body official or otherwise is sanctioning specific punishments. People are telling stories and folks are deciding for themselves how credible those stories seem and then deciding to what extent they do or don't want to change their interactions and opinions of people based on that. In this particular case the credibility issue isn't a factor as the dude confirmed the events in question took place.
That now some people will think less of him and certain businesses or other entities may choose to no association with him is their own business. "Creeper" is not a protected class.
So, you incorrectly stated that he confirmed her story (he didn't), and you labeled him a "creeper" based on an anonymous account of the night. How are you not placing all of the responsibility on his shoulders and ignoring her participation?
Chongara wrote: Her role in the matter and whatever mistakes she may or may not have made aren't the subject of my posts even tangentially. I'm speaking specifically to a handful of simple facts:
He got his dick out.
He was not asked to get his dick out.
He was forward about getting her to do stuff with his dick.
gak hit the fan as a direct result of that behavior.
Ah yes. Still incorrect, though. She had oral sex with him. Willingly. So the dick is, ah, out of the bag already, so to speak. What now? Again, he didn't whip his dick out surprise style like Louis C.K., he was trying to move the activities from oral sex to penetrative sex, so your whole "keep your dick in your pants" comes off as a bit Puritanical, and a bit misguided in this instance.
Chongara wrote: That one should wait for an invitation before trying to get other people to interact with one's junk. Even if her handling of the situation was the most asinine possible, and the reaction the most overblown possible it has no bearing on that fact.
From Ansari's perspective it seems that invitation was granted. Which is why this whole incident seems like a date gone bad, not sexual harassment, or assault, or rape, or whatever.
Okay Mario, I don't know if you are misreading my posts but let's break this down.
DarkTraveler777 wrote:Sure, she can make an accusation. Did I or anyone stat she couldn't? I am arguing that groundless accusations are bad. They are bad for the "cause," which is to destroy a pernicious culture of sexual harassment and assault, because they muddy the waters on what is or is not seen as harassment and assault by the general public. This seems like a groundless accusation, much like the one you made about me a few lines up. This sort of atmosphere where people can make any sort of accusation they please is problematic when the definitions of what is or is not harassment, assault, and rape are becoming further and further unclear.
You think this "Grace" person was victimized. I do not. We both have our "camps" but when actually trying to stamp out this sort of harmful behavior in society we cannot rely on feelings alone to get the job done. That is why the "Grace"/Ansari situation is so problematic to me, because you and others are willing to lump what seems to be a bad date as assault. In what world can we positively move forward as a society if every personal encounter can be labeled as assault? It dilutes the word down to meaningless drivel.
"cause"… like the situation around reporting sexual harassment and assault was so much better before and now it's all getting worse.
What? Honestly, what?
Mario wrote: A bad date is, if starts to rain and you have to change plans or something like that. The Ansari situation is about him pushing for more even after she decided that she doesn't want to. Not all situations are just about one person forcefully raping somebody. And look at that, we are actually talking about a more grey area-ish situation where things get more complicated like, for example, how women often don't dare to say no just to get it over with and/or because they feel like otherwise the situation could escalate and get even worse (like getting attacked, or this example).
A bad date is also when things are going well and something uncomfortable or awkward immediately changes the mood of the date. Just as you say not all situations are about forcefully raping somebody, not all of these situations can equally be chalked up to victimization on the part of the person claiming victimhood. Based on the evidence shown in "Grace's" account she had the wherewithal to extricate herself from the situation once it crossed a line for her. That Ansari didn't escalate things to violence, or use chemicals/drugs to incapacitate her, and instead called her a ride home and ended the evening amicably (from his perspective) is indicative to me that "Grace" was not a victim in the sense that we discuss victims of sexual assault in this thread. She may have had regrets about how the evening went, she may have been disappointed in her date's behavior, but that behavior does not indicate sexual misconduct to me. Ansari might be pushy, he might be clumsy in romance, but I see nothing that indicates wrong doing.
Mario wrote: People were even defending Trump's “When you’re a star, they let you do it” comments as if the women wanted it instead of seeing it as what it is: Sexual assault by a person who abused his position of power and influence over other people. Power dynamics are more complicated than just things like that or the Weinstein example. It goes all the way to a waitress not making a fuss when she get harassed/touched because doing so might lead to her losing their job. Should we just ignore that type of behaviour because power asymmetry makes it harder to say something? That's why the #MeToo movement exists so more people find the courage to tell their stories and so that we as society change and make it better for everyone instead of just passively accepting that something bad is happening but ignoring it as long as it's not affecting us.
Awesome soap box, but you are preaching to the choir here. And that is why I find issue with "Grace" and her claim of victimization. She was not victimized by Ansari, at least not in any meaningful way that compares with the victims who have shared their stories with #MeToo. Conflating "Grace's" encounter with Ansari with sexual harassment does a disservice to the entire #MeToo movement. If everything is harassment then nothing is harassment. "Grace" is making the case that by Ansari being too eager for sex he victimized her. That is a slap in the face of real victims who endured worse. "Grace" may have regretted her encounter with Ansari for a lot of reasons, but I don't buy for one second that she was a victim of anything other than a disappointing evening with a guy.
Mario wrote: Is it really only then harassment/assault when you feel like it? Or is it harassment/assault when the victim thinks it was (and this is not about the legal definition, which is a hurdle that's needed in front of a judge)? If a person feels violated then most probably they were violated and you handwringing about the credibility of accusations doesn't change that it was a gakky situation for that person.
"Grace" had a disappointing night. She is entitled to her perspective and feelings on the encounter with Ansari, but her feelings shouldn't be enough to warrant the public lambasting of Ansari. Her feelings shouldn't be enough to tarnish someone's reputation, sabotage a person's livelihood, and they most certainly shouldn't be given equal treatment and consideration as accusations of harassment, assault and rape made by others in the #MeToo movement.
That people are already judging Ansari as a sexual harasser based on one woman's questionable account of an evening is troubling, and goes back to the point made earlier that these accusations are not insignificant. They can destroy a person's life. If that is merited, like in the cases of Weinstein, Cosby and others where there is ample evidence to back up accusation after accusation, then of course the outcome is appropriate and justified. In this Ansari situation people have their pitchforks out and it is all based on the anonymous postings of a woman who really doesn't seem to have been victimized at all, and instead found herself with a celebrity who only seemed interested in having sex with her. When that didn't happen she went home. Unless more is revealed, then I am afraid I just don't see "Grace's" story as being anything other than regret over a bad hookup.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Since you won't respond to my points this is the last time I am responding to yours.
AdeptSister wrote: But what I don't understand is that based on your understanding of the date, how it can both be a groundless accusation and something that is no big deal. If what he did was no big deal, then why is bad that she told the public?
If you can't understand why accusing a male celebrity of sexual misconduct in January of 2018 over a benign romantic encounter is problematic, then I can't help you. I already answered this question of yours earlier, but again, you aren't responding to my posts so I don't think you are arguing in good faith or even reading what I am writing.
So, you incorrectly stated that he confirmed her story (he didn't), and you labeled him a "creeper" based on an anonymous account of the night. How are you not placing all of the responsibility on his shoulders and ignoring her participation?
Yes. Yes he did. He apologized without qualification, as far as I know. An unqualified apology is by definiton an agreement to the events because you can't give an apology for something you didn't think happened. Unless we're also accusing him of being liar, which I'm not. His apology if taken as honest must be an admission or confirmation of the broad factual events of the night.
Condemning his behavior is not any sort of statement on hers. Like he could do what he was doing with literally Adolph Hitler and he'd still be a a creeper. I mean obviously that'd invovle like a time machine or magic so we'd have even more important questions, but the fact it was literally Hitler the worst possible human being with the worst possible behavior wouldn't absolve him.
I'm making no particular endorsement or defense of her, I'm simply condemning him. I'm saying I don't like the smell of his role in this and saying nothing about her role in it.
Ah yes. Still incorrect, though. She had oral sex with him. Willingly. So the dick is, ah, out of the bag already, so to speak. What now? Again, he didn't whip his dick out surprise style like Louis C.K., he was trying to move the activities from oral sex to penetrative sex, so your whole "keep your dick in your pants" comes off as a bit Puritanical, and a bit misguided in this instance.
From Ansari's perspective it seems that invitation was granted. Which is why this whole incident seems like a date gone bad, not sexual harassment, or assault, or rape, or whatever.
An explicit invitation for interacting with a penis is kind of non-ambiguous. It's a request, and no recounting of the evening I've heard has her making a request of him. I'm not against having sex, or only having sex in marriage, or only for certain kinds of sex in certain kinds of positions or anything else "Puritanical" . I'm simply saying that the bare minimum responsibility as the owner of a dong is to only get it out when requested, and only engage in behaviors with it that are requested. Those requests can be as freaky, out of marriage and non-puritanical as you fancy, but they must be requests. That's the standard.
Once you start doing things without a request being made of you everything starts going out the damn window and you have a muddy mess like this one. He it got out early, she went along with it maybe because she sort of wanted to maybe because she felt pressured. We cannot know. He pushed for more, that went over the line for her and now we are where we are. This situation could have turned out so much better than a sad BJ and an apparently fairly shaken & upset woman if he'd just stuck to what was asked of him.
He failed at the bare minimum. If she failed at anything or how is another subject entirely.
sebster wrote: And it isn't just about women saying no. I think we need to stop putting solutions for this on to women. It is really important for men to realise that when placed in situation where they are scared or intimidated, people will often go passive or even compliant. This isn't the same as forcing yourself on someone, but it's still something we can all agree is horrible and not what any decent person would want to do to someone else.
So no means no and now also yes means no? Man this is so confusing!!!
I think that College Humour (?) skit about the couple who each had to speak to their lawyers before sex might not be a terrible idea.
Ouze wrote: Who said that last line? Certainly not anyone in that article you cited.
I go to a seedy area downtown with my wallet in my back pocket. At the end of the night it turns out it was stolen.
Could I have done more to protect myself? Absolutely. Was it even reckless of me to act as I did? Maybe. Does it mean that people walking around that area should take action to protect themselves? Yes.
Does that make me bear any responsibility for the crime? No. Does that mean any part of the problem is people walking around with their wallets easily pickpocketed? No.
I've got to say that, from what I've seen in high prevalence in this situation is most of the, "this is an example of a systemic problem of our whole effed up dating system and societal expectations being a gigantic mess" than anything being particularly targeted against the guy meant to 'ruin' him.
Mostly at least. I'm sure there's various 'hot take's that will demand otherwise, but even then I'm sure they're drastically outweighed by the, "she's a coward just out to ruin him" crowd.
In saying that, I do think his career is going to be hammered because of this but personally, I think that actually is not going to be a result of his actions but more going back to that whole relative power dynamic within Hollywood thing. And, considering I haven't heard of him before this situation and, quite frankly because of his skin colour, it really wouldn't surprise me if he's offered up as a sacrificial lamb.
Oh, as a sidenote, if anyone is interested, I'm on the side of 'this is an illustration of a systemic problem when it comes to consent' point of view.
I do feel like it's relevant to point out this isn't a new problem, but a leftover one going back thousands of years that has been worked on and improved but has yet to be resolved.
avantgarde wrote: I think I can summarize her points as: -Women have agency. To put the onus of Aziz's encounter entirely on him partially denies 'Grace' had agency.
It was a good article, thanks for linking to it. But I think you're badly mangling the article's meaning as you apply it to Ansari's case.
Thing is, placing the blame on Ansari isn't about denying 'Grace' her agency. It is about recognising her agency, seeing she made her choice, and seeing that Ansari chose to ignore/deny that choice because he wanted to feth her. And it is about recognising that people will often be in situations where they aren't comfortable giving an immediate, absolute 'no', because of surprise or fear. Ignoring more indirect signals because 'she could have said no' is bs.
It doesn't mean we should treat Ansari or anyone who did anything similar like they are Weinstein or Trump, but it does mean we as a society need to start talking about how fethed Ansari's attempt at sex was.
-#MeToo is a reaction against an intolerable legal situation where the police and judiciary didn't protect people against sexual assault by people in positions of power. What is legally intolerable about Aziz's situation? If it was rape it occurred last year and he can be still be prosecuted. So why accuse him anonymously without involving law enforcement?
What? So because something might be a crime, people are not able to talk about it publically unless there is a criminal charge? That's really, really not a thing.
Have you read Grace's description of her date with Aziz Ansari? After attempting to initiate sex with her for 30 minutes, in which she indicated she wasn't interested many times and he pushed on anyway. When she returned, she told him she wasn't interested, and invited her to just chill on the couch, where he then told her to give him oral sex. A short while later she told him again that she wasn't interested, and he again said they could just chill. They put the tv on, and he started trying to finger her.
If you don't know the details of the case, then I'd ask you to read up on them. If you do know the details of the case and think that kind of behaviour is okay, or pushing the limits, then hoo boy there's a whole lot of conversation that has to happen.
What the actual fething hell is that question? Chongara posted a simple set of rules that men can use so that they can be confident that they won't mistakenly pressure a woman in to doing something they don't want to do. You responded by complaining that women also need to be responsible for... not getting coerced or something.
Wow.
To be clear Ansari didn't confirm that the events in question took place as the accuser is framing them. He acknowledged that he went out on a date with the person who later felt uncomfortable with the events that occurred. Big difference there. He isn't admitting to inappropriate actions.
That's not an honest summary. He didn't dispute any part of her recollection of events, instead he saw those events differently. So when she described coming out of the bathroom and telling him she didn't want to have sex, only for him to invite her to the couch and tell her to give him a blow job, he doesn't deny that happened. His defense is that he thought those events were consensual.
Which brings me back to my original question, what about the woman's actions in the Ansari case? Is he really a "creeper" in this situation or was he a person trying to clumsily get laid? Everything I have read about the encounter places the situation in the "bad date" category and nowhere near harassment or inappropriate actions taken on Ansari's part.
You either haven't read the actual article, or you have problems. Seriously, read the babe.net story and then say that was just a 'bad date'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Where these her "non-verbal cues"? "Grace" wasn't very proactive in removing herself from the situation based on what I have read.
She gave both non-verbal cues, such as taking his hands off her body, and verbal cues, such as telling him multiple times she didn't want to have sex.
I'm not trying to have a go at you or anything, but either you don't know the details of Grace's story, or you really, really need to look at how you understand sex and consent, because if you act like what you're trying to defend then you may end up in a really bad situation one day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Which largely seemed feeble up until the point when she wanted the evening to stop, at which point she found her voice and a short time later was safely in an Uber.
This argument is basically saying that it is okay to coerce someone in to sex, if you don't get aggressive if eventually overcome the coercion. It's a really gakky argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: So no means no and now also yes means no? Man this is so confusing!!!
In the post of mine you quoted, I wrote this;
"What it means for men is that it isn't enough to say you never heard 'no'. It means what you need to in order to proceed you should be looking for a clear, enthusiastic 'yes'."
So, no, it isn't confusing, and its pretty likely you cut that part of my post out of your quote so you could pretend it is confusing. I have no idea what caused you to do this, but you should know it was a silly, pointless thing to do. Don't do it again.
Anyhow, whatever caused you to do that silly thing, just in case you have some genuine confusion about this I'll explain again;
If you say 'let's have sex' and a the woman says yes, then have sex. If you say 'let's have sex' and she doesn't say yes, then don't have sex. And if you say 'let's have sex' and she doesn't say yes and you push on and have sex, to which she later says she felt violated, if you say you didn't do anything wrong because she didn't actually say no, then you're a gak person.
The difference between the Ansari case and most of the other cases is the difference between inappropriate and continued sexual harassment using power or position to try and coerce sex from others, and one of simply wanting sex.
Ansari wanted sex. Ansari didn't ask at an inappropriate forum like a workplace or harass someone who wasn't interested, he was on a date, and they'd agreed to go back to his place, that is an appropriate time to see if someone is interested in sex. He tried to initiate sex - she told him to slow down. He tried to initiate sex again, he had sex. He did not coerce her into sex, he did not have power or position over her, no violent threats or promises of reward, and she wasn't incapacitated or drunk, he just wanted sex, tried to initiate sex, and had sex.
Saying that he shouldn't have tried to initiate sex is basically the modern day form of slut shaming. Modern victorian/puritan values. It also takes away any agency women have over their own actions. Ansari may have been an inconsiderate lover, but this kiss and tell is just slut-shaming, and should have never been published.
Anyhow, whatever caused you to do that silly thing, just in case you have some genuine confusion about this I'll explain again;
If you say 'let's have sex' and a the woman says yes, then have sex.
If you say 'let's have sex' and she doesn't say yes, then don't have sex.
And if you say 'let's have sex' and she doesn't say yes and you push on and have sex, to which she later says she felt violated, if you say you didn't do anything wrong because she didn't actually say no, then you're a gak person.
Disregarding the Ansari case, I consider this approach quite naive. As most people know a large part of human communication is done through non-verbal means, such as body-language, and especially in romantic situations. The idea that you have to force out verbal consent for every sexual act is comical if you actually see it playing out (Darling, do you consent to me kissing you?), it's the antithesis of the spontaneity of a romantic situation. Usually this responsibility is also put entirely on the male shoulders, which denies agency to women who are made into objects that men act upon.
Of course in situations where there is a power dynamic (boss & employee) things work differently.
Maddermax wrote: Saying that he shouldn't have tried to initiate sex is basically the modern day form of slut shaming. Modern victorian/puritan values. It also takes away any agency women have over their own actions. Ansari may have been an inconsiderate lover, but this kiss and tell is just slut-shaming, and should have never been published.
No-one is saying that a person can't try and initiate sex. That's not even close to what is being said.
What people are saying is if you try and initiate sex, and you don't get an affirmative response, then stop. It's just that fething simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ulgurstasta wrote: Disregarding the Ansari case, I consider this approach quite naive. As most people know a large part of human communication is done through non-verbal means, such as body-language, and especially in romantic situations. The idea that you have to force out verbal consent for every sexual act is comical if you actually see it playing out (Darling, do you consent to me kissing you?), it's the antithesis of the spontaneity of a romantic situation.
Yeah, I was being a bit simplistic. I probably should have bashed out something a bit more like 'clear consent given by voluntary action' but to be honest I was a bit taken aback by seeing actual human beings in the 21st century trying to argue that it's okay to continue pressuring a woman who clearly isn't interested.
Usually this responsibility is also put entirely on the male shoulders, which denies agency to women who are made into objects that men act upon.
No, that's total fething bs. Acknowledging the existance of coercion, and recognising that people suddenly put in stressful positions might react by becoming going passive or even somewhat compliant doesn't mean dening their agency. It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations. What we should do instead, as a society, is not put people in the stressful situation of having someone come at them continuously, constantly pressuring them for sex despite being given no indication of any returned interest.
Maddermax wrote: Saying that he shouldn't have tried to initiate sex is basically the modern day form of slut shaming. Modern victorian/puritan values. It also takes away any agency women have over their own actions. Ansari may have been an inconsiderate lover, but this kiss and tell is just slut-shaming, and should have never been published.
No-one is saying that a person can't try and initiate sex. That's not even close to what is being said.
What people are saying is if you try and initiate sex, and you don't get an affirmative response, then stop. It's just that fething simple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ulgurstasta wrote: Disregarding the Ansari case, I consider this approach quite naive. As most people know a large part of human communication is done through non-verbal means, such as body-language, and especially in romantic situations. The idea that you have to force out verbal consent for every sexual act is comical if you actually see it playing out (Darling, do you consent to me kissing you?), it's the antithesis of the spontaneity of a romantic situation.
Yeah, I was being a bit simplistic. I probably should have bashed out something a bit more like 'clear consent given by voluntary action' but to be honest I was a bit taken aback by seeing actual human beings in the 21st century trying to argue that it's okay to continue pressuring a woman who clearly isn't interested.
Ok, so we agree that consent doesn't always have to be explicit and verbal - while that would be best, it just doesn't happen that way in real life. However, he laid back and asked her to go down on him, and she did. Many people would say that is showing consent, at least for that particular act - he asked her, she brought herself to the deed without him grabbing her, and that's even by her own account. She felt uncomfortable, but continued anyway under her own volition, without telling him again that she felt uncomfortable. I'm not going to say she didn't feel uncomfortable, or that everything was hunky dory, but here she made a bad decision, he didn't force her into it at all. It was, in the end, a decision that is her own. Him not picking up on her being uncomfortable is not anything close to sexual assault or harassment, and even then the text sent afterwards seems to show he still felt they had a positive relationship of some sort, supporting that he not understand her discomfort at the situation. But not being able to pick up on subtle clues is a loooooong way from being any sort of villain.
ulgurstasta wrote: Disregarding the Ansari case, I consider this approach quite naive. As most people know a large part of human communication is done through non-verbal means, such as body-language, and especially in romantic situations. The idea that you have to force out verbal consent for every sexual act is comical if you actually see it playing out (Darling, do you consent to me kissing you?), it's the antithesis of the spontaneity of a romantic situation.
Yeah, I was being a bit simplistic. I probably should have bashed out something a bit more like 'clear consent given by voluntary action' but to be honest I was a bit taken aback by seeing actual human beings in the 21st century trying to argue that it's okay to continue pressuring a woman who clearly isn't interested.
No, that's total fething bs. Acknowledging the existance of coercion, and recognising that people suddenly put in stressful positions might react by becoming going passive or even somewhat compliant doesn't mean dening their agency. It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations. What we should do instead, as a society, is not put people in the stressful situation of having someone come at them continuously, constantly pressuring them for sex despite being given no indication of any returned interest.
Well of course harassing someone for sexual favours when it's made clear there is no interest is wrong. But the issue was rather that the responsibility to make sure both partners consent is put solely on the males shoulders. If women cant be responsible for their own consent but must instead rely on a man to take that responsibility for her, then yes thats denying her agency.
As you said yourself "It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations.", this also applies to men. If a women does not consent or draws back her consent then she has a responsibility to signal that in a clear way, Just as men have a responsibility to be clear with their consent.
As you said yourself "It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations.", this also applies to men. If a women does not consent or draws back her consent then she has a responsibility to signal that in a clear way, Just as men have a responsibility to be clear with their consent.
Which brings my question back into focus: how many times does she have to say she's not interested before he'll take the hint?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How many times does she have to tell him that she's not interested before he gets the hint? Five? Twenty? A thousand?
Once, in a clear manner. Walking away also works if words are too much.
What you don't do is say non-committal things, then voluntarily go down on him at his request. That is what you might call a bad signal if you're trying to show you don't want to have sex.
The only villain here is whoever decided the report should be published on their click-bait website - they've helped no one, and hurt both participants here.
As you said yourself "It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations.", this also applies to men. If a women does not consent or draws back her consent then she has a responsibility to signal that in a clear way, Just as men have a responsibility to be clear with their consent.
Which brings my question back into focus: how many times does she have to say she's not interested before he'll take the hint?
Well as I said to sebster, this was not in regards to the Ansari case, as I haven't even read the article.
ulgurstasta wrote: Disregarding the Ansari case, I consider this approach quite naive. As most people know a large part of human communication is done through non-verbal means, such as body-language, and especially in romantic situations. The idea that you have to force out verbal consent for every sexual act is comical if you actually see it playing out (Darling, do you consent to me kissing you?), it's the antithesis of the spontaneity of a romantic situation.
Yeah, I was being a bit simplistic. I probably should have bashed out something a bit more like 'clear consent given by voluntary action' but to be honest I was a bit taken aback by seeing actual human beings in the 21st century trying to argue that it's okay to continue pressuring a woman who clearly isn't interested.
No, that's total fething bs. Acknowledging the existance of coercion, and recognising that people suddenly put in stressful positions might react by becoming going passive or even somewhat compliant doesn't mean dening their agency. It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations. What we should do instead, as a society, is not put people in the stressful situation of having someone come at them continuously, constantly pressuring them for sex despite being given no indication of any returned interest.
Well of course harassing someone for sexual favours when it's made clear there is no interest is wrong. But the issue was rather that the responsibility to make sure both partners consent is put solely on the males shoulders. If women cant be responsible for their own consent but must instead rely on a man to take that responsibility for her, then yes thats denying her agency.
As you said yourself "It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations.", this also applies to men. If a women does not consent or draws back her consent then she has a responsibility to signal that in a clear way, Just as men have a responsibility to be clear with their consent.
The responsibility isn't all on men's shoulders. It is the responsibility of individual A to ensure individual B is consenting, and it is the responsibility of individual B to ensure individual A is consenting. The man/woman thing is really just shorthand because the majority of situations like this are a man imposing on a woman, and because English lacks the genderless nouns to have the discussion as such.
He should have taken the hint and stopped. Its both creepy and desperate to keep making advances in such a short period of time.
She should have also removed herself from the situation. Not because she is obligated to do on any moral grounds, but because thats the smart thing to do. Especially after a guy keeps making repeated advances which you don't want after you've told him as much.
I'm going to interject something Non-Ansari real quick:
(Sorry if its been covered already, ignore if it has, but all I saw the last few pages were Ansari related)
I'm seeing a celebrity led campaign to pay for Mkayla Maroney's fine for breaching her Non Disclosure Agreement that is tied to her settlement from her abuser. Today, US Gymnastics is saying they won't seek a penalty against her for violating her NDA.
While admirable, its incredibly misguided and dangerous. It could damage one of the few avenues of recourse/justice for some victims in the future. It may well reduce the willingness of accused predators in the future to settle out of court, and instead drag both parties through grueling and deeply personal, embarrassing trials for no good reason and leave up any sort of settlement up to a judge, who may well rule against the victims in some cases or levy a lesser fine that was in the initial settlement. The victims would go from a guaranteed discrete monetary settlement to a public trial that, depending on weight of evidence, could become a 50/50 shot at some amount or no amount of justice.
If she was a key witness or had testimony that alone could validate another victims accusations, I'd maybe be supportive of this, but apparently there a dozens of accusers and all her voice would do is merely add a bit more celebrity to the voices against the accused. The goose is already cooked in this case.
I believe this is a well meaning overreach in this wider scandal and could have damaging ramifications overall in the future.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How many times does she have to tell him that she's not interested before he gets the hint? Five? Twenty? A thousand?
From my understanding, after the oral sex, she told him she was not interested in penetration, but wanted to chill. She also did not leave. If he has trouble with nonverbal signals and indirect verbal communication, as awkward people do, he might not have understood that to mean a complete removal of consent but as rather some kind of "slow down" or "try something else". From my reading of it, when she explicitly told him she was done, he stopped trying immediately and called her a cab. I find it easy to believe he really was clueless and not malicious.
avantgarde wrote: My argument is not all #MeToo claims are the same but that #MeToo "punishments" are binary. It's either your ass is grass or it's not. If I thought all the claims (you're implying I think they're all bogus ) were the same why would I advocate nuance in reaction? You wouldn't need it if everything could be labelled cleanly.
Forgive me but you do not get to define what the movement means. Not because you lack authority or wokeness or whatever. But because it's a twitter hashtag that means something different to different people. To some it means an end of powerful people abusing their positions for sexual gratification, to some it's about justice, to others it means an end to sexual harassment/coercion and to others it's a support group for people with similar experiences to share them without being shamed. It's easily a mix and people are going to place more value on certain parts and that's there prerogative.
" It's either your ass is grass or it's not." That's not the reality of the situation, that's just your assumption of what happens, will happen, or whatever slipper slope argument you are sliding down (and that's where I think you are wrong). Take the "Ansari case". It's being discusses but he has neither lost his job nor has he been dragged in front of a judge. The situation is different from other cases, like Weinstein who got thrown out, ended up in sex rehab for like a week, and then, I don't know what even happened to that case after that. I don't understand where you see this binary judgement that you are talking about. The nuanced reaction is happening if you read around a bit, you are just feeling (for some reason) like it's a binary situation.
And I haven't defined the movement, just explained what's going on while you fantasies about every MeToo is being judged in this binary fashion. There are enough Me too cases that don't get media attention and just disappear in the twitter stream (or where ever they are posted).
DarkTraveler777 wrote:Sure, she can make an accusation. Did I or anyone stat she couldn't? I am arguing that groundless accusations are bad. They are bad for the "cause," which is to destroy a pernicious culture of sexual harassment and assault, because they muddy the waters on what is or is not seen as harassment and assault by the general public. This seems like a groundless accusation, much like the one you made about me a few lines up. This sort of atmosphere where people can make any sort of accusation they please is problematic when the definitions of what is or is not harassment, assault, and rape are becoming further and further unclear.
You think this "Grace" person was victimized. I do not. We both have our "camps" but when actually trying to stamp out this sort of harmful behavior in society we cannot rely on feelings alone to get the job done. That is why the "Grace"/Ansari situation is so problematic to me, because you and others are willing to lump what seems to be a bad date as assault. In what world can we positively move forward as a society if every personal encounter can be labeled as assault? It dilutes the word down to meaningless drivel.
"cause"… like the situation around reporting sexual harassment and assault was so much better before and now it's all getting worse.
What? Honestly, what?
You wrote "I am arguing that groundless accusations are bad. They are bad for the "cause," which is to destroy a pernicious culture of sexual harassment and assault, because they muddy the waters on what is or is not seen as harassment and assault by the general public." It reads like you are devils advocating/handwringing about the tiniest perceived problem. Before this started it was even harder to get attention for all the middle ground cases of sexual harassment, assault, and abuse. Now some of that stuff is actually getting addressed and talked about in the open and not just by people who are interested in reducing that type of behaviour. The Ansari case is a textbook example of two sides not agreeing and one side pushing even when the other side already said no multiple times and/or otherwise indicated that this won't end with the desired answer. In the answers above sebster has already explains some of the nuance of the situation a few times.
A bad date is, if starts to rain and you have to change plans or something like that. The Ansari situation is about him pushing for more even after she decided that she doesn't want to. Not all situations are just about one person forcefully raping somebody. And look at that, we are actually talking about a more grey area-ish situation where things get more complicated like, for example, how women often don't dare to say no just to get it over with and/or because they feel like otherwise the situation could escalate and get even worse (like getting attacked, or this example).
A bad date is also when things are going well and something uncomfortable or awkward immediately changes the mood of the date. Just as you say not all situations are about forcefully raping somebody, not all of these situations can equally be chalked up to victimization on the part of the person claiming victimhood. Based on the evidence shown in "Grace's" account she had the wherewithal to extricate herself from the situation once it crossed a line for her. That Ansari didn't escalate things to violence, or use chemicals/drugs to incapacitate her, and instead called her a ride home and ended the evening amicably (from his perspective) is indicative to me that "Grace" was not a victim in the sense that we discuss victims of sexual assault in this thread. She may have had regrets about how the evening went, she may have been disappointed in her date's behavior, but that behavior does not indicate sexual misconduct to me. Ansari might be pushy, he might be clumsy in romance, but I see nothing that indicates wrong doing.
I think that was also already addressed above by sebster. She said no multiple times and he kept pushing. That's getting into harassment territory especially after she declined a few times. That's the whole point. If he were taller/stronger then that same behaviour would have been more threatening and she might have felt like doing whatever he wants might be safer. Just because she wasn't coerced doesn't mean it's okay to behave like that. Him seeing things differently is okay to a degree but he should be able to take the first no as an answer. Like I wrote, it's not just about drugs/violence but also about psychological coercion, manipulation, soft intimidation. He even co-wrote (with a sociologist) a book about that, he should know better.
Spoiler:
Mario wrote: People were even defending Trump's “When you’re a star, they let you do it” comments as if the women wanted it instead of seeing it as what it is: Sexual assault by a person who abused his position of power and influence over other people. Power dynamics are more complicated than just things like that or the Weinstein example. It goes all the way to a waitress not making a fuss when she get harassed/touched because doing so might lead to her losing their job. Should we just ignore that type of behaviour because power asymmetry makes it harder to say something? That's why the #MeToo movement exists so more people find the courage to tell their stories and so that we as society change and make it better for everyone instead of just passively accepting that something bad is happening but ignoring it as long as it's not affecting us.
Awesome soap box, but you are preaching to the choir here. And that is why I find issue with "Grace" and her claim of victimization. She was not victimized by Ansari, at least not in any meaningful way that compares with the victims who have shared their stories with #MeToo. Conflating "Grace's" encounter with Ansari with sexual harassment does a disservice to the entire #MeToo movement. If everything is harassment then nothing is harassment. "Grace" is making the case that by Ansari being too eager for sex he victimized her. That is a slap in the face of real victims who endured worse. "Grace" may have regretted her encounter with Ansari for a lot of reasons, but I don't buy for one second that she was a victim of anything other than a disappointing evening with a guy.
Again, explained above in other posts. It was more than just him being too eager, it was him pushing for more when she declined multiple times, and yes it is harassment, maybe on the milder side but it's still something that should not be written off as "things happen". #MeToo is for all kinds of harassment/abuse not just for the worst cases and this is one of the milder ones. If a few men read about it and maybe remember when the did something like that and choose to change then that can only be a good thing, also: Why should you define whose contribution to the movement is a valid one? That also comes back to the hand wringing about the "cause" from your first reply.
Mario wrote: Is it really only then harassment/assault when you feel like it? Or is it harassment/assault when the victim thinks it was (and this is not about the legal definition, which is a hurdle that's needed in front of a judge)? If a person feels violated then most probably they were violated and you handwringing about the credibility of accusations doesn't change that it was a gakky situation for that person.
"Grace" had a disappointing night. She is entitled to her perspective and feelings on the encounter with Ansari, but her feelings shouldn't be enough to warrant the public lambasting of Ansari. Her feelings shouldn't be enough to tarnish someone's reputation, sabotage a person's livelihood, and they most certainly shouldn't be given equal treatment and consideration as accusations of harassment, assault and rape made by others in the #MeToo movement.
She shared her experience due to the movement and again, it's not your place to define what is worthy of being considered. People are talking about it, maybe some will change and be less of a creepy pusher. I just googled his name and apparently he hasn't lost his job, people are talking about it from all sides and his reputation may end up tarnished after it's over. Which is to a degree okay because he was pushy beyond what was comfortable for her. I'm quite confident that he'll keep getting jobs and in a year nobody will talk about his incident too much (if at all).
That people are already judging Ansari as a sexual harasser based on one woman's questionable account of an evening is troubling, and goes back to the point made earlier that these accusations are not insignificant. They can destroy a person's life. If that is merited, like in the cases of Weinstein, Cosby and others where there is ample evidence to back up accusation after accusation, then of course the outcome is appropriate and justified. In this Ansari situation people have their pitchforks out and it is all based on the anonymous postings of a woman who really doesn't seem to have been victimized at all, and instead found herself with a celebrity who only seemed interested in having sex with her. When that didn't happen she went home. Unless more is revealed, then I am afraid I just don't see "Grace's" story as being anything other than regret over a bad hookup.
He didn't even deny the accusations, he said he saw it differently. Maybe he'll reconsider his approach from now on and be less pushy but he's not being equated with Weinstein, Louis C.K., Cosby, or any of the actual rapists. I don't know where people get that idea from that all the accused will be judged the same no matter what they actually did (avantgarde did the same).
We have in this thread people explaining that this type of pushy behaviour is not okay and you are literally writing it off as a "bad date" or "regret" because in this case something worse didn't happen. That alone is a good enough reason to discuss Ansari's approach and where it's lacking.
Grey Templar wrote: He should have taken the hint and stopped. Its both creepy and desperate to keep making advances in such a short period of time.
She should have also removed herself from the situation. Not because she is obligated to do on any moral grounds, but because thats the smart thing to do. Especially after a guy keeps making repeated advances which you don't want after you've told him as much.
He was a sleezeball and she was stupid.
Yeah, real stupid to want to hang out with someone but not have sex with them. Even stupider to expect that another person would respect your wishes on the matter. Just really stupid. I mean, if I'm out for lunch and a beggar asks me for money and I turn him down, it's pretty dam stupid of me to sit there and keep eating my lunch while the beggar continues to pester me for cash. When he up and steals my wallet it's clearly the fault of both parties, him for stealing my money and me for letting it be stolen. That's how it works, right?
Only in sexual assault are such excuses even remotely acceptable.
Grey Templar wrote: He should have taken the hint and stopped. Its both creepy and desperate to keep making advances in such a short period of time.
She should have also removed herself from the situation. Not because she is obligated to do on any moral grounds, but because thats the smart thing to do. Especially after a guy keeps making repeated advances which you don't want after you've told him as much.
He was a sleezeball and she was stupid.
Yeah, real stupid to want to hang out with someone but not have sex with them. Even stupider to expect that another person would respect your wishes on the matter. Just really stupid. I mean, if I'm out for lunch and a beggar asks me for money and I turn him down, it's pretty dam stupid of me to sit there and keep eating my lunch while the beggar continues to pester me for cash. When he up and steals my wallet it's clearly the fault of both parties, him for stealing my money and me for letting it be stolen. That's how it works, right?
Only in sexual assault are such excuses even remotely acceptable.
Yes, its stupid to voluntarily keep yourself in what is a dangerous situation.
Maybe, you could justify staying after one advance was made and rebuffed if he stopped completely, which he should have. But continuing to stay after multiple advances is pretty stupid.
Your example isn't really equivalent. Since asking for money isn't implying a threat to steal your wallet. While I would say repeatedly making sexual advances despite getting rebuffed is definitely a red flag for ''imminent danger!".
So yeah. He was/is a sleezeball. She is also pretty stupid and/or reckless for not extracting herself from a dangerous situation. That doesn't absolve him for his behavior in any amount. It just means she is stupid.
Maddermax wrote: Ok, so we agree that consent doesn't always have to be explicit and verbal - while that would be best, it just doesn't happen that way in real life. However, he laid back and asked her to go down on him, and she did. Many people would say that is showing consent, at least for that particular act - he asked her, she brought herself to the deed without him grabbing her, and that's even by her own account. She felt uncomfortable, but continued anyway under her own volition, without telling him again that she felt uncomfortable.
Except that before the blow job, there was 30 minutes of Ansari attemping various sex acts and Grace rebuffing them. Grace went in to the bathroom and spent a fair stretch of time getting herself collected, then came out and said "I don't want to do this". Ansari said he didn't want to do anything she didn't, and invited her to the couch to chill. As soon as they were settled on the couch he asked for the blow job.
You get how all that extra stuff that led up the blowjob changes it completely, yeah?
I'm not going to say she didn't feel uncomfortable, or that everything was hunky dory, but here she made a bad decision, he didn't force her into it at all. It was, in the end, a decision that is her own. Him not picking up on her being uncomfortable is not anything close to sexual assault or harassment, and even then the text sent afterwards seems to show he still felt they had a positive relationship of some sort, supporting that he not understand her discomfort at the situation. But not being able to pick up on subtle clues is a loooooong way from being any sort of villain.
Dude, the clues weren't subtle. And it isn't about him being a villain, if he's a villain then so are lots of people. Lots of people think that its okay to keeping pushing for sex, trying different stuff, until you hear 'no', and if you do get that 'no' then all you need to do is wait a while before starting up again.
But that isn't okay, because there's lots of reasons like surprise or fear that a person won't or can't give a definitive 'no'. So men might think they're getting consent simply by not hearing a clear 'no', but they're not.
This isn't about labelling Ansari a villain. If anything the focus on singling out Ansari as a bad guy actually reduces the value of this story. We should understand Ansari was just like thousands of other men, who didn't think they were doing anything wrong but ended up giving girl's the worst nights of their lives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ulgurstasta wrote: Well of course harassing someone for sexual favours when it's made clear there is no interest is wrong. But the issue was rather that the responsibility to make sure both partners consent is put solely on the males shoulders. If women cant be responsible for their own consent but must instead rely on a man to take that responsibility for her, then yes thats denying her agency.
As you said yourself "It means recognising they are human, and should not be expected to react perfectly to very difficult situations.", this also applies to men. If a women does not consent or draws back her consent then she has a responsibility to signal that in a clear way, Just as men have a responsibility to be clear with their consent.
No, that isn't how it works at all. Agency means letting someone make their choice and respecting it. The woman's agency begins and ends with her decision. Accepting that decision will not always be perfectly communicated isn't denying anyone agency, it's accepting how real life operates, where people are often placed in challenging situations and don't do everything perfectly.
I see what you're saying that men also won't also act perfectly. However, there's a basic difference in the situation for each gender. The man is initiating, he can stop what he is doing. The woman is haven't the situation put upon her. There's always more expectation on the person driving the situation, than on the person having it put upon them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nels1031 wrote: I'm going to interject something Non-Ansari real quick:
(Sorry if its been covered already, ignore if it has, but all I saw the last few pages were Ansari related)
I'm seeing a celebrity led campaign to pay for Mkayla Maroney's fine for breaching her Non Disclosure Agreement that is tied to her settlement from her abuser. Today, US Gymnastics is saying they won't seek a penalty against her for violating her NDA.
While admirable, its incredibly misguided and dangerous. It could damage one of the few avenues of recourse/justice for some victims in the future. It may well reduce the willingness of accused predators in the future to settle out of court, and instead drag both parties through grueling and deeply personal, embarrassing trials for no good reason and leave up any sort of settlement up to a judge, who may well rule against the victims in some cases or levy a lesser fine that was in the initial settlement. The victims would go from a guaranteed discrete monetary settlement to a public trial that, depending on weight of evidence, could become a 50/50 shot at some amount or no amount of justice.
If she was a key witness or had testimony that alone could validate another victims accusations, I'd maybe be supportive of this, but apparently there a dozens of accusers and all her voice would do is merely add a bit more celebrity to the voices against the accused. The goose is already cooked in this case.
I believe this is a well meaning overreach in this wider scandal and could have damaging ramifications overall in the future.
I understand your point, and respect that victims will often want a recourse that doesn't involve a public trial and the media spotlight. However, NDAs have been more than a little problematic, they've been the primary tools that organisations have forced these stories underground, allowing individuals to abuse repeatedly. The enforced secrecy has stopped women finding out they were not alone.
It's a difficult issue, and I'm not sure how it should be resolved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, its stupid to voluntarily keep yourself in what is a dangerous situation.
I think you have a really fanciful notion of how people react when placed in unexpected, stressful situation. They don't act rationally, or sensibly. They often become afraid to completely confront the other person, instead looking to placate the other person, even passively going along with their requests. This is true even when there's no overt physical threat. Humans have strong, primal instincts, and they often cause us to do stuff that moments after the event looks bizarre, even 'stupid'.
Sitting in judgement on people and their reactions in those situations is absolutely, 100% the wrong way to go about things.
Yes, it would be ideal if people who weren't interested always, 100% reacted by saying clearly they didn't want to do anything and left. But that's not the world we live, that's not how humans are going to react everytime.
The fact any adult human being can read the account of what Ansari did and dismiss his actions as being acceptable behavior or even simply boorish is disappointing. I thought female friends were being slightly malicious or insincere when describing some of their more unpleasant sexual encounters, but apparently not. And apparently this isn't remotely uncommon...
Grey Templar wrote: Yes, its stupid to voluntarily keep yourself in what is a dangerous situation.
I think you have a really fanciful notion of how people react when placed in unexpected, stressful situation. They don't act rationally, or sensibly. They often become afraid to completely confront the other person, instead looking to placate the other person, even passively going along with their requests. This is true even when there's no overt physical threat. Humans have strong, primal instincts, and they often cause us to do stuff that moments after the event looks bizarre, even 'stupid'.
Sitting in judgement on people and their reactions in those situations is absolutely, 100% the wrong way to go about things.
Yes, it would be ideal if people who weren't interested always, 100% reacted by saying clearly they didn't want to do anything and left. But that's not the world we live, that's not how humans are going to react everytime.
I get that. But in this case her "Fight or Flight" response should have kicked in. Its not like he was forcing her to stay or otherwise preventing her from leaving.
Especially by the 3rd time she should have just up and left. And thats accounting for irrational behavior on her part.
This wasn't like Wienstein who literally trapped women, both physically and emotionally. It really makes no sense, even accounting for some irrational fear driven behavior, that she would have remained there despite the repeated advances he made.
Grey Templar wrote: I get that. But in this case her "Fight or Flight" response should have kicked in. Its not like he was forcing her to stay or otherwise preventing her from leaving.
There is no 'should' to how people will react to stressful situations. It is way more complex than just 'fight or flight', there are many reactions people have.
Your view starts with a notion of how people 'should' react to a high stress situation, and dismisses the experience of anyone who doesn't react within those expectations. It is a fundamentally broken way of understanding this issue.
This wasn't like Wienstein who literally trapped women, both physically and emotionally. It really makes no sense, even accounting for some irrational fear driven behavior, that she would have remained there despite the repeated advances he made.
But she did remain there. And her situation is not unique, thousands of women have told stories just like this.
So when you read that and think that it doesn't make sense, that it doesn't fit with how you think people should act, instead of using that to dismiss her account, instead you should use it to consider that perhaps your understanding of how people react to high stress situations was wrong.
Grey Templar wrote: I get that. But in this case her "Fight or Flight" response should have kicked in. Its not like he was forcing her to stay or otherwise preventing her from leaving.
There is no 'should' to how people will react to stressful situations. It is way more complex than just 'fight or flight', there are many reactions people have.
Your view starts with a notion of how people 'should' react to a high stress situation, and dismisses the experience of anyone who doesn't react within those expectations. It is a fundamentally broken way of understanding this issue.
This wasn't like Wienstein who literally trapped women, both physically and emotionally. It really makes no sense, even accounting for some irrational fear driven behavior, that she would have remained there despite the repeated advances he made.
But she did remain there. And her situation is not unique, thousands of women have told stories just like this.
So when you read that and think that it doesn't make sense, that it doesn't fit with how you think people should act, instead of using that to dismiss her account, instead you should use it to consider that perhaps your understanding of how people react to high stress situations was wrong.
Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't change that she should have left, and we should push for education for people to remove themselves from bad situations like this. Even if their instincts are telling them to freeze and remain.
IE: Don't be stupid. Leave bad situations while you still can.
Grey Templar wrote: I get that. But in this case her "Fight or Flight" response should have kicked in. Its not like he was forcing her to stay or otherwise preventing her from leaving.
There is no 'should' to how people will react to stressful situations. It is way more complex than just 'fight or flight', there are many reactions people have.
Your view starts with a notion of how people 'should' react to a high stress situation, and dismisses the experience of anyone who doesn't react within those expectations. It is a fundamentally broken way of understanding this issue.
This wasn't like Wienstein who literally trapped women, both physically and emotionally. It really makes no sense, even accounting for some irrational fear driven behavior, that she would have remained there despite the repeated advances he made.
But she did remain there. And her situation is not unique, thousands of women have told stories just like this.
So when you read that and think that it doesn't make sense, that it doesn't fit with how you think people should act, instead of using that to dismiss her account, instead you should use it to consider that perhaps your understanding of how people react to high stress situations was wrong.
Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't change that she should have left, and we should push for education for people to remove themselves from bad situations like this. Even if their instincts are telling them to freeze and remain.
IE: Don't be stupid. Leave bad situations while you still can.
Wow, you are so obviously part of the problem I don't even know what to say. That you talk about rational thinking while so clearly throwing logic out the window really highlights that. I hope no one close to you never has something like that happen to them, because it would be horrible to go through that then have you look them in the eyes and tell them how stupid they were.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The responsibility isn't all on men's shoulders. It is the responsibility of individual A to ensure individual B is consenting, and it is the responsibility of individual B to ensure individual A is consenting. The man/woman thing is really just shorthand because the majority of situations like this are a man imposing on a woman, and because English lacks the genderless nouns to have the discussion as such.
sebster wrote: No, that isn't how it works at all. Agency means letting someone make their choice and respecting it. The woman's agency begins and ends with her decision. Accepting that decision will not always be perfectly communicated isn't denying anyone agency, it's accepting how real life operates, where people are often placed in challenging situations and don't do everything perfectly.
I see what you're saying that men also won't also act perfectly. However, there's a basic difference in the situation for each gender. The man is initiating, he can stop what he is doing. The woman is haven't the situation put upon her. There's always more expectation on the person driving the situation, than on the person having it put upon them.
As we are all aware, in our current gender roles it's the man who is expected to initiate a seduction, which puts the responsibility we have talked about on their shoulders. And as we have also established communication isn't always clear cut in romantic situations, so a man can never be 100% sure there is consent before he has initiated the seduction. I think Slavoj Zizek puts it better then I ever could...
Slavoj Žižek from "‘You May!’ wrote:A similar tension between rights and prohibitions determines heterosexual seduction in our politically correct times. Or, to put it differently, there is no seduction which cannot at some point be construed as intrusion or harassment because there will always be a point when one has to expose oneself and ‘make a pass’. But, of course, seduction doesn’t involve incorrect harassment throughout. When you make a pass, you expose yourself to the Other (the potential partner), and her reaction will determine whether what you just did was harassment or a successful act of seduction. There is no way to tell in advance what her response will be (which is why assertive women often despise ‘weak’ men, who fear to take the necessary risk). This holds even more in our pc times: the pc prohibitions are rules which, in one way or another, are to be violated in the seduction process. Isn’t the seducer’s art to accomplish the violation in such a way that, afterwards, by its acceptance, any suggestion of harassment has disappeared?
I believe that you are basing your rationale on old information. 'Fight or Flight' has been found to mainly to apply to men. Women are more likely to 'Tend or Befriend.' That is one of the reasons women don't immediately leave a bad situation.
ulgurstasta wrote: As we are all aware, in our current gender roles it's the man who is expected to initiate a seduction, which puts the responsibility we have talked about on their shoulders. And as we have also established communication isn't always clear cut in romantic situations, so a man can never be 100% sure there is consent before he has initiated the seduction. I think Slavoj Zizek puts it better then I ever could...
Slavoj Žižek from "‘You May!’ wrote:A similar tension between rights and prohibitions determines heterosexual seduction in our politically correct times. Or, to put it differently, there is no seduction which cannot at some point be construed as intrusion or harassment because there will always be a point when one has to expose oneself and ‘make a pass’. But, of course, seduction doesn’t involve incorrect harassment throughout. When you make a pass, you expose yourself to the Other (the potential partner), and her reaction will determine whether what you just did was harassment or a successful act of seduction. There is no way to tell in advance what her response will be (which is why assertive women often despise ‘weak’ men, who fear to take the necessary risk). This holds even more in our pc times: the pc prohibitions are rules which, in one way or another, are to be violated in the seduction process. Isn’t the seducer’s art to accomplish the violation in such a way that, afterwards, by its acceptance, any suggestion of harassment has disappeared?
To be honest that quote right there takes it to a pretty crazy extreme with the 'pc prohibitions' and harassment. While making a pass at a woman to seduce her there are interactions between harassment and not doing anything. But reading a bit on the background of Zizek I have to say this quote doesn't surprise me at all, fits right in.
ulgurstasta wrote: As we are all aware, in our current gender roles it's the man who is expected to initiate a seduction, which puts the responsibility we have talked about on their shoulders. And as we have also established communication isn't always clear cut in romantic situations, so a man can never be 100% sure there is consent before he has initiated the seduction. I think Slavoj Zizek puts it better then I ever could...
Slavoj Žižek from "‘You May!’ wrote:A similar tension between rights and prohibitions determines heterosexual seduction in our politically correct times. Or, to put it differently, there is no seduction which cannot at some point be construed as intrusion or harassment because there will always be a point when one has to expose oneself and ‘make a pass’. But, of course, seduction doesn’t involve incorrect harassment throughout. When you make a pass, you expose yourself to the Other (the potential partner), and her reaction will determine whether what you just did was harassment or a successful act of seduction. There is no way to tell in advance what her response will be (which is why assertive women often despise ‘weak’ men, who fear to take the necessary risk). This holds even more in our pc times: the pc prohibitions are rules which, in one way or another, are to be violated in the seduction process. Isn’t the seducer’s art to accomplish the violation in such a way that, afterwards, by its acceptance, any suggestion of harassment has disappeared?
To be honest that quote right there takes it to a pretty crazy extreme with the 'pc prohibitions' and harassment. While making a pass at a woman to seduce her there are interactions between harassment and not doing anything. But reading a bit on the background of Zizek I have to say this quote doesn't surprise me at all, fits right in.
Yeah, that quote is a bit extreme and irrelevant to the matter at hand. People aren't punished if they make a pass and it offends the other individual. The worst that comes out of that is a bit of embarrassment. The great irony of PC culture is how the anti-PC culture is louder and more easily offended than the former. It reads as yet another effort to let people continue nasty behaviors by creating a weird victim complex.
I believe that you are basing your rationale on old information. 'Fight or Flight' has been found to mainly to apply to men. Women are more likely to 'Tend or Befriend.' That is one of the reasons women don't immediately leave a bad situation.
Fair enough. It still doesn't change the fact that leaving is the best way of protecting yourself.
Everyone needs to be part of the solution to sexual harassment. Men and women. Men need to be more aware of their behavior. Women need to be more aware of their surroundings and what signs should mean they should leave a bad situation. And everybody needs to be on the lookout as third party observers.
Biological hardwiring doesn't excuse poor choices. After all, we could find similar justification for guys like Ansari. Maybe his brain chemistry made him unable to pick up on her ques that she was 100% not interested. That doesn't absolve him of responsibility though.
I believe that you are basing your rationale on old information. 'Fight or Flight' has been found to mainly to apply to men. Women are more likely to 'Tend or Befriend.' That is one of the reasons women don't immediately leave a bad situation.
Fair enough. It still doesn't change the fact that leaving is the best way of protecting yourself.
Everyone needs to be part of the solution to sexual harassment. Men and women. Men need to be more aware of their behavior. Women need to be more aware of their surroundings and what signs should mean they should leave a bad situation. And everybody needs to be on the lookout as third party observers.
Biological hardwiring doesn't excuse poor choices. After all, we could find similar justification for guys like Ansari. Maybe his brain chemistry made him unable to pick up on her ques that she was 100% not interested. That doesn't absolve him of responsibility though.
Why are you so determined to blame her for his actions?
The point is that while she could have done more to protect herself (something I think we all agree with) nothing she did was wrong. The same can't be said for Aziz. Maybe I am misinterpreting Grey Templar but he seems to be assigning fault to both sides, when really the fault only falls on one. There is a big difference between not getting your car maintained to the point where it breaks down and the person who is actively damaging your car so it will break down faster.
I think that's a very good analogy, and a good point. I feel like in many circumstances it is very apt.
Still, after having read the original article, this particular case doesn't seem that clear cut.
First of all, this is not going to be taken well by a lot of people, but if women want to make a point of having agency and self-determination then they better damn well use it (and I'm sure there are women who would agree).
You don't go on a date with someone, meet them at their house, go out to dinner, go back to their house, take off your clothes, start messing around, stop messing around, and then blame them and only them for any discomfort you may have felt as a result of any of those actions.
This is the text she sent Ansari the next day:
Last night might’ve been fun for you, but it wasn’t for me. You ignored clear nonverbal cues; you kept going with advances. You had to have noticed I was uncomfortable.
Those are her words. She's not saying that she told him no and he insisted, she's saying that she didn't say anything and he was supposed to have read her mind. If you are relying solely on non-verbal cues and the hope that people notice when you feel a certain way in order to have your own personal needs met and respected, you are in for a lot more than one uncomfortable date. Doubly so if you refuse to exercise your own agency, as if you yourself believe that you are an object that people do things to instead of a person who makes their own decisions. She could have got up and left at any point during the entire evening.
Stories like this are going to be a massive step backwards for this movement, for victims of sexual assault, and for women in general. They promote the idea that women in fact have no agency; that simply by being the object of a man's sexual advances they are beholden to his whims, and the only control they have over the situation is in the press after the fact. That is a lie.
In this situation, Ansari had no power over Grace whatsoever. He wasn't her boss, he wasn't her producer, he wasn't anything to her except someone on TV. She would have lost nothing by getting up and walking out the door. Was he a selfish, insensitive prick who shouldn't have been acting that way? Yes, but all the more reason not to hang out alone, naked, with a person who's behaving like that.
Modern Feminism is taking women backwards in time to a point where they are not capable of making their own decisions; they must be coddled and protected like children. Seriously. Modern feminists sound like they would have been totally comfortable in the Victorian era, where certain subjects are not broached around sensitive ears, women are never allowed to be in the private company of a man unchaperoned, and they don't have to worry about making decisions or taking responsibility for their own reproductive rights. What was the point of feminism from the time of Women's Suffrage if we're just going straight back to where we came from?
Luciferian wrote: I think that's a very good analogy, and a good point. I feel like in many circumstances it is very apt.
Still, after having read the original article, this particular case doesn't seem that clear cut.
First of all, this is not going to be taken well by a lot of people, but if women want to make a point of having agency and self-determination then they better damn well use it (and I'm sure there are women who would agree).
You don't go on a date with someone, meet them at their house, go out to dinner, go back to their house, take off your clothes, start messing around, stop messing around, and then blame them and only them for any discomfort you may have felt as a result of any of those actions.
This is the text she sent Ansari the next day:
Last night might’ve been fun for you, but it wasn’t for me. You ignored clear nonverbal cues; you kept going with advances. You had to have noticed I was uncomfortable.
Those are her words. She's not saying that she told him no and he insisted, she's saying that she didn't say anything and he was supposed to have read her mind. If you are relying solely on non-verbal cues and the hope that people notice when you feel a certain way in order to have your own personal needs met and respected, you are in for a lot more than one uncomfortable date. Doubly so if you refuse to exercise your own agency, as if you yourself believe that you are an object that people do things to instead of a person who makes their own decisions. She could have got up and left at any point during the entire evening.
Stories like this are going to be a massive step backwards for this movement, for victims of sexual assault, and for women in general. They promote the idea that women in fact have no agency; that simply by being the object of a man's sexual advances they are beholden to his whims, and the only control they have over the situation is in the press after the fact. That is a lie.
In this situation, Ansari had no power over Grace whatsoever. He wasn't her boss, he wasn't her producer, he wasn't anything to her except someone on TV. She would have lost nothing by getting up and walking out the door. Was he a selfish, insensitive prick who shouldn't have been acting that way? Yes, but all the more reason not to hang out alone, naked, with a person who's behaving like that.
Modern Feminism is taking women backwards in time to a point where they are not capable of making their own decisions; they must be coddled and protected like children. Seriously. Modern feminists sound like they would have been totally comfortable in the Victorian era, where certain subjects are not broached around sensitive ears, women are never allowed to be in the private company of a man unchaperoned, and they don't have to worry about making decisions or taking responsibility for their own reproductive rights. What was the point of feminism from the time of Women's Suffrage if we're just going straight back to where we came from?
I'm not entirely on the same page, I feel like her nonverbal cues were sufficient to require actively ignoring them on his part; women shouldn't have to exclaim "NO!" to be able to say no, while there is certainly such a thing as sending mixed signals or not being clear that sometimes crosses into just assuming men are idiots who have to have it spelled out for them in elementary terms. There is a lot of grey area, but go to far either way and it becomes more clear-cut. That said, I think you have a some good points here even if I don't entirely agree with the overall assessment.
I will be honest, as a man, I AM an idiot when it comes to romance. I absolutely do have to have things spelled out for me. I'm kind of on the other end of the spectrum, though; unless a woman makes it abundantly clear that's she's interested in me, I don't even bother. I don't have time to pursue someone who doesn't know what they want or who simply doesn't want me. But when it comes down to it, communication is the key to any relationship. Even if that relationship only lasts one night. Expecting someone to know what you're thinking is a sure-fire way not to have your expectations met.
What's wrong with being open and straight forward about what you want, sexually or otherwise? How else do you expect to get what you want? Why shouldn't a woman scream, "NO!" in Aziz Ansari's face? Or, "YES!" if that's the way she's feeling.
The problem with the kind of sexual dynamic described in the Ansari report is that it inherently assumes that all responsibility for sexual encounters is on the shoulders of the man - which isn't just an attitude that leads to unfulfilling sex, it's anti-Feminist!
Of course, men do have the responsibility not to sexually assault people. That's a given. But EVERYONE has the responsibility to communicate their needs and desires to people they expect to fulfill those needs and desires. I don't want to hear about a woman who consciously decided to take off her clothes in Aziz Ansari's apartment and go down on him, even though she apparently didn't want to but didn't do anything about it. I want to hear about a woman who threw her drink in Aziz Ansari's face and told him exactly how he was being a pig. Again, what is the point if women don't feel like they have that option?
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't change that she should have left
But it completely changes the expectation that people will always act as they should. Once you realise people placed in unexpected stressful situation won't act perfectly, then it should become obvious that it's completely bonkers to base your line of thinking around what someone 'should' do.
The practical thing is to recognise how people do act, and adjust behaviour accordingly.
So sure, it is good and important to tell women that when placed in that situation, they should communicate 'no' as clearly as possible and look to leave. But we should recognise they won't always do that, and make sure that when they don't it doesn't lead to anything awful, because guys understand pushing and pushing girls until you get a clear 'no' and they leave isn't fething good enough.
Luciferian wrote: I will be honest, as a man, I AM an idiot when it comes to romance. I absolutely do have to have things spelled out for me. I'm kind of on the other end of the spectrum, though; unless a woman makes it abundantly clear that's she's interested in me, I don't even bother. I don't have time to pursue someone who doesn't know what they want or who simply doesn't want me. But when it comes down to it, communication is the key to any relationship. Even if that relationship only lasts one night. Expecting someone to know what you're thinking is a sure-fire way not to have your expectations met.
What's wrong with being open and straight forward about what you want, sexually or otherwise? How else do you expect to get what you want? Why shouldn't a woman scream, "NO!" in Aziz Ansari's face? Or, "YES!" if that's the way she's feeling.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I actually think people should be more direct about such things, the distinction is that I feel people shouldn't be expected to put them in the most blunt manner possible.
I don't think so either, but I also don't think women should be afraid of being blunt or rude or hurting a man's feelings. As people have said above, part of the solution is getting men to understand that they don't have to pursue sex like total animals, but part of the solution is also that women must use the voice they've earned. In stories like this one or the "cat lady" story, the women are more reluctant to commit a social faux-pas than they are to actually engage in sexual activity they don't really want. If telling someone you don't want to have sex with them hurts their feelings, them's the breaks.
It's also harmful to non-neurotypical people if people don't state their intentions well enough. Not everyone can factor in non-verbal communication well.
Well, no one in the world has the brain of a mind-reader. There is no accurate way of guessing how someone else feels unless they actually tell you. Does that mean you should just aggressively pursue any and all sexual prospects unless you're specifically told otherwise? No, but especially in the realm of sex and relationships it's never a bad policy to be clear.
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't change that she should have left
But it completely changes the expectation that people will always act as they should. Once you realise people placed in unexpected stressful situation won't act perfectly, then it should become obvious that it's completely bonkers to base your line of thinking around what someone 'should' do.
The practical thing is to recognise how people do act, and adjust behaviour accordingly.
So sure, it is good and important to tell women that when placed in that situation, they should communicate 'no' as clearly as possible and look to leave. But we should recognise they won't always do that, and make sure that when they don't it doesn't lead to anything awful, because guys understand pushing and pushing girls until you get a clear 'no' and they leave isn't fething good enough.
Sure, I get that people won't always act the way they should. Thats why we need to stress so much to people that they should leave if a situation is becoming dangerous.
For men who have issues understanding the social ques of rejection. They gotta learn to leave it at that and deal with it.
For women who are dealing with a guy who doesn't understand No means No. You have to take responsibility for yourself and not let someone take advantage of you. If the guy isn't taking no for an answer, well, that is now a bad situation and you should remove yourself from it. Staying put is only going to make it worse since clearly the guy doesn't care about consent. So you shouldn't stay and hope that saying "No" over and over again will work. Its not your fault if you feel paralyzed by the situation, but you shouldn't be content to simply be a victim.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The point is that while she could have done more to protect herself (something I think we all agree with) nothing she did was wrong. The same can't be said for Aziz. Maybe I am misinterpreting Grey Templar but he seems to be assigning fault to both sides, when really the fault only falls on one. There is a big difference between not getting your car maintained to the point where it breaks down and the person who is actively damaging your car so it will break down faster.
You are misinterpreting me.
She didn't do anything wrong. She did fail to adequately take steps to protect herself. That is a stupid thing to do. Much like failing to maintain your car, to use your example. Its not wrong, but it is stupid.
Its kinda like a person accidentally wandering into a room in which there is a Tiger. You didn't do anything wrong, but it would be pretty stupid to remain in the room. Not wrong, but definitely stupid.
ulgurstasta wrote: As we are all aware, in our current gender roles it's the man who is expected to initiate a seduction, which puts the responsibility we have talked about on their shoulders. And as we have also established communication isn't always clear cut in romantic situations, so a man can never be 100% sure there is consent before he has initiated the seduction.
There's a hell of a lot wrong with what you just posted. First up, it's more common that men make the first move, but it's far from universal and less common by the day. But that's really a nitpick. The first significant problem is using 'seduction', falling back on an outdated and really problematic idea that sex is about bringing down another person's barriers. It's the exact thinking that leads to these kinds of incidents.
The last problem is that the claim there can never be 100% certainty. That's completely not true. That just doesn't line up with reality. Most times both parties will be willing participants and this will be clear to both of them because both parties will be doing things & suggesting things. It's only when you have that dangerous mindset that one party is expected to be passive and reluctnat
I think Slavoj Zizek puts it better then I ever could...
That's some weird stuff, mate. I don't know Zizek, but that quote gives the impression of a guy with some serious issues. Basically, his claim that any pass can be seen as harassment is stupid beyond imagining. Obviously absurd. Anyone who spends more than a second thinking about it can think of a pass that cannot be seen as harassment or inappropriate in any way. Why Zizek would make such a stupid claim is the question. Is he trying to claim that all passes can be seen as harassement, in order to provide some kind of protection for actual harassment? Or is he just another man who delights in playing imaginary 'men are so hard done by games'. I don't know, but whatever it is his argument is pure nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: My view is, both Aziz and Grace could have made different choices throughout the evening, but they didn't, and so what happened, happened.
Sure, they both did stuff wrong. But it's fething absurd to reduce the level responsibility applied to the person who chose the interaction and continued to push that interaction, because the person who had that interaction sprung on them made sub-optimal choices in trying to get out of that situation.
Badgering someone to fulfill a request is something that happens all the time, everywhere in society. It's not ideal behaviour, but it's not unusual.
And depending on what you're badgering a person for and the relationship between the two people, that badgering can be completely fine or have some level of immorality. Ansari's actions are far from the worst we've seen alleged in the last year, but there is clearly an element that goes way past simple badgering and in to something far more coercive.
Grey Templar wrote: Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't change that she should have left
But it completely changes the expectation that people will always act as they should. Once you realise people placed in unexpected stressful situation won't act perfectly, then it should become obvious that it's completely bonkers to base your line of thinking around what someone 'should' do.
The practical thing is to recognise how people do act, and adjust behaviour accordingly.
So sure, it is good and important to tell women that when placed in that situation, they should communicate 'no' as clearly as possible and look to leave. But we should recognise they won't always do that, and make sure that when they don't it doesn't lead to anything awful, because guys understand pushing and pushing girls until you get a clear 'no' and they leave isn't fething good enough.
Sure, I get that people won't always act the way they should. Thats why we need to stress so much to people that they should leave if a situation is becoming dangerous.
For men who have issues understanding the social ques of rejection. They gotta learn to leave it at that and deal with it.
For women who are dealing with a guy who doesn't understand No means No. You have to take responsibility for yourself and not let someone take advantage of you. If the guy isn't taking no for an answer, well, that is now a bad situation and you should remove yourself from it. Staying put is only going to make it worse since clearly the guy doesn't care about consent. So you shouldn't stay and hope that saying "No" over and over again will work. Its not your fault if you feel paralyzed by the situation, but you shouldn't be content to simply be a victim.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The point is that while she could have done more to protect herself (something I think we all agree with) nothing she did was wrong. The same can't be said for Aziz. Maybe I am misinterpreting Grey Templar but he seems to be assigning fault to both sides, when really the fault only falls on one. There is a big difference between not getting your car maintained to the point where it breaks down and the person who is actively damaging your car so it will break down faster.
You are misinterpreting me.
She didn't do anything wrong. She did fail to adequately take steps to protect herself. That is a stupid thing to do. Much like failing to maintain your car, to use your example. Its not wrong, but it is stupid.
Its kinda like a person accidentally wandering into a room in which there is a Tiger. You didn't do anything wrong, but it would be pretty stupid to remain in the room. Not wrong, but definitely stupid.
Luciferian wrote: First of all, this is not going to be taken well by a lot of people, but if women want to make a point of having agency and self-determination then they better damn well use it (and I'm sure there are women who would agree).
You don't go on a date with someone, meet them at their house, go out to dinner, go back to their house, take off your clothes, start messing around, stop messing around, and then blame them and only them for any discomfort you may have felt as a result of any of those actions.
If it ended when she went to that bathroom, freshened up, and came out and told him she didn't want to do anything and he actually respected that, then I'd agree. But that isn't what happened, after that he kept saying he was happy to just chill, and then trying to initiate sex again.
Those are her words. She's not saying that she told him no and he insisted, she's saying that she didn't say anything and he was supposed to have read her mind.
She said “I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you.” In response to this Ansari invited her on the couch to chill, where he then told her to give him a blowjob.
She also said "I stood up and said no, I don’t think I’m ready to do this, I really don’t think I’m going to do this." Ansari again invited her to chill, they dressed and sat on the couch, and then he tried to put his pants down her jeans.
There's nothing non-verbal or subtle about that. This is a woman telling a man in non-confrontational language to please fething stop. And in response Ansari says he'll respect that, only to repeatedly not respect that at all, but instead try to have sex.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: The problem with the kind of sexual dynamic described in the Ansari report is that it inherently assumes that all responsibility for sexual encounters is on the shoulders of the man - which isn't just an attitude that leads to unfulfilling sex, it's anti-Feminist!
I'm beginning to see there's a false narrative building around what hapened between Grace and Ansari. People seem to forming a story that she did nothing verbal or clear to say she didn't want to have sex. But in addition to a lot of verbal cues she told him multiple times she didn't want to. We can say she could have said "I am absolutely not having sex with you today" and left, but that doesn't mean she didn't say anything at all.
The problem was after she said that, Ansari said he respected that and said he'd be happy just chilling, after which he tried to resume having sex. He did this multiple times.
feeder wrote: I guess persistence paid off for Aziz.
I can't really fault him for asking again (and again and again). Both Aziz and Grace's actions spoke louder than their words.
So what, are we saying that no does not mean no and in fact means ask again later?
I have been reading Magic 8-Balls wrong this whole time!
Actually, to throw a messed up personal anecdote in...my step sister about 7 years ago told my sister and I that she had been raped. She went out with a guy, had fun, decided to fool around, he asked, she said yes, and they had sex. Partway through, she changed her mind, but never told him. No, she didn’t press charges. She just told us. And again, claimed it was rape because she changed her mind. We asked her if she expected the guy to ask every five minutes if it was STILL okay to be having sex...and she straight up said “yes”. So according to some actual, real life people, you DO and SHOULD keep asking every few minutes to see if things change. Needless to say, my sister and I both told our step sister she made a choice with the guy, didn’t let him know she changed her mind later, and that it was frankly completely her fault. We then called her an idiot. And yes, she made it clear that she wasn’t pressured; she WANTED it to start, but changed her mind later. And if she had pressed charges, that guy’s life would have been ruined.
I'm beginning to see there's a false narrative building around what hapened between Grace and Ansari. People seem to forming a story that she did nothing verbal or clear to say she didn't want to have sex. But in addition to a lot of verbal cues she told him multiple times she didn't want to. We can say she could have said "I am absolutely not having sex with you today" and left, but that doesn't mean she didn't say anything at all.
The problem was after she said that, Ansari said he respected that and said he'd be happy just chilling, after which he tried to resume having sex. He did this multiple times.
I'm by no means defending Ansari's behavior. He was definitely way too persistent and cloying. Still, she did not communicate her needs or expectations and she chose to continue engaging in sexual activity with him. If you don't want to give someone a blowjob, you don't.
You get a view into her mindset and communicative shortcomings very early in the piece. They make a dramatic point of saying that he offered her white wine, when she wanted red. But she didn't say anything about it, she just expected things to happen the way she wanted without having to engage in any kind of discussion about what her boundaries or expectations for the date were. That is pretty much the way the whole night went. Ansari was offering her something she didn't want, but instead of clearly communicating with him what she did want, she went along with it anyway. They were on two different pages and wanted two different things out of the evening. A problem that could have been solved very easily by a bit of communication between the two.
Even when it comes to the sex, she still wanted physical intimacy with him. She just didn't want it the way he was giving it to her. She wanted him to be sweet and slow and play with her hair and hold her. She didn't say she didn't want to have sex with him, she said she didn't want it to feel forced. Her statement that she didn't want it to feel forced because she didn't want to hate him if taken at face value pretty much says that she would have sex with him even if she didn't like it, and then just resent him for it afterwards. Which, by the way, is exactly what happened. So I guess Ansari shouldn't have expected anything other than this outcome if he actually was paying attention to what she was saying, but the fact remains that she consented to everything she did with him without being in a state of duress. Which means that this is not a case of sexual assault or rape, it is a case of two people being very bad at communicating with each other. At no point did anyone force this woman to give Aziz Ansari a blowjob, she just did it.
At the end of the day, she most certainly could have said, "I'm absolutely not having sex with you today," and left, without any negative repercussions whatsoever. She was under no threat to her job, her social standing, her wellbeing or her life. She also could have said, "I'm not going to have sex with you on the first date, I just want to cuddle," or any number of things that would have clearly established her own personal boundaries and expectations, but she didn't. That doesn't put the all of the blame on her or make her a bad person or excuse Ansari's behavior, but it is a very simple failure in communication which quite possibly could have turned a horrible experience into a good one for both parties if she were more assertive.
That's the biggest difference between this story, and others that have cropped up around powerful men in the media. In a lot of the other cases, men in positions of authority and power leveraged their considerable influence or even their physical strength over women who could have their lives significantly impacted in case they rebuff the advances. In this story, two people are gakky at dating and communication, and one of them is a jerk who's only thinking about getting his own rocks off. There's a pretty big difference.
Successful charges aren't necessary to ruin someones like though. Merely the accusation can often utterly ruin someone for life, especially if it is done publicly.
Successful charges aren't necessary to ruin someones like though. Merely the accusation can often utterly ruin someone for life, especially if it is done publicly.
Absolutely, but that is a separate issue from sexual harassment that stretches across other crimes. Also, with that story I don't think his life would be ruined unless he was a public figure.
This article explores the Ansari situation and more quite well:
Ansari is not on public trial because he likes sex too much, for example—or because he likes a particular kind of sex with a particular gender or particular number of people, or because of a kink or fetish—or most any other element of sex that would not draw such widespread contempt. Relative to most of recent Western history, this is a time not of panic, but of great openness to proclivities and dispositions. The definition of normal is growing more expansive, if slowly.
The element that remains intolerable is nonconsensual sex, which—if sex is today defined by consent—means that these stories of famous men and coercive behavior are not really about policing sex. When a person is reporting feeling coerced, and other people say the story shouldn’t have been told—or that people who personally relate to it are overreacting by saying as much—that’s a more disquieting type of policing.
Telling these stories will not lead to less sex—to men being afraid to hit on people because they’re afraid of being inappropriate. It will lead to men being less creepy and domineering, and more communicative and confident in the rightness of how to go about things, and more decent and capable. This is not an anti-sex movement gone off the rails. It is a pro-sex movement just laying the tracks.
Grey Templar wrote: Successful charges aren't necessary to ruin someones like though. Merely the accusation can often utterly ruin someone for life, especially if it is done publicly.
And often very public accusations lead to nothing at all (besides abuse of the accuser), sometimes the accused even becomes president of the USA, stays in that position, and doesn't lose it once it becomes known (like Clinton and Trump). Anecdotal examples are not really representative of an overall pattern. In other kinds of criminal situations people also lie, the police makes mistakes, people get demonised, and so on (also without successful charges). Yet we still try to do better and improve things and don't just throw our hands into the air and give up because of the possibility of a few false positives.
Do you also worry as much about all the harassed and violated people who don't say anything and whose attackers were not brought to justice and who keep on assaulting other people? Or how about those who did go to the police but where still nothing happened? Stuff like this?
The math of that is stunning. In Detroit alone, 11,000 rape kits that were slowly tested over the last few years revealed 817 serial rapists—meaning there are likely close to 29,000 repeat rapists, whose identities are hiding in those crime-scene kits gathering dust around the U.S.
Luciferian wrote: They make a dramatic point of saying that he offered her white wine, when she wanted red. But she didn't say anything about it, she just expected things to happen the way she wanted without having to engage in any kind of discussion about what her boundaries or expectations for the date were. That is pretty much the way the whole night went. Ansari was offering her something she didn't want, but instead of clearly communicating with him what she did want, she went along with it anyway. They were on two different pages and wanted two different things out of the evening. A problem that could have been solved very easily by a bit of communication between the two.
Which is an argument that is completely reasonable when someone is sitting there thinking "gee I wish he'd given me a red instead of a white". It's an argument that makes a lot less sense when you're naked and vulnerable in someone else's apartment and they won't stop pressuring you in to doing things you made it clear you don't want to do.
At the end of the day, she most certainly could have said, "I'm absolutely not having sex with you today," and left, without any negative repercussions whatsoever. She was under no threat to her job, her social standing, her wellbeing or her life. She also could have said, "I'm not going to have sex with you on the first date, I just want to cuddle," or any number of things that would have clearly established her own personal boundaries and expectations, but she didn't. That doesn't put the all of the blame on her or make her a bad person or excuse Ansari's behavior, but it is a very simple failure in communication which quite possibly could have turned a horrible experience into a good one for both parties if she were more assertive.
Communication is extremely important, I agree. But it is also very important to recognise the circumstances in which that communication happens, that context is a huge part of determining whether one person didn't make their point clear enough, or if the other person just didn't hear it.
Consider it is a couple of miles off shore, in the middle of the night, it is pitch black, and a small boat is sinking. The sole person aboard scrambles to the bow of the ship which is jutting out of the water but going down fast. They grabbed one thing as the boat went down, a torch. They see a large yacht a few hundred metres away and try to remember their morse code.
Over on the yacht the crew watch with interest, and take not of the message as it comes in. S. A. S. Oh, for a second there they thought the man in the sinking boat was in trouble, and asking SOS. But he sent SAS instead. So he must be special forces or something. So the crew of the yacht head off, content that this man on the sinking ship mustn't need their help after all.
Now, it is true that the man in the sinking boat did send the wrong message. He said SAS instead of SOS. But seeing the context of the man in the sinking ship, understanding he was reacting to an unexpected and threatening event and so might make mistakes, well it'd be a very silly person that said he was just as much to blame as the yacht when the message didn't get through.
And in the real case in question, sure, her language was indirect, it could have been clearer. But it is understandable that placed suddenly in that stressful position people won't act perfectly. Some people, like Grace, will try to use indirect language to avoid a confrontation. The context of the situation made it clear what she was telling Ansari, what he should have realised.
So the idiots on the yacht, well they didn't mean to leave that man to die on his sinking boat. The same is most likely true of Ansari as well, he didn't mean to give her the worst night of her life. Neither the yacht idiots or Ansari should be called villains. But stupidity can cause suffering just as easily actual malice.
If guys don't want to accidentally cause that kind of suffering, they need to stop thinking they can keep pushing up until they hear an absolute no.
That's the biggest difference between this story, and others that have cropped up around powerful men in the media.
This is most definitely very different to the behaviour of Weinstein, Trump etc. But that doesn't mean it was okay.
Men Only: Inside the charity fundraiser where hostesses are put on show
At 10pm last Thursday night, Jonny Gould took to the stage in the ballroom at London’s Dorchester Hotel. “Welcome to the most un-PC event of the year,” he roared.
Mr Gould — who presented Channel 5’s Major League Baseball show — was there to host a charity auction, the centrepiece of a secretive annual event, the Presidents Club Charity Dinner.
The gathering’s official purpose is to raise money for worthy causes such as Great Ormond Street Hospital, the world-renowned children’s hospital in London’s Bloomsbury district.
Auction items included lunch with Boris Johnson, the British foreign secretary, and afternoon tea with Bank of England governor Mark Carney.
But this is a charity fundraiser like no other.
It is for men only. A black tie evening, Thursday’s event was attended by 360 figures from British business, politics and finance and the entertainment included 130 specially hired hostesses.
All of the women were told to wear skimpy black outfits with matching underwear and high heels. At an after-party many hostesses — some of them students earning extra cash — were groped, sexually harassed and propositioned.
The event has been a mainstay of London’s social calendar for 33 years, yet the activities have remained largely unreported — unusual, perhaps, for a fundraiser of its scale.
The questions raised about the event have been thrown into sharp relief by the current business climate, when bastions of sexual harassment and the institutionalised objectification of women are being torn down.
The Financial Times last week sent two people undercover to work as hostesses on the night. Reporters also gained access to the dining hall and surrounding bars.
Over the course of six hours, many of the hostesses were subjected to groping, lewd comments and repeated requests to join diners in bedrooms elsewhere in the Dorchester....
Hostesses reported men repeatedly putting hands up their skirts; one said an attendee had exposed his penis to her during the evening.
Spoiler:
WPP, the FTSE 100 advertising conglomerate, sponsored a table at the event as it has in previous years. Martin Sorrell, chief executive, was not present this year — though he has attended in the past.
Andrew Scott, its chief operating officer for Europe, hosted the table in his absence. Other table sponsors included CMC Markets, the UK-listed spread betting company, and Frogmore, the London-based real estate investment business.
A seating plan for last week’s event seen by the FT listed those due to attend as including well-known British business figures such as Philip Green of Arcadia Group, Dragons’ Den star Peter Jones, and Ocado boss Tim Steiner.
Financiers on the seating plan included Henry Gabay, founder of hedge fund Duet Group, and Makram Azar, the head of Barclays’ investment bank’s Middle East business. From the world of politics were Nadhim Zahawi, newly appointed undersecretary of state for children and families, and Jonathan Mendelsohn, a Labour peer and party fundraiser. It is not clear whether those listed all turned up on the night.
The comedian David Walliams was the host for the evening. Previous attendees have included Michael Sherwood, a former vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs, and Poju Zabludowicz, a Finnish real estate billionaire and Conservative party donor.
Current and past supporters provide a roll call of British wealth and business influence: patrons include high-end developer Nick Candy; former Formula 1 magnate Bernie Ecclestone; and TV presenter Vernon Kay. CMC Markets founder Peter Cruddas is also a regular attendee.
The event has a laudable fundraising aim with prestigious prizes offered for auction. During the three decades The Presidents Club has been running, it has raised more than £20m for charity. Thursday’s event alone raised more than £2m.
The organisation’s charitable trust has two joint chairmen: Bruce Ritchie, a Mayfair property developer who founded Residential Land, and David Meller, from the luxury good specialist Meller Group, who also sits on the board of the Department for Education and the Mayor’s Fund for London.
But the auction offers a hint of the evening’s seedier side. Lots included a night at Soho’s Windmill strip club and a course of plastic surgery with the invitation to: “Add spice to your wife.”
The accompanying brochure included a full-page warning that no attendees or staff should be sexually harassed. The glossy auction catalogue distributed to attendees during the evening included multiple images of Marilyn Monroe dressed in revealing, tight dresses.
The nature of the occasion was hinted at when the hostesses were hired. The task of finding women for the dinner is entrusted to Caroline Dandridge, founder of Artista, an agency specialising in hosts and hostesses for what it claims to be some of the “UK’s most prestigious occasions”.
At their initial interviews, women were warned by Ms Dandridge that the men in attendance might be “annoying” or try to get the hostesses “pissed”. One hostess was advised to lie to her boyfriend about the fact it was a male-only event. “Tell him it’s a charity dinner,” she was told.
“It’s a Marmite job. Some girls love it, and for other girls it’s the worst job of their life and they will never do it again . . . You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it’s fine,” Ms Dandridge told the hostess.
Two days before the event, Ms Dandridge told prospective hostesses by email that their phones would be “safely locked away” for the evening and that boyfriends and girlfriends were not welcome at the venue.
The uniform requirements also became more detailed: all hostesses should bring “BLACK sexy shoes”, black underwear, and do their hair and make-up as they would to go to a “smart sexy place”. Dresses and belts would be supplied on the day.
For those who met the three specific selection criteria (“tall, thin and pretty”) a job paying £150, plus £25 for a taxi home, began at 4pm.
The backgrounds of the dozen or more hostesses met by reporters were varied: many were students, hoping to launch careers as lawyers or marketing executives; others juggled part-time jobs as actresses, dancers or models and did occasional hostessing work to make ends meet.
Upon arrival at the Dorchester, the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing.
At first, hostesses were assembled in the Dorchester’s Orchard Room, where a team of hair and make-up artists prepped women for the evening ahead. During the pre-event preparations, some of the women new to hostess work sought advice from those with more experience. The feedback was mixed.
A number of the hostesses seemed excited about the evening ahead. It was a fun night, they said, especially as — unlike most hostessing assignments — you could drink on the job.
One experienced hostess acknowledged that a portion of the men were likely to be “arseholes”, but said others were “hilarious”. “It really depends on the luck of the draw,” she added.
Others were more apprehensive. One woman who had last worked at the event five years ago sighed to herself: “I can’t believe I’m here again.”
Towards 7pm, during a staff buffet dinner, Ms Dandridge entered wearing a smart black suit and gave a briefing; she said if any of the men became “too annoying”, the hostesses should contact her.
Hostess uniforms were distributed — short tight black dresses, black high heels and a thick black belt resembling a corset. Once dressed, the hostesses were offered a glass of white wine during the final countdown to their entrance into the ballroom.
As the 8pm start time approached, all of the hostesses were told to form two lines in height order, tallest women first, ready to parade across the stage as music began to boom across the venue: “Power”, by British girl band Little Mix.
Entering in twos from opposite sides on to a stage positioned at the front of the ballroom, hostesses presented themselves to the men before walking towards their allocated tables alongside dinner guests. This continued until all 130 women were spread across the room.
With the dinner properly under way, the hostess brief was simple: keep this mix of British and foreign businessmen, the odd lord, politicians, oligarchs, property tycoons, film producers, financiers, and chief executives happy — and fetch drinks when required.
A number of men stood with the hostesses while waiting for smoked salmon starters to arrive. Others remained seated and yet insisted on holding the hands of their hostesses.
It was unclear why men, seated at their tables with hostesses standing close by, felt the need to hold the hands of the women, but numerous hostesses discussed instances of it through the night. For some, this was a prelude to pulling the women into their laps. Meanwhile champagne, whisky and vodka were served.
On stage, entertainers came and went. It was soon after a troupe of burlesque dancers — dressed like furry-hatted Coldstream Guards, but with star-shaped stickers hiding nipples — that one 19-year-old hostess, recounted a conversation with a guest nearing his seventies: who had asked her, directly, whether she was a prostitute. She was not. “I’ve never done this before, and I’m never doing it again,” she said later. “It’s f***ing scary.”
According to the accounts of multiple women working that night, groping and similar abuse was seen across many of the tables in the room.
Another woman, 28, with experience of hostess work, observing the braying men around her said this was significantly different to previous black tie jobs. At other events, men occasionally would try to flirt with her, she said, but she had never felt uncomfortable or, indeed, frightened.
She reported being repeatedly fondled on her bottom, hips, stomach and legs. One guest lunged at her to kiss her. Another invited her upstairs to his room.
Meanwhile, Artista had an enforcement team, made up of suited women and men, who would tour the ballroom, prodding less active hostesses to interact with dinner guests.
Outside the women’s toilets a monitoring system was in place: women who spent too long were called out and led back to the ballroom. A security guard at the door was on hand, keeping time.
At 10pm, the main money-raising portion of the evening got under way: the charity auction, where the lots on offer ranged from a supercharged Land Rover to the right to name a character in Mr Walliams’ next children's book.
Richard Caring, who made his fortune in the retail sourcing business before scooping up a long list of London’s most fashionable restaurants, including The Ivy and Scott’s, rounded off the money-raising portion of the evening with a successful £400,000 bid to place his name on a new High Dependency Unit at the Evelina London children’s hospital for sick children.
It was a moment of respite for the women, most of whom had been allowed to return to the Orchard Room. Some were excited to have been offered jobs by men in the room. Others had been offered large tips, which they had been obliged to decline. One woman struggled to re-apply her eyeliner. “I’m so drunk,” she said apologetically, blaming tequila shots at her table.
The women filed back into the ballroom at 11pm for the final hour of the main event, which would be followed by an “after-party” elsewhere in the hotel.
Most hostesses had been told they would be required to stay until 2am. One was told that this final leg of the evening offered a chance to drink what she wanted and seek out those men she found “most attractive”.
The after-party was held in a smaller room off the main lobby at the Dorchester, packed tight with guests and women.
According to the 28-year-old hostess, while men danced and drank with a set of women on one side of the room, a line of younger women were left seated on a banquette at the back of the room, seemingly dazed. “They looked shocked and frightened, exhausted by what had happened,” she said.
Meanwhile, in the centre of the room, Jimmy Lahoud, 67, a Lebanese businessman and restaurateur, danced enthusiastically with three young women wearing bright red dresses.
By midnight, one society figure who the FT has not yet been able to contact was confronting at least one hostess directly.
“You look far too sober,” he told her. Filling her glass with champagne, he grabbed her by the waist, pulled her in against his stomach and declared: “I want you to down that glass, rip off your knickers and dance on that table.”
In a statement the Dorchester said it had a zero-tolerance policy regarding harassment of guests or employees. “We are unaware of any allegations and should we be contacted we will work with the relevant authorities as necessary,” it said.
The Presidents Club said: “The Presidents Club recently hosted its annual dinner, raising several million pounds for disadvantaged children. The organisers are appalled by the allegations of bad behaviour at the event asserted by the Financial Times reporters. Such behaviour is totally unacceptable. The allegations will be investigated fully and promptly and appropriate action taken.”
Ms Dandridge of Artista stated: “This is a really important charity fundraising event that has been running for 33 years and raises huge amounts of money for disadvantaged and underprivileged children’s charities. There is a code of conduct that we follow, I am not aware of any reports of sexual harassment and with the calibre of guest, I would be astonished.”
None of the trustees of the charity provided a comment for publication.
Harvey Goldsmith, a former trustee, said he was “gobsmacked” by the accounts of sexual harassment taking place at the event. “I’m totally shocked to be quite frank,” he said.
The BoE said: “The Bank of England did not approve any prize for auction on the occasion described nor would it have for that organisation under its guidelines for charitable giving.”
Mr Walliams declined to comment. Mr Caring said he “was not aware of any of the alleged incidents”.
Barry Townsley, a well-known stockbroker and lifetime president of The Presidents Club who helped to set up the charity, said he had not attended the dinner for a decade. He added that it was previously “very nice and civilised” and a “mild-mannered charity”. “What goes on now is not my business,” he said.
Its quite long, but the unspoilered part gives you the right impression of what follows I would say. Its really fething awful and just shows how acceptable it is in (some) higher circles.
Men Only: Inside the charity fundraiser where hostesses are put on show
At 10pm last Thursday night, Jonny Gould took to the stage in the ballroom at London’s Dorchester Hotel. “Welcome to the most un-PC event of the year,” he roared.
Mr Gould — who presented Channel 5’s Major League Baseball show — was there to host a charity auction, the centrepiece of a secretive annual event, the Presidents Club Charity Dinner.
The gathering’s official purpose is to raise money for worthy causes such as Great Ormond Street Hospital, the world-renowned children’s hospital in London’s Bloomsbury district.
Auction items included lunch with Boris Johnson, the British foreign secretary, and afternoon tea with Bank of England governor Mark Carney.
But this is a charity fundraiser like no other.
It is for men only. A black tie evening, Thursday’s event was attended by 360 figures from British business, politics and finance and the entertainment included 130 specially hired hostesses.
All of the women were told to wear skimpy black outfits with matching underwear and high heels. At an after-party many hostesses — some of them students earning extra cash — were groped, sexually harassed and propositioned.
The event has been a mainstay of London’s social calendar for 33 years, yet the activities have remained largely unreported — unusual, perhaps, for a fundraiser of its scale.
The questions raised about the event have been thrown into sharp relief by the current business climate, when bastions of sexual harassment and the institutionalised objectification of women are being torn down.
The Financial Times last week sent two people undercover to work as hostesses on the night. Reporters also gained access to the dining hall and surrounding bars.
Over the course of six hours, many of the hostesses were subjected to groping, lewd comments and repeated requests to join diners in bedrooms elsewhere in the Dorchester....
Hostesses reported men repeatedly putting hands up their skirts; one said an attendee had exposed his penis to her during the evening.
Spoiler:
WPP, the FTSE 100 advertising conglomerate, sponsored a table at the event as it has in previous years. Martin Sorrell, chief executive, was not present this year — though he has attended in the past.
Andrew Scott, its chief operating officer for Europe, hosted the table in his absence. Other table sponsors included CMC Markets, the UK-listed spread betting company, and Frogmore, the London-based real estate investment business.
A seating plan for last week’s event seen by the FT listed those due to attend as including well-known British business figures such as Philip Green of Arcadia Group, Dragons’ Den star Peter Jones, and Ocado boss Tim Steiner.
Financiers on the seating plan included Henry Gabay, founder of hedge fund Duet Group, and Makram Azar, the head of Barclays’ investment bank’s Middle East business. From the world of politics were Nadhim Zahawi, newly appointed undersecretary of state for children and families, and Jonathan Mendelsohn, a Labour peer and party fundraiser. It is not clear whether those listed all turned up on the night.
The comedian David Walliams was the host for the evening. Previous attendees have included Michael Sherwood, a former vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs, and Poju Zabludowicz, a Finnish real estate billionaire and Conservative party donor.
Current and past supporters provide a roll call of British wealth and business influence: patrons include high-end developer Nick Candy; former Formula 1 magnate Bernie Ecclestone; and TV presenter Vernon Kay. CMC Markets founder Peter Cruddas is also a regular attendee.
The event has a laudable fundraising aim with prestigious prizes offered for auction. During the three decades The Presidents Club has been running, it has raised more than £20m for charity. Thursday’s event alone raised more than £2m.
The organisation’s charitable trust has two joint chairmen: Bruce Ritchie, a Mayfair property developer who founded Residential Land, and David Meller, from the luxury good specialist Meller Group, who also sits on the board of the Department for Education and the Mayor’s Fund for London.
But the auction offers a hint of the evening’s seedier side. Lots included a night at Soho’s Windmill strip club and a course of plastic surgery with the invitation to: “Add spice to your wife.”
The accompanying brochure included a full-page warning that no attendees or staff should be sexually harassed. The glossy auction catalogue distributed to attendees during the evening included multiple images of Marilyn Monroe dressed in revealing, tight dresses.
The nature of the occasion was hinted at when the hostesses were hired. The task of finding women for the dinner is entrusted to Caroline Dandridge, founder of Artista, an agency specialising in hosts and hostesses for what it claims to be some of the “UK’s most prestigious occasions”.
At their initial interviews, women were warned by Ms Dandridge that the men in attendance might be “annoying” or try to get the hostesses “pissed”. One hostess was advised to lie to her boyfriend about the fact it was a male-only event. “Tell him it’s a charity dinner,” she was told.
“It’s a Marmite job. Some girls love it, and for other girls it’s the worst job of their life and they will never do it again . . . You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it’s fine,” Ms Dandridge told the hostess.
Two days before the event, Ms Dandridge told prospective hostesses by email that their phones would be “safely locked away” for the evening and that boyfriends and girlfriends were not welcome at the venue.
The uniform requirements also became more detailed: all hostesses should bring “BLACK sexy shoes”, black underwear, and do their hair and make-up as they would to go to a “smart sexy place”. Dresses and belts would be supplied on the day.
For those who met the three specific selection criteria (“tall, thin and pretty”) a job paying £150, plus £25 for a taxi home, began at 4pm.
The backgrounds of the dozen or more hostesses met by reporters were varied: many were students, hoping to launch careers as lawyers or marketing executives; others juggled part-time jobs as actresses, dancers or models and did occasional hostessing work to make ends meet.
Upon arrival at the Dorchester, the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing.
At first, hostesses were assembled in the Dorchester’s Orchard Room, where a team of hair and make-up artists prepped women for the evening ahead. During the pre-event preparations, some of the women new to hostess work sought advice from those with more experience. The feedback was mixed.
A number of the hostesses seemed excited about the evening ahead. It was a fun night, they said, especially as — unlike most hostessing assignments — you could drink on the job.
One experienced hostess acknowledged that a portion of the men were likely to be “arseholes”, but said others were “hilarious”. “It really depends on the luck of the draw,” she added.
Others were more apprehensive. One woman who had last worked at the event five years ago sighed to herself: “I can’t believe I’m here again.”
Towards 7pm, during a staff buffet dinner, Ms Dandridge entered wearing a smart black suit and gave a briefing; she said if any of the men became “too annoying”, the hostesses should contact her.
Hostess uniforms were distributed — short tight black dresses, black high heels and a thick black belt resembling a corset. Once dressed, the hostesses were offered a glass of white wine during the final countdown to their entrance into the ballroom.
As the 8pm start time approached, all of the hostesses were told to form two lines in height order, tallest women first, ready to parade across the stage as music began to boom across the venue: “Power”, by British girl band Little Mix.
Entering in twos from opposite sides on to a stage positioned at the front of the ballroom, hostesses presented themselves to the men before walking towards their allocated tables alongside dinner guests. This continued until all 130 women were spread across the room.
With the dinner properly under way, the hostess brief was simple: keep this mix of British and foreign businessmen, the odd lord, politicians, oligarchs, property tycoons, film producers, financiers, and chief executives happy — and fetch drinks when required.
A number of men stood with the hostesses while waiting for smoked salmon starters to arrive. Others remained seated and yet insisted on holding the hands of their hostesses.
It was unclear why men, seated at their tables with hostesses standing close by, felt the need to hold the hands of the women, but numerous hostesses discussed instances of it through the night. For some, this was a prelude to pulling the women into their laps. Meanwhile champagne, whisky and vodka were served.
On stage, entertainers came and went. It was soon after a troupe of burlesque dancers — dressed like furry-hatted Coldstream Guards, but with star-shaped stickers hiding nipples — that one 19-year-old hostess, recounted a conversation with a guest nearing his seventies: who had asked her, directly, whether she was a prostitute. She was not. “I’ve never done this before, and I’m never doing it again,” she said later. “It’s f***ing scary.”
According to the accounts of multiple women working that night, groping and similar abuse was seen across many of the tables in the room.
Another woman, 28, with experience of hostess work, observing the braying men around her said this was significantly different to previous black tie jobs. At other events, men occasionally would try to flirt with her, she said, but she had never felt uncomfortable or, indeed, frightened.
She reported being repeatedly fondled on her bottom, hips, stomach and legs. One guest lunged at her to kiss her. Another invited her upstairs to his room.
Meanwhile, Artista had an enforcement team, made up of suited women and men, who would tour the ballroom, prodding less active hostesses to interact with dinner guests.
Outside the women’s toilets a monitoring system was in place: women who spent too long were called out and led back to the ballroom. A security guard at the door was on hand, keeping time.
At 10pm, the main money-raising portion of the evening got under way: the charity auction, where the lots on offer ranged from a supercharged Land Rover to the right to name a character in Mr Walliams’ next children's book.
Richard Caring, who made his fortune in the retail sourcing business before scooping up a long list of London’s most fashionable restaurants, including The Ivy and Scott’s, rounded off the money-raising portion of the evening with a successful £400,000 bid to place his name on a new High Dependency Unit at the Evelina London children’s hospital for sick children.
It was a moment of respite for the women, most of whom had been allowed to return to the Orchard Room. Some were excited to have been offered jobs by men in the room. Others had been offered large tips, which they had been obliged to decline. One woman struggled to re-apply her eyeliner. “I’m so drunk,” she said apologetically, blaming tequila shots at her table.
The women filed back into the ballroom at 11pm for the final hour of the main event, which would be followed by an “after-party” elsewhere in the hotel.
Most hostesses had been told they would be required to stay until 2am. One was told that this final leg of the evening offered a chance to drink what she wanted and seek out those men she found “most attractive”.
The after-party was held in a smaller room off the main lobby at the Dorchester, packed tight with guests and women.
According to the 28-year-old hostess, while men danced and drank with a set of women on one side of the room, a line of younger women were left seated on a banquette at the back of the room, seemingly dazed. “They looked shocked and frightened, exhausted by what had happened,” she said.
Meanwhile, in the centre of the room, Jimmy Lahoud, 67, a Lebanese businessman and restaurateur, danced enthusiastically with three young women wearing bright red dresses.
By midnight, one society figure who the FT has not yet been able to contact was confronting at least one hostess directly.
“You look far too sober,” he told her. Filling her glass with champagne, he grabbed her by the waist, pulled her in against his stomach and declared: “I want you to down that glass, rip off your knickers and dance on that table.”
In a statement the Dorchester said it had a zero-tolerance policy regarding harassment of guests or employees. “We are unaware of any allegations and should we be contacted we will work with the relevant authorities as necessary,” it said.
The Presidents Club said: “The Presidents Club recently hosted its annual dinner, raising several million pounds for disadvantaged children. The organisers are appalled by the allegations of bad behaviour at the event asserted by the Financial Times reporters. Such behaviour is totally unacceptable. The allegations will be investigated fully and promptly and appropriate action taken.”
Ms Dandridge of Artista stated: “This is a really important charity fundraising event that has been running for 33 years and raises huge amounts of money for disadvantaged and underprivileged children’s charities. There is a code of conduct that we follow, I am not aware of any reports of sexual harassment and with the calibre of guest, I would be astonished.”
None of the trustees of the charity provided a comment for publication.
Harvey Goldsmith, a former trustee, said he was “gobsmacked” by the accounts of sexual harassment taking place at the event. “I’m totally shocked to be quite frank,” he said.
The BoE said: “The Bank of England did not approve any prize for auction on the occasion described nor would it have for that organisation under its guidelines for charitable giving.”
Mr Walliams declined to comment. Mr Caring said he “was not aware of any of the alleged incidents”.
Barry Townsley, a well-known stockbroker and lifetime president of The Presidents Club who helped to set up the charity, said he had not attended the dinner for a decade. He added that it was previously “very nice and civilised” and a “mild-mannered charity”. “What goes on now is not my business,” he said.
Its quite long, but the unspoilered part gives you the right impression of what follows I would say. Its really fething awful and just shows how acceptable it is in (some) higher circles.
I think not. It is plainly clear to everyone what will be going on at that event. It might not be to your or my taste, but it's not criminal.
It not like it's a regular waiting tables gig. These girls are being paid to be sexual objects for rich men, and they know it before they walk in the door.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Today I learned that unwanted groping isn't illegal. Also Jesus Christ man, I didn't expect anyone to defend that, but Dakka never ceases to amaze.
It's easier to wrap your head around it if you think of the hostesses as sex workers rather than waiting tables.
There's on woman quoted saying "she can't believe she's back" After appearing at five consecutive events.
Consent is given at the door, and nobody is being assaulted. Women who realize the are actually not ok with being a sexual object for a room full of men are free to leave.
Huh. TIL I'm an donkey-cave for assuming consenting adults can make their own choices about what kind of employment and job conditions they wish to accept.
feeder wrote: Huh. TIL I'm an donkey-cave for assuming consenting adults can make their own choices about what kind of employment and job conditions they wish to accept.
No dude, that isn't what happened at all. People are floored that you are reaching that conclusion. No one knows what to say because... There's just no place to start.
Are the women not aware before hand that is what they are being paid to to let happen? It comes off as a rich guy sex party disguised as a charity event to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lonestarr777 wrote: If you don't understand why people are floored by your responses Feeder I don't think anyone will be able to explain it to you.
I'm putting you on ignore now. For frame of reference I have neither Whembly and Frazzled on ignore so congratulations on being special!
Ahaha just noticed this!
Whembly and Frazz, you guys are apparently only slightly better than a rape apologist! Congrats.
No legal contract can have you waive your right to legal protection from sexual assault, nor give blanket consent to all parties to engage in what would otherwise be sexual assault.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Are the women not aware before hand that is what they are being paid to to let happen? It comes off as a rich guy sex party disguised as a charity event to me.
It fails to be a charity event when all the charities give back the donations. Children's hospitals typically don't want to be associated with sexual predators, especially in the current climate.
A Town Called Malus wrote: No legal contract can have you waive your right to legal protection from sexual assault, nor give blanket consent to all parties to engage in what would otherwise be sexual assault.
Interesting. Sex work is difficult to navigate, for sure.
feeder wrote: Are the women not aware before hand that is what they are being paid to to let happen? It comes off as a rich guy sex party disguised as a charity event to me.
It fails to be a charity event when all the charities give back the donations. Children's hospitals typically don't want to be associated with sexual predators, especially in the current climate.
Are the charities returning the donations? I suppose they would.
Regardless of normal proper conduct and social mores, everyone knows what is likely to happen and what kind of behaviour is expected. They are told what kind of underwear to wear FFS. It's not a typical waiting tables gig.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Today I learned that unwanted groping isn't illegal. Also Jesus Christ man, I didn't expect anyone to defend that, but Dakka never ceases to amaze.
It's easier to wrap your head around it if you think of the hostesses as sex workers rather than waiting tables.
There's on woman quoted saying "she can't believe she's back" After appearing at five consecutive events.
Consent is given at the door, and nobody is being assaulted. Women who realize the are actually not ok with being a sexual object for a room full of men are free to leave.
You read that wrong. the woman didn't do it five times in a row. She did it once five years ago and now once again. But who are you to say its acceptable, they obviously aren't recruited as sex workers and for people who need money there might not be a choice. If anything it would b better if they actually did hire sex workers knowing what would go on, but they don't. Clear from these statements:
"women were warned by Ms Dandridge that the men in attendance might be “annoying” or try to get the hostesses “pissed”."
""You just have to put up with the annoying men and if you can do that it’s fine""
"the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing."
Its obvious most of these women are walking into a trap so to speak. 'Annoying' doesn't even come close to describing reality.
Besides, I'm pretty sure sex workers get paid better than 140 pounds for ten hours of work.
Feeder... I can only conclude that you read the article and saw a completely different version than what was there. It's quite clear they were not told what they were getting into, they were forced to sign an NDA without being given time to read it or a copy, and we have several notable officials insisting that this kind of activity is zero-tolerance. At what point did they know what they were getting into? Rape culture doesn't mean 'rape apologst' is means people go through extraordinary amounts of mental gymnastics to excuse sexual harassment at all levels. You instantly jumped to an assumption that it was fine and they all knew what they were getting into, despite explicit evidence to the contrary and no evidence to lead to that conclusion. It's downright delusional because the point you reached is simply not based on the available evidence, and that you would go so far to protect people harassing women like that is what floors people. That you even feel this needs to be justified is rape culture in itself.
They were asked to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event upon arrival at the hotel, Ms Marriage said, and were not warned they might be sexually harassed.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Rape culture alive and well, demonstrated right here on Dakka!
Explain yourself. Explain how this is rape or assault.
I wouldn't want myself or anyone I care about to participate in this event, but I'm not going condemn the participants.
Everyone knows what is likely to happen, no one is coerced. (except by money, perhaps.)
The article says that the event had guards whose job was essentially keeping the girls in the party. Also, their initiation involved a lot of broad euphamisms, like "annoying", and empty promises of protection for any women who were made uncomfortable.
They were asked to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event upon arrival at the hotel, Ms Marriage said, and were not warned they might be sexually harassed.
I counter with:
The accompanying brochure included a full-page warning that no attendees or staff should be sexually harassed.
Upon arrival at the Dorchester, the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing.
They weren't even given a chance to read the dam thing, and not giving a copy is pretty damming.
They were asked to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event upon arrival at the hotel, Ms Marriage said, and were not warned they might be sexually harassed.
I counter with:
The accompanying brochure included a full-page warning that no attendees or staff should be sexually harassed.
Upon arrival at the Dorchester, the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing.
They weren't even given a chance to read the dam thing, and not giving a copy is pretty damming.
Counter how? As far as Im aware were on the same side making the same argument. I just lifted the quote because it specifically mentioned they weren't warned of sexual harrasment in response to Feeder having said that they knew what they were walking into
I even quoted that last quote you gave in my previous comment above yours.
feeder wrote: I think not. It is plainly clear to everyone what will be going on at that event. It might not be to your or my taste, but it's not criminal. It not like it's a regular waiting tables gig. These girls are being paid to be sexual objects for rich men, and they know it before they walk in the door.
Credit it to you for admitting you'd missed a lot of the story, feeder. I'm going to leave my response to you, though, just because I think its an important point that often gets missed.
Dude, at buck's parties the girls often aren't just skimpy but straight up naked. Even then it is still absolutely unacceptable to go about grabbing the girls. Agreeing to wear a sexy outfit, or even agreeing to wear no clothes at all does not mean giving up your body to anyone who wants to do as they please.
There is, I think, a dangerous mindset where if girls agree to one thing, like wearing a more revealing outfit for work or out to a club, then some men think the normal rules of decency and respect stop applying. I've read some shocking things about the way Hooters waitresses are treated, for instance.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Rape culture alive and well, demonstrated right here on Dakka!
Explain yourself. Explain how this is rape or assault.
I wouldn't want myself or anyone I care about to participate in this event, but I'm not going condemn the participants.
Everyone knows what is likely to happen, no one is coerced. (except by money, perhaps.)
Have you ever been to a strip club? The girls know they are likely to get touched there. But here is the kicker, the bouncers will throw you out and they do not give a feth how much money you have.
They were asked to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event upon arrival at the hotel, Ms Marriage said, and were not warned they might be sexually harassed.
I counter with:
The accompanying brochure included a full-page warning that no attendees or staff should be sexually harassed.
Upon arrival at the Dorchester, the first task given to the hostesses was to sign a five-page non-disclosure agreement about the event. Hostesses were not given a chance to read its contents, or take a copy with them after signing.
They weren't even given a chance to read the dam thing, and not giving a copy is pretty damming.
Counter how? As far as Im aware were on the same side making the same argument. I just lifted the quote because it specifically mentioned they weren't warned of sexual harrasment in response to Feeder having said that they knew what they were walking into
I even quoted that last quote you gave in my previous comment above yours.
You are right, I mis-read your quote as something else entirely. Please ignore my response, it was totally off key.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: I stand corrected. I freely admit I skimmed the article and made assumptions that are, in fact, wrong.
I will take this as a reminder to carefully read a spoilered wall of text before commenting on it.
Well I respect that response considerably, especially given how easy it would have been to drop out of the discussion without responding. But you came back and admitted the mistake anyways, so good on you sir.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Rape culture alive and well, demonstrated right here on Dakka!
Explain yourself. Explain how this is rape or assault.
I wouldn't want myself or anyone I care about to participate in this event, but I'm not going condemn the participants.
Everyone knows what is likely to happen, no one is coerced. (except by money, perhaps.)
Have you ever been to a strip club? The girls know they are likely to get touched there. But here is the kicker, the bouncers will throw you out and they do not give a feth how much money you have.
As a side note, are strip clubs not just something very American? From what you see in the media here the impression they give is that strip clubs and going to them are pretty commonplace (as in many would have been at least once). I don't know how its like in the UK, but here in the Netherlands we don't have anything like strip clubs in the US form, although we do have the red light district in Amsterdam, which is quite heavily tied to tourism and quite detached from the rest of the NL. Similar for other continental European countries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: You are right, I mis-read your quote as something else entirely. Please ignore my response, it was totally off key.
Yeah I got a tad confused which is why I wanted to clear it up, no harm done, stuff happens on the internet.
Luciferian wrote: I don't think so either, but I also don't think women should be afraid of being blunt or rude or hurting a man's feelings. As people have said above, part of the solution is getting men to understand that they don't have to pursue sex like total animals, but part of the solution is also that women must use the voice they've earned. In stories like this one or the "cat lady" story, the women are more reluctant to commit a social faux-pas than they are to actually engage in sexual activity they don't really want. If telling someone you don't want to have sex with them hurts their feelings, them's the breaks.
One reason a woman might be reluctant to plainly say no is that the man might fly into a rage and kill her. Many men who are rejected or otherwise have their feelings hurt become angry and violent because that is the only way they have been conditioned to act in response to their emotions.
Luciferian wrote: I don't think so either, but I also don't think women should be afraid of being blunt or rude or hurting a man's feelings. As people have said above, part of the solution is getting men to understand that they don't have to pursue sex like total animals, but part of the solution is also that women must use the voice they've earned. In stories like this one or the "cat lady" story, the women are more reluctant to commit a social faux-pas than they are to actually engage in sexual activity they don't really want. If telling someone you don't want to have sex with them hurts their feelings, them's the breaks.
One reason a woman might be reluctant to plainly say no is that the man might fly into a rage and kill her. Many men who are rejected or otherwise have their feelings hurt become angry and violent because that is the only way they have been conditioned to act in response to their emotions.
I agree with the idea of being afraid of a violent response, but this is a bit hyperbolic...
NinthMusketeer wrote: Rape culture alive and well, demonstrated right here on Dakka!
Explain yourself. Explain how this is rape or assault.
I wouldn't want myself or anyone I care about to participate in this event, but I'm not going condemn the participants.
Everyone knows what is likely to happen, no one is coerced. (except by money, perhaps.)
Have you ever been to a strip club? The girls know they are likely to get touched there. But here is the kicker, the bouncers will throw you out and they do not give a feth how much money you have.
As a side note, are strip clubs not just something very American? From what you see in the media here the impression they give is that strip clubs and going to them are pretty commonplace (as in many would have been at least once). I don't know how its like in the UK, but here in the Netherlands we don't have anything like strip clubs in the US form, although we do have the red light district in Amsterdam, which is quite heavily tied to tourism and quite detached from the rest of the NL. Similar for other continental European countries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: You are right, I mis-read your quote as something else entirely. Please ignore my response, it was totally off key.
Yeah I got a tad confused which is why I wanted to clear it up, no harm done, stuff happens on the internet.
Oh, they exist. Just like there are brothels outside the Red Light District. Some of my colleagues are colourful characters (offshore industry, what can I say), and I've gone to strip clubs with them once or twice in Rotterdam and a few places in the UK before deciding/realising the girls' dead eyes were a complete turnoff for me.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Rape culture alive and well, demonstrated right here on Dakka!
Explain yourself. Explain how this is rape or assault.
I wouldn't want myself or anyone I care about to participate in this event, but I'm not going condemn the participants.
Everyone knows what is likely to happen, no one is coerced. (except by money, perhaps.)
Have you ever been to a strip club? The girls know they are likely to get touched there. But here is the kicker, the bouncers will throw you out and they do not give a feth how much money you have.
As a side note, are strip clubs not just something very American? From what you see in the media here the impression they give is that strip clubs and going to them are pretty commonplace (as in many would have been at least once). I don't know how its like in the UK, but here in the Netherlands we don't have anything like strip clubs in the US form, although we do have the red light district in Amsterdam, which is quite heavily tied to tourism and quite detached from the rest of the NL. Similar for other continental European countries.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: You are right, I mis-read your quote as something else entirely. Please ignore my response, it was totally off key.
Yeah I got a tad confused which is why I wanted to clear it up, no harm done, stuff happens on the internet.
Oh, they exist. Just like there are brothels outside the Red Light District. Some of my colleagues are colourful characters (offshore industry, what can I say), and I've gone to strip clubs with them once or twice in Rotterdam and a few places in the UK before deciding/realising the girls' dead eyes were a complete turnoff for me.
I know they exist. I'm old enough to remember when Rotterdam really had a red light district before it was cleared out so to speak. It gets marginalized to the bigger cities and even those tend to try and drive it away. But it was more the point that the depictions of media make them seem much more 'pervasive' in the US, which I was curious about.
Luciferian wrote: I don't think so either, but I also don't think women should be afraid of being blunt or rude or hurting a man's feelings. As people have said above, part of the solution is getting men to understand that they don't have to pursue sex like total animals, but part of the solution is also that women must use the voice they've earned. In stories like this one or the "cat lady" story, the women are more reluctant to commit a social faux-pas than they are to actually engage in sexual activity they don't really want. If telling someone you don't want to have sex with them hurts their feelings, them's the breaks.
One reason a woman might be reluctant to plainly say no is that the man might fly into a rage and kill her. Many men who are rejected or otherwise have their feelings hurt become angry and violent because that is the only way they have been conditioned to act in response to their emotions.
I agree with the idea of being afraid of a violent response, but this is a bit hyperbolic...
Just google man kills girlfriend (or fiancée/wife) and that feeling of hyperbole might subside.
Luciferian wrote: I don't think so either, but I also don't think women should be afraid of being blunt or rude or hurting a man's feelings. As people have said above, part of the solution is getting men to understand that they don't have to pursue sex like total animals, but part of the solution is also that women must use the voice they've earned. In stories like this one or the "cat lady" story, the women are more reluctant to commit a social faux-pas than they are to actually engage in sexual activity they don't really want. If telling someone you don't want to have sex with them hurts their feelings, them's the breaks.
One reason a woman might be reluctant to plainly say no is that the man might fly into a rage and kill her. Many men who are rejected or otherwise have their feelings hurt become angry and violent because that is the only way they have been conditioned to act in response to their emotions.
I agree with the idea of being afraid of a violent response, but this is a bit hyperbolic...
Just google man kills girlfriend (or fiancée/wife) and that feeling of hyperbole might subside.
To say 'many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent is pretty hyperbolic. Not saying it doesn't happen, or that it's not a concern, but to go so far as to say "the only way men have been conditioned to act" is to respond with anger and violence is simply an example of toxic masculinity. It doesn't do anyone any good to portray men as having a strong majority of violent people with no control over their emotions. Unless there is a mental health condition involved, all men have control over their emotions. They don't try to assault the cop that pulls them over for a speeding ticket, they don't get suddenly angry and punch their boss in the face when he says they have to work overtime; when they do get violent over a woman's rejection it's because they choose to let that happen.
Luciferian wrote: I don't think so either, but I also don't think women should be afraid of being blunt or rude or hurting a man's feelings. As people have said above, part of the solution is getting men to understand that they don't have to pursue sex like total animals, but part of the solution is also that women must use the voice they've earned. In stories like this one or the "cat lady" story, the women are more reluctant to commit a social faux-pas than they are to actually engage in sexual activity they don't really want. If telling someone you don't want to have sex with them hurts their feelings, them's the breaks.
One reason a woman might be reluctant to plainly say no is that the man might fly into a rage and kill her. Many men who are rejected or otherwise have their feelings hurt become angry and violent because that is the only way they have been conditioned to act in response to their emotions.
I agree with the idea of being afraid of a violent response, but this is a bit hyperbolic...
Just google man kills girlfriend (or fiancée/wife) and that feeling of hyperbole might subside.
To say 'many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent is pretty hyperbolic. Not saying it doesn't happen, or that it's not a concern, but to go so far as to say "the only way men have been conditioned to act" is to respond with anger and violence is simply an example of toxic masculinity. It doesn't do anyone any good to portray men as having a strong majority of violent people with no control over their emotions. Unless there is a mental health condition involved, all men have control over their emotions. They don't try to assault the cop that pulls them over for a speeding ticket, they don't get suddenly angry and punch their boss in the face when he says they have to work overtime; when they do get violent over a woman's rejection it's because they choose to let that happen.
I don't think he is being too hyperbolic. Women has a reasonable concern that rejecting a man's advances can have some serious consequences. While it is not always violent, there are many stories about retribution in regards to being blackballed, fired, or passed on a promotion. The
NYT article is a great example of why rejection can make your life miserable: (Also a good article about how blue-collar workers are being forgotten in the #metoo movement)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/ford-chicago-sexual-harassment.html
There are many stories of rejection turning in a horrible direction. But for ever one of those there is a hundred where the guy was rejected and moved on without incident, because that's normal and entirely not news worthy. The idea that a guys are violent people who can't take a rejection is just another facet of rape culture, dipping into toxic masculinity.
Disciple of Fate wrote: But it was more the point that the depictions of media make them seem much more 'pervasive' in the US, which I was curious about.
... because it's an easy way to get some tits in your TV show. That's why characters in GoT kept having meetings in brothels, and why the Sopranos kept on having mobsters meeting up in a strip club. Having them do it in Tony's living room doesn't give you the opportunity for having a load of half-naked women in the background.
NinthMusketeer wrote: To say 'many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent is pretty hyperbolic.
Is it, though? Half of all women that are murdered are slain my their current or former romantic partners. In comparison, the opposite happens 5-7%.
Put it this way, how many rejections or break-ups happen every year? From 2016 we are looking at ~17,500 murders in the US, of which over 75% were male victims. That leaves us with ~4400 murders of women, which means 2200 women slain by current or former romantic partners. Taking the suggestion of 'many men' on it's own we could say, yeah, that's many men. But that wasn't the context. He was talking about many in regards to the whole population, suggesting that women are letting themselves be abused out of an active fear of being murdered in a fit of rage. Obviously there are cases where that is true, but to raise that as a major concern in the issue doesn't help since it still is putting the responsibility onto women and portraying men as uncontrollable apes at the same time.
Getting back to the first question, there are ~800,000 divorces per year in the US. Taking that as a proxy for 'rejection' isn't a great representation since divorce represents well less than half of all rejections and a significant break up like that is going to provoke violence more often than someone who breaks up with their girlfriend or gets turned down for a date. So let's go with a conservative estimate saying divorce occupies 25% of rejections, meaning 3.2 million rejections per year compared to 2200 murders. That means there is a 1 in 1450 chance of a woman's rejection leading to her murder. Again, it does happen, not all violent responses are murder, and it should be part of the discussion, but to make this statement:
One reason a woman might be reluctant to plainly say no is that the man might fly into a rage and kill her. Many men who are rejected or otherwise have their feelings hurt become angry and violent because that is the only way they have been conditioned to act in response to their emotions.
Seems to me a hyperbolic way of stating the issue.
NinthMusketeer wrote:To say 'many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent is pretty hyperbolic. Not saying it doesn't happen, or that it's not a concern, but to go so far as to say "the only way men have been conditioned to act" is to respond with anger and violence is simply an example of toxic masculinity. It doesn't do anyone any good to portray men as having a strong majority of violent people with no control over their emotions. Unless there is a mental health condition involved, all men have control over their emotions. They don't try to assault the cop that pulls them over for a speeding ticket, they don't get suddenly angry and punch their boss in the face when he says they have to work overtime; when they do get violent over a woman's rejection it's because they choose to let that happen.
NinthMusketeer wrote:There are many stories of rejection turning in a horrible direction. But for ever one of those there is a hundred where the guy was rejected and moved on without incident, because that's normal and entirely not news worthy. The idea that a guys are violent people who can't take a rejection is just another facet of rape culture, dipping into toxic masculinity.
Yes it is toxic masculinity, that's the point. Men who have grown up or been raised like that react with aggressive behaviour. It's not about "not all men", everybody knows that it doesn't apply for most men (and shifting the topic doesn't address the problem). But many women have had that type of experience (and it's not like abusers stop dating after having been too aggressive with one person and move to other, more fun, things). Some men respond to rejection in a rather excessive manner and sometimes this includes murder but often it's just stuff that doesn't appear in official statistics but is harmful enough. This is not a statistical analysis by me but one can find really dangerous reactions from men to the slightest affronts much easier than from women. It's about the difference in response for the extreme cases.
A Missouri woman said a man took out a gun and shot at her after she refused to give him her telephone number as she walked to church last Thursday afternoon, according to WDAF.
According to witnesses, the man’s advances would not stop. Reportedly, when the group finally decided to leave at 2 a.m., the man grabbed Spears and hit her. Spears’ fiancé got physically involved, and a fight broke out. That was when the stranger pulled a gun and fired into the group. Spears was reportedly hit once, and then tried to run. While she was trying to flee, that was when a bullet hit her in the head. Spears’ fiancé and four other family members were also sent to the hospital with non-life-threatening wounds.
The young woman, whose identity has been protected, told police she was leaving a party in southeast Washington early Sunday when a man asked for her number. “He told my cousin he was going to shoot at us if I didn’t give him my number and then he started shooting,” she told authorities.
NinthMusketeer wrote:To say 'many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent is pretty hyperbolic. Not saying it doesn't happen, or that it's not a concern, but to go so far as to say "the only way men have been conditioned to act" is to respond with anger and violence is simply an example of toxic masculinity. It doesn't do anyone any good to portray men as having a strong majority of violent people with no control over their emotions. Unless there is a mental health condition involved, all men have control over their emotions. They don't try to assault the cop that pulls them over for a speeding ticket, they don't get suddenly angry and punch their boss in the face when he says they have to work overtime; when they do get violent over a woman's rejection it's because they choose to let that happen.
NinthMusketeer wrote:There are many stories of rejection turning in a horrible direction. But for ever one of those there is a hundred where the guy was rejected and moved on without incident, because that's normal and entirely not news worthy. The idea that a guys are violent people who can't take a rejection is just another facet of rape culture, dipping into toxic masculinity.
Yes it is toxic masculinity, that's the point. Men who have grown up or been raised like that react with aggressive behaviour. It's not about "not all men", everybody knows that it doesn't apply for most men (and shifting the topic doesn't address the problem). But many women have had that type of experience (and it's not like abusers stop dating after having been too aggressive with one person and move to other, more fun, things). Some men respond to rejection in a rather excessive manner and sometimes this includes murder but often it's just stuff that doesn't appear in official statistics but is harmful enough. This is not a statistical analysis by me but one can find really dangerous reactions from men to the slightest affronts much easier than from women. It's about the difference in response for the extreme cases.
A Missouri woman said a man took out a gun and shot at her after she refused to give him her telephone number as she walked to church last Thursday afternoon, according to WDAF.
According to witnesses, the man’s advances would not stop. Reportedly, when the group finally decided to leave at 2 a.m., the man grabbed Spears and hit her. Spears’ fiancé got physically involved, and a fight broke out. That was when the stranger pulled a gun and fired into the group. Spears was reportedly hit once, and then tried to run. While she was trying to flee, that was when a bullet hit her in the head. Spears’ fiancé and four other family members were also sent to the hospital with non-life-threatening wounds.
The young woman, whose identity has been protected, told police she was leaving a party in southeast Washington early Sunday when a man asked for her number. “He told my cousin he was going to shoot at us if I didn’t give him my number and then he started shooting,” she told authorities.
You originally stated that many men react to rejection with violence implying that it was reasonable for a woman to submit to unwanted sexual advances by men to avoid being violently assaulted and harmed. NinthMusketeer explained that men violently attacking women who reject them is not a common occurrence at all and cited multiple facts that support his claim. Now you've responded by admitting that not all men react violently to rejection and that most men don't react violently to rejection which is the exact point NinthMusketeer was making but you're still insisting that you're right and he's wrong even though you're both arguing the same point now.
Do some men react violently to women who reject their sexual advances? Yes. Do some women submit to unwanted sexual advances out of fear of violence? Yes. Is a man physically brutalizing a woman because she rejected his sexual advances a common occurrence in the USA? No, there is no evidence that shows that it is.
Well if you believe that common=rare then sure but considering that’s actually the opposite of common I don’t think it’s likely to be an issue.
If you are arguing that murder is rare, then yes you are correct. But if we are arguing that intimate violence is rare, that is not true:
"Women experience more intimate partner violence than do men: 22.1 percent of surveyed women, compared with 7.4 percent of surveyed men, reported they were physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime; Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.
"Violence against women is primarily intimate partner violence: 64.0 percent of the women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date. In comparison, only 16.2 percent of the men who reported being raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 were victimized by such a perpetrator."
If you wish for us to back off the statement "many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent", then yes that is hyperbole. But I still think it is a reasonable concern for women to worry that their intimate partner or date may become violent based on the statistics.
Well if you believe that common=rare then sure but considering that’s actually the opposite of common I don’t think it’s likely to be an issue.
If you are arguing that murder is rare, then yes you are correct. But if we are arguing that intimate violence is rare, that is not true:
"Women experience more intimate partner violence than do men: 22.1 percent of surveyed women, compared with 7.4 percent of surveyed men, reported they were physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime; Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.
"Violence against women is primarily intimate partner violence: 64.0 percent of the women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date. In comparison, only 16.2 percent of the men who reported being raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 were victimized by such a perpetrator."
If you wish for us to back off the statement "many men' who have their feelings hurt become violent", then yes that is hyperbole. But I still think it is a reasonable concern for women to worry that their intimate partner or date may become violent based on the statistics.
There’s approximately 160 million women in the US so 1.3 million of them being assaulted by a spouse/partner annually still makes it a rare and uncommon occurrence. Nobody is denying that it happens and nobody is claiming that it isn’t bad and needs to be addressed and reduced further. The point still stands that it isn’t common and while it is a reasonable fear for a small fraction of the women in the US in specific situations it is not something that every woman that rejects a man should worry about. Creating a false narrative that men assault if women who refuse their sexual advances is a widespread common occurrence is fear mongering that helps no one.
The context he gave was specifically murder, not generic violence. And again, it's not that there's disagreement with the point being made it's that 'many men' will 'fly into a rage and kill her' is a bit exaggerated.
Clear overt communication that avoids misunderstandings is the goal. I don’t want my sons to always treat a “no” as a “maybe” and I don’t want my daughter to be afraid to say no because her rejection will turn a guy into a violent rage monster. Everyone should understand that no means no and nobody should be afraid to say no. Communication is key so we shouldn’t exaggerate the frequency of worst case scenarios because fear is going to damage the ability to communicate clearly. People don’t talk to each other enough, don’t listen very well and are too quick to take things as personal affronts.
"Women experience more intimate partner violence than do men: 22.1 percent of surveyed women, compared with 7.4 percent of surveyed men, reported they were physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, boyfriend or girlfriend, or date in their lifetime; Approximately 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.
"Violence against women is primarily intimate partner violence: 64.0 percent of the women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date. In comparison, only 16.2 percent of the men who reported being raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 were victimized by such a perpetrator."
Those numbers don't match up unles they surveyed a great many more men than women. The number of men and women assaulted by a partner are similar, ~1,5 times more women than men took steps to be included in the numbers after being assaulted. A relevant distinction, since there is still significant social stigma attached to a man admitting to being assaulted by their (former) partner, but the percentages are twice that apart from each other at ~3 times. Gender equality certainly still has a looooooong way to go there.
Without further evidence to the contrary, I strongly suspect both those numbers are highly influenced by said stigma, and the actual numbers are even closer together than the known cases included in those numbers.
Also, the 64% of assaulted women having been assaulted lumping dates gone bad, former partners/roommates/boyfriends is a completely irrelevant number without the breakdown of these subcategories, unless you're trying to claim all 64% as the relevant number, in which case a woman's chance of being assaulted after saying no while clubbing/a stranger asking for her number/some other scenario not involving an intimate acquaintance goes down even further by a factor of 3 from the 0,1% already guesstimated earlier.
Just like everyone before me, I'm *not* claiming that assaulting someone for rejecting you (regardless of what does or doesn't dangle between the legs) is acceptable behaviour in any way, shape or form, and should be punished harshly.
So, good job on proving the opposite point to the one you were trying to make, I guess.
Edit: Fully agree with Prestor. As the new (born yesterday) father of a baby girl , I certainly don't want her to grow up scared of saying "no" to anyone or going on a date. On the other hand, I don't want my boy to grow up afraid to talk to women or be considered a hairy ape with no control over his base instincts just because he has a penis.
Funny that the chance of 'needing' a gun is even smaller than the chance of a woman having to deal with a hostile reaction to her saying no. But people still feel the need to carry concealed but women have no real reason to worry...
Prestor Jon wrote:You originally stated that many men react to rejection with violence implying that it was reasonable for a woman to submit to unwanted sexual advances by men to avoid being violently assaulted and harmed. NinthMusketeer explained that men violently attacking women who reject them is not a common occurrence at all and cited multiple facts that support his claim. Now you've responded by admitting that not all men react violently to rejection and that most men don't react violently to rejection which is the exact point NinthMusketeer was making but you're still insisting that you're right and he's wrong even though you're both arguing the same point now.
Do some men react violently to women who reject their sexual advances? Yes. Do some women submit to unwanted sexual advances out of fear of violence? Yes. Is a man physically brutalizing a woman because she rejected his sexual advances a common occurrence in the USA? No, there is no evidence that shows that it is.
NinthMusketeer wrote:The context he gave was specifically murder, not generic violence. And again, it's not that there's disagreement with the point being made it's that 'many men' will 'fly into a rage and kill her' is a bit exaggerated.
I initially wrote "Just google man kills girlfriend (or fiancée/wife) and that feeling of hyperbole might subside" to show what types of responses women can get just for, for example, not wanting to give some dude their number (and I was too lazy to google it and post links at that time) because the post I replied to called fears of violence hyperbolic and from that one bit it became its own little subthread about violence in general.
Extreme violence might be comparatively rare but there seems to be a general level of aggression/violence that's just accepted in a way and that women have to endure and deal with. From what I've been told It's not that women grow up afraid of saying no but that they grow up and experience enough situations with random creeps that lead them re-thinking how they interact in most cases. What some people see as rare events apparently are much more widespread that generally known or perceived (especially by men). It's no wonder women keep lists of company/industry specific people that they share with each other to avoid the creeps (or, at least, be prepared) when nothing else seems to work.
Some people were shocked and surprised when all these accusations of abuse were made public and how widespread it apparently is in all industries (not just the movie or tech business). The same accusations that appeared about Louis CK last year were also known years ago but nobody really looked into it or took it serious until it became a movement years later. Or just read about the Larry Nassar case and be horrified. I think that says more about people's ability to ignore those issues—or just not care about it because it doesn't affect them—than the actual rate of bad things happening.
A 1 in a thousand interaction could be once every 3 years, after all. - I mean, not directly, because statistical theory, but anyhow, rule of thumb...
As a 6' tall, not-small-build Scottish male, I've had maybe 2 or 3 really gakky and, to be honest, scary situations and random encounters with random lunatics on the street / in pubs etc in my life (one was about 3 weeks ago). For the sake of argument, lets call that once every 10 years.
I don't have the problem of the world, politicians, laws and mass media telling other people that I'm a legitimate target.
So yes, I can most certainly believe that there's a marked and gigantic difference between men and women being targets.
Prestor Jon wrote:You originally stated that many men react to rejection with violence implying that it was reasonable for a woman to submit to unwanted sexual advances by men to avoid being violently assaulted and harmed. NinthMusketeer explained that men violently attacking women who reject them is not a common occurrence at all and cited multiple facts that support his claim. Now you've responded by admitting that not all men react violently to rejection and that most men don't react violently to rejection which is the exact point NinthMusketeer was making but you're still insisting that you're right and he's wrong even though you're both arguing the same point now.
Do some men react violently to women who reject their sexual advances? Yes. Do some women submit to unwanted sexual advances out of fear of violence? Yes. Is a man physically brutalizing a woman because she rejected his sexual advances a common occurrence in the USA? No, there is no evidence that shows that it is.
NinthMusketeer wrote:The context he gave was specifically murder, not generic violence. And again, it's not that there's disagreement with the point being made it's that 'many men' will 'fly into a rage and kill her' is a bit exaggerated.
I initially wrote "Just google man kills girlfriend (or fiancée/wife) and that feeling of hyperbole might subside" to show what types of responses women can get just for, for example, not wanting to give some dude their number (and I was too lazy to google it and post links at that time) because the post I replied to called fears of violence hyperbolic and from that one bit it became its own little subthread about violence in general.
Extreme violence might be comparatively rare but there seems to be a general level of aggression/violence that's just accepted in a way and that women have to endure and deal with. From what I've been told It's not that women grow up afraid of saying no but that they grow up and experience enough situations with random creeps that lead them re-thinking how they interact in most cases. What some people see as rare events apparently are much more widespread that generally known or perceived (especially by men). It's no wonder women keep lists of company/industry specific people that they share with each other to avoid the creeps (or, at least, be prepared) when nothing else seems to work.
Some people were shocked and surprised when all these accusations of abuse were made public and how widespread it apparently is in all industries (not just the movie or tech business). The same accusations that appeared about Louis CK last year were also known years ago but nobody really looked into it or took it serious until it became a movement years later. Or just read about the Larry Nassar case and be horrified. I think that says more about people's ability to ignore those issues—or just not care about it because it doesn't affect them—than the actual rate of bad things happening.
The only claim I have made is that to say women are afraid of rejecting advances because many men would fly into a rage and kill her is hyperbolic. I've brought up the facts that clearly show that, then suddenly there's all of this goal-post moving talking about any violent reaction. At least just accept that my statement has validity so we can move on.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The context he gave was specifically murder, not generic violence. And again, it's not that there's disagreement with the point being made it's that 'many men' will 'fly into a rage and kill her' is a bit exaggerated.
If you're going to quote me, the proper way to do it would be "many men [...] become angry and violent". Referring to murder only happens in the first sentence and then it's a fear that the man "might". If someone starts screaming at you and try to hit you, it's perfectly reasonable to be afraid that they might kill you.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The only claim I have made is that to say women are afraid of rejecting advances because many men would fly into a rage and kill her is hyperbolic. I've brought up the facts that clearly show that, then suddenly there's all of this goal-post moving talking about any violent reaction. At least just accept that my statement has validity so we can move on.
I figured you would do that. See, if I was wrong in my interpretation you would have corrected me BEFORE I brought up the evidence to prove my point. Now that I did, your post suddenly means something different.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I figured you would do that. See, if I was wrong in my interpretation you would have corrected me BEFORE I brought up the evidence to prove my point. Now that I did, your post suddenly means something different.
I haven't really read the thread in the time period between my last two posts.
Steve Wynn is the latest man to have credible allegations made against him by dozens of women. Wynn is one of the big money men in Vegas, and the allegations are every bit as awful as just about anyone who's been outed. Wynn seemed to prey mostly on masseurs, he would threaten to fire the women from places he owned, and use his industry clout to prevent them being hired anywhere else if they didn't comply with his wishes. He also used physical intimidation, having his german shepherds by his side when he threatened the women, because we are all living in a Bond movie now. His abuses went on long enough, and were well known enough that a lot of women formed mechanisms to avoid his predations - entering false appointments to avoid being called to his office, or being warned ahead of time that Wynn was coming to their salon so they could hide from him in the toilets.
And thing is - Wynn is a major player in Republican circles. He's given millions to Republicans, and in 2017 Trump personally picked Wynn to be chair of finance committee of the Republican National Committee (Trump and Wynn had has some hilarious public feuds in the past, but they made up a few years ago, then Wynn played a major role in bringing big money donors in to Trump's 2016 campaign, as well as stumping up millions himself). Wynn has given up his position on the finance committee.
Where this gets a bit political is in noting the the massively different reaction by Republicans to Weinstein's sacking. With Weinstein Republicans moved immediately on the where they immediately attacked, claimed Weinstein as not just a donor and fundraiser but a major played in policy and
organisational matters. They called on Democrats to return all money Weinstein had ever raised for the party. Now Wynn is accused of crimes just bad, and suddenly Republican comments on the issue are scarce, and their words very carefully chosen.
This comes just days after it was uncovered that Trump's personal lawyer organised a hidden payment through a shell company to Stormy Daniels, a pornstar. That secret payment just happened to be made at the same time Daniels stopped trying to sell her story to the media of an affair with Trump, which is quite the coincidence. That story, and the details of the affair Daniels had given to a magazine a decade earlier, prompted a series of conservative religious leaders to come forward, offering a range of rationalisations - its okay if Trump isn't still doing it, its between Trump and his wife etc.
Republican selective morality is obviously a big issue here, but they're not alone. Democrats were so clear in saying Trump should withdraw from the campaign because of his sex crimes, then suddenly so many decided due process was very important once Al Franken was charged. It's nothing like the Republican issue, but it's still there.
Nor is it just about political parties. We all feel very righteous attacking these predators once they've been exposed and made powerless, but they got away with this for years, even decades before then. The simple reason is that as long as a predator has some power, some value to us, almost all of us do nothing. We ignore what they are doing to people around us. The culture of silence isn't something that sometimes happens, it is the default human setting. You can see this because even when what the predator's connection is as trivial as belonging to the political party you vote for, we jump over hoops to deny, ignore or justify their behaviour. Imagine what people will do when their job is at risk if they speak out.
Until we start building a real of culture of expecting people to speak out and supporting those who do, to think of the victim before they think of what they might risk of themselves, then this will never stop happening.
The US has a culture where disregarding facts and standing your ground on an issue to the end is not only accepted, but even seen as something to be respected for. From what I know the US culture takes this further than other first world nations, thus the resulting politics being more ridiculously bad than other first world nations is pretty inevitable. I've said it before; politicians have always been, well, politicians even going back to ancient rome. But they are still a mirror of the society that elected them. This ties into what you are saying, in that sexual abuse is tolerated in politics because we tolerate it as a society. Groping or cat-calling is just the common man's way of showing they would be just as bad as the powerful abusers we love to criticize.
And Aziz Ansari is not in a Feminazi gulag? I'm a bit dissapointed that all the handwringing and hyperbole about the possible ramifications of #MeToo ended up being rather unexceptional and boring. There's always next year.
Bromsy wrote: I miss sexism. Like the word and/or concept being distinct from misogyny, not sexism itself.
The only thing that matters now is the relationship of power. People only view things in deterministic views of who is oppressed and who is the oppressor. So sexism which is not misogyny is impossible, because men have a greater social standing than women.
Bromsy wrote: I miss sexism. Like the word and/or concept being distinct from misogyny, not sexism itself.
The only thing that matters now is the relationship of power. People only view things in deterministic views of who is oppressed and who is the oppressor. So sexism which is not misogyny is impossible, because men have a greater social standing than women.
No there's sexism towards men as well, it's just women have it worse.
Bromsy wrote: I miss sexism. Like the word and/or concept being distinct from misogyny, not sexism itself.
The only thing that matters now is the relationship of power. People only view things in deterministic views of who is oppressed and who is the oppressor. So sexism which is not misogyny is impossible, because men have a greater social standing than women.
No there's sexism towards men as well, it's just women have it worse.
But a few hard-left feminazi's think it is only women who are victimized, so obviously the whole body of people who speak out against mistreatment of women doesn't care about men! (Sarcasm)
There are schools of thought that,, ultimately the isms can't work in reverse on places where the institutional power systems favour that type.
EG sexism against men is ridiculous in America because the entire national hierarchy in both the public and private sectors is set up to benefit men. Same with racism against White men.
But if you change the context and go for, for example China or Saudi, then in those contexts it is entirely possible for racism against white people to be a thing.
Although one would be very hard pressed to find a place where the institutional makeup and setup is in a places that favours women throughout the society.
Compel wrote: There are schools of thought that,, ultimately the isms can't work in reverse on places where the institutional power systems favour that type.
EG sexism against men is ridiculous in America because the entire national hierarchy in both the public and private sectors is set up to benefit men. Same with racism against White men.
Bollocks. Divorce and child custody matters, for instance, are strongly sexist against men. Don't really want to tackle the racism issue, as it's off-topic for this thread.
Compel wrote: There are schools of thought that,, ultimately the isms can't work in reverse on places where the institutional power systems favour that type.
EG sexism against men is ridiculous in America because the entire national hierarchy in both the public and private sectors is set up to benefit men. Same with racism against White men.
Bollocks. Divorce and child custody matters, for instance, are strongly sexist against men. Don't really want to tackle the racism issue, as it's off-topic for this thread.
Women mostly get custody of children because men don't bother to apply for it. Divorce is a matter of how you set the marriage up. If you agree to share ownership, you have to split accordingly.
Compel wrote: There are schools of thought that,, ultimately the isms can't work in reverse on places where the institutional power systems favour that type.
EG sexism against men is ridiculous in America because the entire national hierarchy in both the public and private sectors is set up to benefit men. Same with racism against White men.
Bollocks. Divorce and child custody matters, for instance, are strongly sexist against men. Don't really want to tackle the racism issue, as it's off-topic for this thread.
Women mostly get custody of children because men don't bother to apply for it. Divorce is a matter of how you set the marriage up. If you agree to share ownership, you have to split accordingly.
According to my Family Law class, custody is largely awarded to the mother by reflex. Judges have a natural inclination to want to keep children with their mother. My professor had horror stories where judges stuck kids with mothers who didn't want them, over the objections of the father, because there was no "reason" not to. "Reason" in this case meaning "evidence of physical abuse".
Compel wrote: There are schools of thought that,, ultimately the isms can't work in reverse on places where the institutional power systems favour that type.
EG sexism against men is ridiculous in America because the entire national hierarchy in both the public and private sectors is set up to benefit men. Same with racism against White men.
Bollocks. Divorce and child custody matters, for instance, are strongly sexist against men. Don't really want to tackle the racism issue, as it's off-topic for this thread.
Women mostly get custody of children because men don't bother to apply for it. Divorce is a matter of how you set the marriage up. If you agree to share ownership, you have to split accordingly.
That’s simply not true, at least in the US and UK.
Much of the argument centres around how women earn less, but ignores the fact that men work longer, die younger, have higher rates of suicide, have lower life satisfaction. I would point to much of this being down to pressures on men to act a particular way. I know some schools of thought claim that discrimination is only valid when it is the majority against the minority, but that is nonsense. It may be a valid argument when talking about structural discrimination, but not as a blanket rule. And when it comes to anything involving children women are the ones who hold the power. The systems are all set up with the assumption that women are the primary care givers.
Yeah, there's too many instances where men do try to get custody (or joint custody, or visitation rights), and get zilch because the mother doesn't want it.
And even when the marriage is set up, in quite a few countries, the divorce judge can and will ignore the contract and award stuff hugely in favour of generally the woman.
There's a reason golddiggers are generally women.
No need to throw about aspersions like goldigging. I'm sure that there are plenty of cases of men conning rich women out of their money through sham marriages, but of course it's going to be less common for the plain fact that there are fewer "rich" single women than there are men, and with less money on average.
A lot of what you guys are saying does have merit, though. It just goes to show, as with most anything, that the prevailing narratives are almost always non-comprehensive and shallow compared to the reality. For instance, when most people talk about the wage gap, they are simply comparing the income share between men and women based on sex alone, but when you account for hours worked, personal preference in jobs and the like, the wage gap pretty much disappears. Likewise, it is kind of disingenuous to claim men are the victims of discrimination because of something like workplace deaths or injuries, because those men choose those jobs and the risks involved.
It is clear, however, that workplace sexual harassment is a genuine issue, and that it's easy for men in positions of high authority and low accountability to abuse those positions by victimizing women in their workplace. That's an issue that definitely needs to be intelligently solved. Going to extremes on either side doesn't really help, though. Claims of pervasive, "toxic" masculinity do as little to really solve the problems as unwarranted skepticism which skews toward disbelieving women who say they've been harassed, because those are both reactionary extremes of the pendulum swing that only serve to give momentum to each other.
Yeah, the golddigger stab went too far. Apologies.
However, the call about sexism isn't about that it's unfair that men work.longer and die younger, but that this isn't taken into account - which is unfair.
Plus, right or wrong, men are still often the primary earner, and sometimes have to take the unhealthier, heavier job to be able to do that. It is definitely unfair that this is in effect subsequently held against them.
Fully agree with the rest of your post! Sexual abuse is a terrible thing, and no one is served by polarisation or extremes in that regard.
skyth wrote: Preference in jobs is meaningless as the jobs generally preferred by women will be seen as less valuable and thus pay worse.
Well, you could say that social workers (a field almost entirely dominated by women) deserve to be paid the same as engineers (a field almost entirely dominated by men) but enforcing that in practice is basically communism. And I am not being hyperbolic, that is the level of top-down regulation and market interference it would take to make different industries and markets "equal".
skyth wrote: Not saying that that should happen. But you have to ask why is one seen as more valuable than another?
Not really, no. And I don't think it's because of sexism, either.
And I do think it is at least partially due to structural sexism. Stereptypical masculine jobs are more valued by society and pay better than stereotypical feminine jobs.
skyth wrote: Not saying that that should happen. But you have to ask why is one seen as more valuable than another?
Not really, no. And I don't think it's because of sexism, either.
I agree. If anything that feels more like market forces, in terms of the perceived value of a social worker vs an engineer. I think the things that draw sexes to those jobs are a whole seperate issue and yes, possible structural sexism as with STEM.
skyth wrote: And I do think it is at least partially due to structural sexism. Stereptypical masculine jobs are more valued by society and pay better than stereotypical feminine jobs.
I'm not sure those two things are as intertwined as you make them out to be. I think people value some jobs because less people are capable or willing to do them, not because they're typically one sex or the other. If your premise is true then you'd see that more universally, but Physician Assistants (for example) are like 60% female in the US and are one of the highest paying jobs.
Luciferian wrote: No need to throw about aspersions like goldigging. I'm sure that there are plenty of cases of men conning rich women out of their money through sham marriages, but of course it's going to be less common for the plain fact that there are fewer "rich" single women than there are men, and with less money on average.
This is a very good point, and something I think many people forget about.
but when you account for hours worked, personal preference in jobs and the like, the wage gap pretty much disappears
This, on the other hand, I'm surprised no one has called out yet. This just isn't true. It's a well-used argument to support the status quo, analogous to what rape culture is for sexual harassment.
Likewise, it is kind of disingenuous to claim men are the victims of discrimination because of something like workplace deaths or injuries, because those men choose those jobs and the risks involved.
This I am mixed on. I think it's hard to deny that men are more reckless than women and get themselves into more physical injury than women. But at the same time there is a culture that reinforces that. Risks to the physical safety of men are treated less seriously than those to women, and deaths of men (by any factor) are treated less seriously that those of women. There is an underlying attitude of 'well men just die all the time' that is difficult to address because between engagement in violent conflict (military or otherwise) and physical recklessness there's some truth to that. Couple that with the physical resilience of men (force-to-injury ratio) in relation to the pervasive (if not instinctive) idea of physically shielding the women/children and it gets even more difficult to tackle.
Compel wrote: There are schools of thought that,, ultimately the isms can't work in reverse on places where the institutional power systems favour that type.
EG sexism against men is ridiculous in America because the entire national hierarchy in both the public and private sectors is set up to benefit men. Same with racism against White men.
Bollocks. Divorce and child custody matters, for instance, are strongly sexist against men. Don't really want to tackle the racism issue, as it's off-topic for this thread.
Women mostly get custody of children because men don't bother to apply for it. Divorce is a matter of how you set the marriage up. If you agree to share ownership, you have to split accordingly.
Wow this is the most uninformed borderline idiotic thing I've read in a long time. Congrats.
skyth wrote: Not saying that that should happen. But you have to ask why is one seen as more valuable than another?
Not really, no. And I don't think it's because of sexism, either.
And I do think it is at least partially due to structural sexism. Stereptypical masculine jobs are more valued by society and pay better than stereotypical feminine jobs.
Well let's think about some stereotypical masculine jobs. Trashman for example, things that are vital for a society (Look into places that have area's that are either without, or striking). They are very much jobs nobody wants to do where you'll be doing things with foul smelling, often horrendous looking things where physical stress is often put upon the body, you'll have to deal with the elements whether hot or cold. You'll have to deal with potentially stupid people on the road, angry dogs, or other such things that'll come daily between you and your task..
One of the things that tends to be apart of stereotypical "masculine" jobs is that many of them put physical problems to be solved upon the person, many of which can and will be wearing your body out far sooner. Many of them tend to also be far more dangerous then sitting in an office, dealing with heavy mechanical equipment, being involved in the heat or cold elements... Also many of them have unions behind them, at least from most what I could figure in such dangerous jobs that'll help for communal bargaining with a company.
NinthMusketeer wrote: This, on the other hand, I'm surprised no one has called out yet. This just isn't true. It's a well-used argument to support the status quo, analogous to what rape culture is for sexual harassment.
That's a tough thing to argue for without resorting to social constructivism, such as saying that behavior and preference have no biological component and the only differences between the sexes are social constructs. Judging by this...
This I am mixed on. I think it's hard to deny that men are more reckless than women and get themselves into more physical injury than women. But at the same time there is a culture that reinforces that. Risks to the physical safety of men are treated less seriously than those to women, and deaths of men (by any factor) are treated less seriously that those of women. There is an underlying attitude of 'well men just die all the time' that is difficult to address because between engagement in violent conflict (military or otherwise) and physical recklessness there's some truth to that. Couple that with the physical resilience of men (force-to-injury ratio) in relation to the pervasive (if not instinctive) idea of physically shielding the women/children and it gets even more difficult to tackle.
...you don't think that's the case. Either way, what wage gap does exist, only exists when the only variable you're accounting for is sex. There are lots and lots of logical reasons which could explain why women make less than men on average, which make more sense than any kind of social constructivism. One of the best things I know of that disproves the idea that there are no differences between the sexes in terms of choice or preference is the fact that the more equality there is between men and women, the more the psychological differences between them manifest.
For example, in the Scandinavian countries, where there is probably the greatest gender equality in the world, men and women both show more of the personality traits that are associated with each sex instead of less. Women experience greater math anxiety, and are less interested in STEM fields, in spite of the fact that they earn more degrees than men and perform better in school in general. There are fewer high-level female executives and managers, and the stereotypically masculine and feminine fields are even more stacked with their respective sexes.
There is also the fact that in capitalist economies, there is no incentive for something like structural or institutional sexism. It would hurt profits by keeping a large portion of the most capable people out of positions they might excel at. When money is on the line, I'm inclined to believe that market forces would always overpower social ones, although they do influence each other.
Compel wrote: There are schools of thought that,, ultimately the isms can't work in reverse on places where the institutional power systems favour that type.
EG sexism against men is ridiculous in America because the entire national hierarchy in both the public and private sectors is set up to benefit men. Same with racism against White men.
Bollocks. Divorce and child custody matters, for instance, are strongly sexist against men. Don't really want to tackle the racism issue, as it's off-topic for this thread.
Women mostly get custody of children because men don't bother to apply for it. Divorce is a matter of how you set the marriage up. If you agree to share ownership, you have to split accordingly.
Edit: Just disregard, not worth the effort addressing this.
Ouze wrote: Physician Assistants (for example) are like 60% female in the US and are one of the highest paying jobs.
But they are paid less than Physicians. (And still not what I would think of as a 'feminine' job. I'm thinking more secretary, day care, or teacher (As opposed to professor)
Luciferian wrote:There is also the fact that in capitalist economies, there is no incentive for something like structural or institutional sexism.
We don't have a capitalist economy though. We have an oligarchy here.
Probably always some level of idiocracy, it's just way more visible now. Thanks to the communication technology we have access to, everything is at hand and in our faces the moment it happens, which has the dual effect of making everything seem more severe and showing previously hidden issues all at once.
I've always mentioned that when people talk about how much worse crime is now a days. It's actually lower per capita. It's just when something happens in California, you instantly hear about it in New York. Makes it seem like more crime even though there's actually less.
Doesn't really work with the sexual harassment claims though as those tend to be not talked about. We're bombarded by other stuff making us think that it's less prevalent than it is.
Yes, but there is no point in US history where the disregard for facts in the political sphere has been as high or as widespread. Ironic given that they are more available than ever. It's an added barrier to getting anything done about sexual assault even when it IS talked about.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Yes, but there is no point in US history where the disregard for facts in the political sphere has been as high or as widespread. Ironic given that they are more available than ever. It's an added barrier to getting anything done about sexual assault even when it IS talked about.
I suggest reading Newspapers from the 1830s (followed by the 1840s, then the 1850s, then the 1860s, the 1880s, and the 1900s so on and so forth). I once read an article from a Anti-Mason Democratic paper about how Van Buren was the best candidate because he would restore the national bank (lol). American politics, and national politics in general, have always been defined by ideological convenience over "alternate facts." I think the issue isn't that its at an all time high, but rather that education is much higher than in the past and people are better able to notice how utterly nonsensical politics can be.
I don't know about all time high but at this moment we are definitely peaking pretty hard. Also we seem to have skirted well into US Politics which, partly because of that peakness, is verboten so let's tread carefully.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Yes, but there is no point in US history where the disregard for facts in the political sphere has been as high or as widespread. Ironic given that they are more available than ever. It's an added barrier to getting anything done about sexual assault even when it IS talked about.
I suggest reading Newspapers from the 1830s (followed by the 1840s, then the 1850s, then the 1860s, the 1880s, and the 1900s so on and so forth). I once read an article from a Anti-Mason Democratic paper about how Van Buren was the best candidate because he would restore the national bank (lol). American politics, and national politics in general, have always been defined by ideological convenience over "alternate facts." I think the issue isn't that its at an all time high, but rather that education is much higher than in the past and people are better able to notice how utterly nonsensical politics can be.
As Ahtman was kind enough to point out above this is straying into forbidden and off topic territory so I'll leave it be. Suffice to say I partly agree and partly disagree.
Luciferian wrote:There is also the fact that in capitalist economies, there is no incentive for something like structural or institutional sexism. It would hurt profits by keeping a large portion of the most capable people out of positions they might excel at. When money is on the line, I'm inclined to believe that market forces would always overpower social ones, although they do influence each other.
You are assuming that capitalism doesn't waste resources, which is wrong. It may be better than some other system but there's a lot of waste, from stores and restaurants destroying old wares just so people who are not that picky can't use them for free (as they want to sell it to your) to stuff like having a lot of unoccupied flats/houses and at the same time an significant homeless population (and everything in between). Capitalism may be good at some thing but not being wasteful is demonstrably not one of them. People make many expensive, wasteful, and stupid decisions all the time, just because you call the system capitalism doesn't mean that it somehow eliminates those problems. Sure if you make a lot of bad choices at once you might end up with a bankrupt company but look how the 2008 crash ended. Banks fethed up colossally but it was mostly the regular citizen who had to bear the negative consequences.
I don't know how you would justify it but an economic crash would, by definition, hurt profits (except for the few who got their predictions correct). Nobody thought a crash was a good idea but it was the result of many greedy/stupid choices on top of each other, made by a huge number of people who all thought they were making choices that were good for profits. Capitalism is not infallible or automatically self-correcting.
The same goes for a most (if not all) of the fundamental research that's done. Capitalistic entities like to insert themselves once they see something that could be profitable but (for example) all the fundamental contributions to computers (hardware and software), the internet/worldwideweb, and smartphones were made possible through government research. No company would touch that type of altruistic and open projects that have no protection form rivals. Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and all the other companies arrived very late to build on top of all that to reap the benefits.
Also NASA, they did a lot of research that was later used to create who knows how many spin off companies that profited from that research while NASA's budget got smaller and smaller. Just look at how people are praising Musk in the other thread. He was only able to do that because governments developed a lot of that stuff and he was able to use that as a foundation as well as hiring people from government aerospace agencies for his company (who then refined all that for him). Without government investments in all that tech, Musk would be just another nerd and not a billionaire because without the internet Paypal has no reason to exist and without that (and luck) he doesn't get his initial money to keep investing in other companies.
And if you want an argument why people might be okay with women not entering the work force, just look at a "traditional family". The family (with one salary) is dependent on the working person not losing their job and if you add fear-mongering against unions you get a workforce that has less power to enact any change that might benefit them (and companies can abuse that). When your first objective is to pay for food and shelter a better situation is not something you can worry about. Also if the wife is doing the cooking, housework, and child rearing the husband can work longer hours as he hasn't to do that too. He can just get home and get his meal after a long day of work and the wife is indirectly providing free labour that the company benefits from.
John Maynard Keynes predicted that in the future (meaning: now) we'll end up working 15 to 20 hours a week but what we have instead of crunch and long work hours (and workaholics) with the threat of getting fired always there to keep you working more. Also: Once women entered the workforce in bigger numbers, companies also benefited from that as it depressed wages a bit (more employees available but the jobs didn't just magically double in number).
When money/wealth/power is on the line i'm inclined to believe that the ones with power will do their best to overpower market and social forces. And it doesn't matter if we are talking about the USA, Russia, China, or a Scandinavian country. The differences between those systems is how much protection we have against those in positions of power (broadly speaking).
Luciferian wrote:There is also the fact that in capitalist economies, there is no incentive for something like structural or institutional sexism. It would hurt profits by keeping a large portion of the most capable people out of positions they might excel at. When money is on the line, I'm inclined to believe that market forces would always overpower social ones, although they do influence each other.
You are assuming that capitalism doesn't waste resources, which is wrong. It may be better than some other system but there's a lot of waste, from stores and restaurants destroying old wares just so people who are not that picky can't use them for free (as they want to sell it to your) to stuff like having a lot of unoccupied flats/houses and at the same time an significant homeless population (and everything in between). Capitalism may be good at some thing but not being wasteful is demonstrably not one of them. People make many expensive, wasteful, and stupid decisions all the time, just because you call the system capitalism doesn't mean that it somehow eliminates those problems. Sure if you make a lot of bad choices at once you might end up with a bankrupt company but look how the 2008 crash ended. Banks fethed up colossally but it was mostly the regular citizen who had to bear the negative consequences.
Which demonstrates that a true capitalist has no problem with wasting OTHER people's resources for his own gain. Especially tax money which he probably pays less of percentage-wise anyway than the working joes in his employ. Launching a smear campaign against a competitor is also money well spent, he makes more profits and whatever losses it causes the other company and it's employees is none of his concern. If it's so succesful that they have to be bailed out with tax money, well, there's more where that came from.
And ofc, he's still a human being with all the flaws humans are known for. He might pick a woman over a man if she's a lot better for the job, but if both are somewhat equal why not pick the guy who laughs at his blonde bimbo jokes? The guy's also not going to get pregnant and require time off the job for having a kid so there's less need for bringing in temps or other arrangements.
Those are all pretty good points, which kind of bring us back around to the abuse of power. Without transparency, there can be no accountability, and without accountability, corruption flourishes. That's the main issue behind all of these instances of sexual harassment and abuse.
Luciferian wrote: Those are all pretty good points, which kind of bring us back around to the abuse of power. Without transparency, there can be no accountability, and without accountability, corruption flourishes. That's the main issue behind all of these instances of sexual harassment and abuse.
Does the Rob Porter debacle belong in this thread? On the one hand its a bit different, as he was throttling wives and girlfriends, not forcing employees/co-workers in to sex. But on the other hand, the rest of the story is the same. We have multiple, credible complaints, and we have an employer (in this case the Whitehouse) that just doesn't care, because the man is an important and effective part of the team. Then when the whole thing blows up in their face they attempt the same old defense that it's just an accusation and you can't possibly react in the face of a mere accusation.
Which is pure crap, because while innocent until proven guilty is an essential part of our justice system, its ludicrous to pretend it must be applied to all circumstance outside of that. You wouldn't leave your kid with a babysitter because at this point at this stage they're only accused of child murderer. And of course, when we're looking at multiple, credible accusations, then failure to act isn't caution, its denial.
skyth wrote: Preference in jobs is meaningless as the jobs generally preferred by women will be seen as less valuable and thus pay worse.
Well, you could say that social workers (a field almost entirely dominated by women) deserve to be paid the same as engineers (a field almost entirely dominated by men) but enforcing that in practice is basically communism. And I am not being hyperbolic, that is the level of top-down regulation and market interference it would take to make different industries and markets "equal".
But top down pay control isn't the only way to change this. Cultural change is possible. Simply getting people to realise that women are as capable as men, and therefore a job with large numbers of women isn't a lesser kind of job will change this.
It won't be a complete answer, of course, but it will be a definite improvement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I agree. If anything that feels more like market forces, in terms of the perceived value of a social worker vs an engineer. I think the things that draw sexes to those jobs are a whole seperate issue and yes, possible structural sexism as with STEM.
Market forces impact pay, but they're not the whole story. There is a human concept of what a job 'should' pay that operates even when market forces tell you something different. It's a phenomenon that's been noted happening in a lot of specific jobs - its been observed in some specific instances that an absolute scarcity of skilled employees didn't lead to pay increases outside the norm, and in other instances despite there being a flood of people with applicable skills wages for those who could get employment continued to rise at normal rates.
This would explain why teaching and nursing were long underpaid relative to other similar professions, but the level of underpay began to decrease at the same time they began to be seen by an increasing number of people as unisex careers. They're still underpaid, but not by as much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: This I am mixed on. I think it's hard to deny that men are more reckless than women and get themselves into more physical injury than women. But at the same time there is a culture that reinforces that. Risks to the physical safety of men are treated less seriously than those to women, and deaths of men (by any factor) are treated less seriously that those of women. There is an underlying attitude of 'well men just die all the time' that is difficult to address because between engagement in violent conflict (military or otherwise) and physical recklessness there's some truth to that. Couple that with the physical resilience of men (force-to-injury ratio) in relation to the pervasive (if not instinctive) idea of physically shielding the women/children and it gets even more difficult to tackle.
While men get physical injuries way more often than women, this doesn't really have much of an impact on relative mortality. Physical injuries just don't make up that much of mortality.
Men have lower life expectancies because of heart disease, bowel cancer, and stuff like that.
I suppose my view is that there is a certain recklessness in regards to physical health on various levels as opposed to solely physical injury. Also physical damage that doesn't kill can still adversely affect health and contribute to death by other causes. Ultimately, at the end of the day I find it hard to believe there is not a correlation between men's behavior and men's life expectancy.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I suppose my view is that there is a certain recklessness in regards to physical health on various levels as opposed to solely physical injury. Also physical damage that doesn't kill can still adversely affect health and contribute to death by other causes. Ultimately, at the end of the day I find it hard to believe there is not a correlation between men's behavior and men's life expectancy.
Yep, there's definitely a correlation between behaviour and health, no argument there. Women visit the doctor more often, both for specific issues and for regular check ups. That means a lot more issues get seen when something can be done about them.
There's also genetic issues. Being the bigger gender places a strain on the body, heart disease is a way bigger killer of men.
I am going to go out on a limb and say that the #Me Too moment is over int he US, as it has been replaced with Parkland Shooting Aftermath. This is in addition to the inevitable backlash and concern trolling that nibbled away at the edges, until Parkland came along and completely took over everyone's mind space.
Perhaps, it didn't need to continue and enough momentum has been gained to keep moving forward? Your thoughts?
I think we'll just have to wait and see?
The attention span of the American public is very reliant on constant input. If there are no more big names getting dropped as part of the MeToo movement, then a lot of people will move on to the next big attention getter.
The story he wants to relay took place, he says, in the summer of 2003, in the Beverly Hills Hotel, at a luncheon held by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the organization that hosts the Golden Globes. On Fraser's way out of the hotel, he was hailed by Philip Berk, a former president of the HFPA. In the midst of a crowded room, Berk reached out to shake Fraser's hand. Much of what happened next Berk recounted in his memoir and was also reported by Sharon Waxman in The New York Times: He pinched Fraser's ass—in jest, according to Berk. But Fraser says what Berk did was more than a pinch: “His left hand reaches around, grabs my ass cheek, and one of his fingers touches me in the taint. And he starts moving it around.” Fraser says that in this moment he was overcome with panic and fear.
The story he wants to relay took place, he says, in the summer of 2003, in the Beverly Hills Hotel, at a luncheon held by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the organization that hosts the Golden Globes. On Fraser's way out of the hotel, he was hailed by Philip Berk, a former president of the HFPA. In the midst of a crowded room, Berk reached out to shake Fraser's hand. Much of what happened next Berk recounted in his memoir and was also reported by Sharon Waxman in The New York Times: He pinched Fraser's ass—in jest, according to Berk. But Fraser says what Berk did was more than a pinch: “His left hand reaches around, grabs my ass cheek, and one of his fingers touches me in the taint. And he starts moving it around.” Fraser says that in this moment he was overcome with panic and fear.
The article is interesting and a good read. I've really enjoyed his work over the years.
Easy E wrote: I am going to go out on a limb and say that the #Me Too moment is over int he US, as it has been replaced with Parkland Shooting Aftermath. This is in addition to the inevitable backlash and concern trolling that nibbled away at the edges, until Parkland came along and completely took over everyone's mind space.
Perhaps, it didn't need to continue and enough momentum has been gained to keep moving forward? Your thoughts?
Eric Greitens, the Missouri governor, was indicted with a felony charge this morning. The story of him trying to cover up his affair by taking a picture of his mistress without her consent, while she was naked and blindfolded , and using it to blackmail in to keeping quiet about the affair has been around a little while, but the charges were only laid today.
A couple of days ago there were new allegations of sexual assault laid against the president, which were denied (on twitter...), through the method always used by innocent people - get basic facts of the allegation wrong and then claim the incorrect version was impossible. I saw almost no coverage of this at all.
Neither story got much coverage. At this point honestly, I think even new, credible allegations against a major public figure won't get much attention. It really does feel like the moment is over, that feeling of shock has subsided.
That said, I do think there has been some good accomplished. 'Believe the women' is appreciated in a way it never was beforehand. And now no-one can be considered immune to punishment, no level of social standing, or no amount of goodwill will lead the public to believe that person can't possibly have done it. Nowhere near enough was done to change corporate culture on this, though - in particular the role non-disclosures in protecting people from multiple charges. But this will come around again, maybe next time that's where focus will fall.
A couple of days ago there were new allegations of sexual assault laid against the president, which were denied (on twitter...), through the method always used by innocent people - get basic facts of the allegation wrong and then claim the incorrect version was impossible. I saw almost no coverage of this at all.
To be fair there have been so many allegations made against Trump that none of it is really news again. Those that defend him will ignore it, and those that were offended by the previous dozen or so claims can hardly think much worse of him.
Eric Greitens, the Missouri governor, was indicted with a felony charge this morning. The story of him trying to cover up his affair by taking a picture of his mistress without her consent, while she was naked and blindfolded , and using it to blackmail in to keeping quiet about the affair has been around a little while, but the charges were only laid today.
that was on my facebook tending news this morning so it seems to be out there in a fairly significant way
I haven’t seen the word “taint” used in a long time. Good on Brendon for speaking out, even if it is 15 years later. I liked his guest character on Scrubs (that one doctor’s brother).
Eric Greitens, the Missouri governor, was indicted with a felony charge this morning. The story of him trying to cover up his affair by taking a picture of his mistress without her consent, while she was naked and blindfolded , and using it to blackmail in to keeping quiet about the affair has been around a little while, but the charges were only laid today.
that was on my facebook tending news this morning so it seems to be out there in a fairly significant way
At this point, he should step down imo. Anyone who readily threatens to blackmail someone in this fashion shouldn't be a freak'n politician.
He did resign his position on the executive committee of the Republican Governors Association (very prominent position)...so, there is that.
Although, the woman still refuses to corroborate/interview about this publically, I'm curious if the prosecutor subpoena'ed her to testify.... before indicting. You'd almost have to assume that's the case.
If not, man...it'll be a freaking mess... you have a recording of the woman telling her husband this affair when caught, implying the blackmail...and then woman later said Greitens later apologized and claimed he had deleted the photo he took of her.
kronk wrote: I haven’t seen the word “taint” used in a long time. Good on Brendon for speaking out, even if it is 15 years later.
I can't imagine how disruptive to his career speaking out in 2003 would have been. Especially being victimized by another man which probably would have led to all manner of Richard Gere-level of homophobic jokes and stigma.
kronk wrote: I liked his guest character on Scrubs (that one doctor’s brother).
One of the best character arcs of that show in my opinion. That last episode is emotionally devastating but so damn good.
sebster wrote: Eric Greitens, the Missouri governor, was indicted with a felony charge this morning. The story of him trying to cover up his affair by taking a picture of his mistress without her consent, while she was naked and blindfolded , and using it to blackmail in to keeping quiet about the affair has been around a little while, but the charges were only laid today.
A couple of days ago there were new allegations of sexual assault laid against the president, which were denied (on twitter...), through the method always used by innocent people - get basic facts of the allegation wrong and then claim the incorrect version was impossible. I saw almost no coverage of this at all.
Neither story got much coverage. At this point honestly, I think even new, credible allegations against a major public figure won't get much attention. It really does feel like the moment is over, that feeling of shock has subsided.
The Greitens story at least got some coverage - CNN, NYT, etc.
Trump sexual harassment stories are not especially newsworthy because, jfc, we all know why.
But yeah, had there not been that school shooting the other day I think the Greitens story would have been bigger.
Surprised by the Brendan Fraser thing. I wonder exactly how many men have been victims of this; I know Terry Crews was and man if someone can grope Terry Crews no one is safe.
I just heard that my local state Legistlature had two people retire due to sexual misconduct allegations. I have not heard too much about how hard this has been hitting local state and smaller governments.
Well, the Wienstein Company has filed for bankruptcy due to industry folk trying to distance themselves from the former owner and nobody wanting to buy it, so it's good to see the right people are paying the price under this new system of public ostracisation that's been developed - the low-level employees of the company who had nothing to do with their boss' behaviour
But hey, collateral damage and all that, the important thing is the actual bad guy will make slightly less money for however long it takes for him to figure out a way to invest without his name attached or his behaviour fades from the public consciousness enough that it doesn't matter any more.
Yodhrin wrote: Well, the Wienstein Company has filed for bankruptcy due to industry folk trying to distance themselves from the former owner and nobody wanting to buy it, so it's good to see the right people are paying the price under this new system of public ostracisation that's been developed - the low-level employees of the company who had nothing to do with their boss' behaviour
But hey, collateral damage and all that, the important thing is the actual bad guy will make slightly less money for however long it takes for him to figure out a way to invest without his name attached or his behaviour fades from the public consciousness enough that it doesn't matter any more.
I'd put the blame for that squarely on the abuser and the abuser's enablers, rather than people who no longer want to be associated with the abuser.
I agree. Even from a totally callous and coldly logical position that doesn't hold any empathy for the victims, it's easy to see how this kind of behavior can have a hugely negative impact on business. You don't want your bottom line to be affected by a pattern of sexual harassment, don't employ and protect sexual harassers. Too easy.
Yodhrin wrote: Well, the Wienstein Company has filed for bankruptcy due to industry folk trying to distance themselves from the former owner and nobody wanting to buy it, so it's good to see the right people are paying the price under this new system of public ostracisation that's been developed - the low-level employees of the company who had nothing to do with their boss' behaviour
But hey, collateral damage and all that, the important thing is the actual bad guy will make slightly less money for however long it takes for him to figure out a way to invest without his name attached or his behaviour fades from the public consciousness enough that it doesn't matter any more.
I assume you have an alternative in mind, because otherwise this would be blatant support for letting abusers keep abusing.
Yodhrin wrote: Well, the Wienstein Company has filed for bankruptcy due to industry folk trying to distance themselves from the former owner and nobody wanting to buy it, so it's good to see the right people are paying the price under this new system of public ostracisation that's been developed - the low-level employees of the company who had nothing to do with their boss' behaviour
But hey, collateral damage and all that, the important thing is the actual bad guy will make slightly less money for however long it takes for him to figure out a way to invest without his name attached or his behaviour fades from the public consciousness enough that it doesn't matter any more.
I assume you have an alternative in mind, because otherwise this would be blatant support for letting abusers keep abusing.
I think the poster is pointing out how the closing of the company does nothing to hurt the abuser. The closing of the Wienstein Company isn't something to celebrate, only Harv in jail is something to celebrate.
Yodhrin wrote: Well, the Wienstein Company has filed for bankruptcy due to industry folk trying to distance themselves from the former owner and nobody wanting to buy it, so it's good to see the right people are paying the price under this new system of public ostracisation that's been developed - the low-level employees of the company who had nothing to do with their boss' behaviour
But hey, collateral damage and all that, the important thing is the actual bad guy will make slightly less money for however long it takes for him to figure out a way to invest without his name attached or his behaviour fades from the public consciousness enough that it doesn't matter any more.
I assume you have an alternative in mind, because otherwise this would be blatant support for letting abusers keep abusing.
I think the poster is pointing out how the closing of the company does nothing to hurt the abuser. The closing of the Wienstein Company isn't something to celebrate, only Harv in jail is something to celebrate.
If I missed some context of people celebrating the company's shutdown being mentioned then I apologize, but as far as I've seen there was no mention of it at all in the thread until he brought it up. Barring that I don't see any indication that he meant it as such.
Yodhrin wrote: Well, the Wienstein Company has filed for bankruptcy due to industry folk trying to distance themselves from the former owner and nobody wanting to buy it, so it's good to see the right people are paying the price under this new system of public ostracisation that's been developed - the low-level employees of the company who had nothing to do with their boss' behaviour
But hey, collateral damage and all that, the important thing is the actual bad guy will make slightly less money for however long it takes for him to figure out a way to invest without his name attached or his behaviour fades from the public consciousness enough that it doesn't matter any more.
Your argument doesn't make a great deal of sense. When O'Reilly's victims were paid their settlements O'Reilly didn't pay, FOX News did. So the people really stumping up that cash were the shareholders in the parent company 21st Century Fox. That's just life.
The alternative, to just carry on dealing with abusers and not issue any punishment because of pretend concern that third parties might be negatively affected, is obvious nonsense.
Easy E wrote: I emphasize witht he idea that when there is a battle amongst the elites, the workers always are the ones who suffer.
However, I can't think of any better approach at the moment.
Its even more general than that. Its simply that whenever there is change, people with few assets behind them will feel the hurt more acutely. When a company closes for any reason the chairman with $100m in the bank will be okay, the receptionist with $1.67 in the bank, an overdue credit card bill and a car needing new tyres is going to be in a lot of trouble if they can't find a new job soon. The only way this can be prevented is if we never do anything, ever, that might force a change to anything.
Obviously that's impossible. So instead what we should note is how this concern appears so... selectively. Not having a go at the guy who raised it, I don't know him from a bar of soap, but it is a narrative that's appeared, and appears quite often whenever people are held accountable for certain kinds of behaviour that at least some people would prefer we let people continue to get away with.
sebster wrote: Its even more general than that. Its simply that whenever there is change, people with few assets behind them will feel the hurt more acutely. When a company closes for any reason the chairman with $100m in the bank will be okay, the receptionist with $1.67 in the bank, an overdue credit card bill and a car needing new tyres is going to be in a lot of trouble if they can't find a new job soon. The only way this can be prevented is if we never do anything, ever, that might force a change to anything.
Or spread the company's wealth more fairly down the employee ladder, but honestly that seems so distant these days I don't fault people for not mentioning it.
And to bring this in a more on-topic direction, that would also have a positive impact on the sexual harassment issue because executives with less ludicrous wealth simultaneously won't have as big an ego and won't be able to throw as much money into protecting themselves when that ego sends them into abusive territory. Of course, the company would almost certainly run better with employees fairly compensated actually caring for the wellbeing of the company, which would in turn boost the company's revenue and end up better for the executives too. Naturally humans repeatedly choose the completely inferior version, because of course we do. /rant
NinthMusketeer wrote: Or spread the company's wealth more fairly down the employee ladder, but honestly that seems so distant these days I don't fault people for not mentioning it.
E-kwal-ah-tee? Nah, that's just a made up word. Crazy talk.
And to bring this in a more on-topic direction, that would also have a positive impact on the sexual harassment issue because executives with less ludicrous wealth simultaneously won't have as big an ego and won't be able to throw as much money into protecting themselves when that ego sends them into abusive territory. Of course, the company would almost certainly run better with employees fairly compensated actually caring for the wellbeing of the company, which would in turn boost the company's revenue and end up better for the executives too. Naturally humans repeatedly choose the completely inferior version, because of course we do. /rant
I like the use of 'choose' there. Matter of fact way of saying the world is as it is, because we chose it. Nicely done.
NinthMusketeer wrote: And to bring this in a more on-topic direction, that would also have a positive impact on the sexual harassment issue because executives with less ludicrous wealth simultaneously won't have as big an ego and won't be able to throw as much money into protecting themselves when that ego sends them into abusive territory. Of course, the company would almost certainly run better with employees fairly compensated actually caring for the wellbeing of the company, which would in turn boost the company's revenue and end up better for the executives too. Naturally humans repeatedly choose the completely inferior version, because of course we do. /rant
Still, the ordinary workers might cover for the high-ups in either case. If they're poor and need the next paycheck badly they're not going to cause trouble, but someone being paid better might also wish to keep that better pay...
NinthMusketeer wrote: Or spread the company's wealth more fairly down the employee ladder, but honestly that seems so distant these days I don't fault people for not mentioning it
E-kwal-ah-tee? Nah, that's just a made up word. Crazy talk.
Having read Yodhrin's other posts, I know he is NOT a defender of Misogyny but IS a staunch class warrior. I do not think he brough this idea about the "right" people being punished to defend bad behavior but to point out the inequality angle.
That would lead us to talking about a Social Safety Net, and probably into Lock/Ban territory due to US Politics. Therefore, let's not talk about it.
Easy E wrote: Having read Yodhrin's other posts, I know he is NOT a defender of Misogyny but IS a staunch class warrior. I do not think he brough this idea about the "right" people being punished to defend bad behavior but to point out the inequality angle.
Cool. Like I said earlier, I don't know the guy and I didn't want to make any assumptions about him. But there is something to be noted about when concerns like these come up, it doesn't happen each and every time someone faces punishment. I think, though, that most times a powerful man is held to account for what is generally seen as a progressive cause, it will be noted that the real impacts tend to fall on less privileged people connected to the powerful man.
And thing is, I don't think it has to be the result of negative actors or manipulation. Lots of stuff happens just through the way things interact, how institutions and informal groups operate, how lines of thought tend to lead to other lines of thought. A lot of it likely is people on the left looking to make a point about equality or some similar issue.
But the overall impact should be noted, I think. It ends with action on issues like this being held to a higher standard than action on other issues.
It was the early 1980s when Terry Karl complained to Harvard University that a senior scholar had repeatedly made sexual advances toward her. Karl, then an assistant professor of government at Harvard, had never heard the term “sexual harassment,” she told the Chronicle of Higher Education. It would be nearly a decade before Anita Hill propelled the issue into the national conversation.
Still, Karl knew the behavior of her tenured superior, Jorge Domínguez, was inappropriate, she told the Chronicle. She met with higher-ups, wrote to administrators, called for better reporting practices and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She ultimately left Harvard, deciding she couldn’t handle working in the same circles as him. While Domínguez was disciplined, he was allowed to stay on the faculty. He was even promoted.
In the decades that followed, numerous other women say they experienced sexual harassment from the professor, according to accounts published in a story last week in the Chronicle. Harvard’s handling of Karl’s complaint made other women hesitant to come forward with their own complaints years later, the Chronicle reported. The #MeToo movement helped connect these women and bring their stories to the surface.
Argento was one of the first and most vocal accusers of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.
Asia Argento, the Italian actress who was one of the first to publicly accuse Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault, secretly paid off a young male actor accusing her of sexual misconduct in the months after her revelations about the disgraced movie mogul.
According to a report in The New York Times, Argento paid former child actor Jimmy Bennett $380,000. Bennett claims that in 2013, a then 37-year-old Argento assaulted him in a California hotel only two months past his 17th birthday. The age of consent in California is 18.
The Times reports that it has seen the legal documents that lay out Bennett's assault claims and the payments arranged between his lawyers and Argento's.
Bennett's lawyers sent a notice of intent to sue Argento in November, claiming that the sexual assault was so traumatic that it affected his mental health and stymied his acting career. The notice was sent to Richard Hofstetter, the late Anthony Bourdain's longtime lawyer, who was representing Argento at the time.
The legal documents outlining the accusations against Argento were sent not long after she went public with her own sexual assault allegations against Weinstein. Argento accused Weinstein of raping her when she was 21 in an incident that took place in 1997 in a bombshell New Yorker report published on Oct. 10.
The avalanche of sexual assault allegations against Weinstein by dozens of women sparked the global #MeToo and Time's Up movement that exposed sexual harassment by men in the entertainment industry and wider society. Since the Weinstein allegations became public, Argento, with the support of Bourdain who was her boyfriend until his suicide in June, has spoken out about sexual harassment both in Hollywood and her home country of Italy and also gave high profile talks on the subject at Harvard University and at the Cannes Film Festival.
Shortly after the report was made public on Monday, Argento's ally Rose McGowan publicly distanced herself, tweeting, "I got to know Asia Argento ten months ago. Our commonality is the shared pain of being assaulted by Harvey Weinstein. My heart is broken. I will continue my work on behalf of victims everywhere."
Tarana Burke, the activist who coined the phrase that started the #MeToo movement, reacted Monday to the news of Asia Argento allegedly paying off an underage sexual assault victim in 2013, saying “sexual assault is about power and privilege,” and “that doesn’t change if the perpetrator is your favorite actress, activist or professor of any gender.”
RelatedRose McGowan Says 'Heart Is Broken' After Asia Argento Payoff Report, Cautions
She added: “We won’t shift the culture unless we get serious about shifting these false narratives.”
The reaction in a series of tweets comes after a Sunday report in the New York Times that Argento — the Italian actress and Harvey Weinstein accuser, and outspoken sexual assault-victim advocate — made an arrangement to pay off Jimmy Bennett, an actor-musician who accused her of sexually assaulting him in a California hotel room 2013 when he was 17 years old.
According to the Times, Argento arranged a deal to pay Bennett $380,000. The Times said the alleged assault happened months past his 17th birthday; Argento was 37 at the time. In court documents, a selfie with the two lying in bed was included.
Burke was ahead of the curve creating the #MeToo hashtag, which became synonymous with the revelations of sexual abuse and misconduct that became national news with exposés on Harvey Weinstein last fall in the Times and the New Yorker. Since then, allegations and accusations have surfaced worldwide, leading to the downfalls of high-profile people of power in all walks of life.
“A shift can happen,” Burke said today. “This movement is making space for possibility. But, it can only happen after we crack open the whole can of worms and get really comfortable with the uncomfortable reality that there is no one way to be a perpetrator. …and there is no model survivor. We are imperfectly human and we all have to be accountable for our individual behavior.”
Another Weinstein accuser, Rose McGowan, also weighed in Monday, saying her “heart is broken.” Like Burke, rather than fully distancing herself from Argento, McGowan suggested watchers “be gentle” as “the truth of the situation” is not yet known.
Argento’s lawyer has not made an official comment, and Bennett had not released a statement. Argento — whose boyfriend was the late TV host/chef Anthony Bourdain, who committed suicide in June — has not been active on Twitter since July 24.
I wonder if Argento's infidelity was the ignition to Bourdain's suicide.
I wonder if Argento's infidelity was the ignition to Bourdain's suicide.
That is a rumor floating around, but supposedly Bourdain knew of the incident and was assisting Argento with legal representation. Argento also claimed she and Bourdain had an open relationship since she was seen photographed with a man the day of Bourdain's death, so who knows what everyone involved in that relationship knew or didn't know. Really none of that matters in my opinion. The issue is a child was molested by an adult, and that adult paid the child off to avoid legal issues.
Regarding Argento, I think it is pretty rich that Rose McGowan is urging people to "be gentle" while this is investigated. This is a disgusting situation, and it looks like Argento was grooming this poor kid since he was 7 (when they shot a movie together and she played his mother). Why gentleness needs to be applied here, in this specific case, is puzzling to me. McGowan's own bias towards Argento as an ally and fellow woman seems the obvious reason for such empathy. It is hard to imagine McGowan offering the same sort of compassion if it was a male accused. I am sure saying that paints me as a rabid MRA ( ), but thankfully the double standard is glaring and even women are pointing it out on McGowan's Twitter feed.
Maybe McGowan can clarify or walk back her "be gentle" statement. Otherwise it shines a massive spot light on the hypocrisy of the #MeToo movement's biggest spokespeople - McGowan and Argento.
Looks like Rose McGowan isn't the only hypocrite in the MeToo movement.
The New York Times reported that New York University had conducted an 11-month investigation into a sexual harassment complaint by a male graduate student against Avital Ronell, a female professor of German and Comparative Literature. The university concluded that Ronell was responsible, and a group of influential academics signed off on a letter to NYU in Ronell’s defense; one of the most powerful feminist scholars on earth, Judith Butler, was one of them.
cuda1179 wrote: Looks like Rose McGowan isn't the only hypocrite in the MeToo movement.
The New York Times reported that New York University had conducted an 11-month investigation into a sexual harassment complaint by a male graduate student against Avital Ronell, a female professor of German and Comparative Literature. The university concluded that Ronell was responsible, and a group of influential academics signed off on a letter to NYU in Ronell’s defense; one of the most powerful feminist scholars on earth, Judith Butler, was one of them.
That is extremely disappointing. I just read their letter and, wow, just yuck.
This paragraph is particularly troubling, because in essence it is arguing that a person's contributions to their field should be considered when applying the law? That just doesn't make any sense. That is like arguing that Weinstein produced some great movies, furthered the arts and so who cares about rape? What the flying feth?
We testify to the grace, the keen wit, and the intellectual commitment of Professor Ronell and ask that she be accorded the dignity rightly deserved by someone of her international standing and reputation. If she were to be terminated or relieved of her duties, the injustice would be widely recognized and opposed. The ensuing loss for the humanities, for New York University, and for intellectual life during these times would be no less than enormous and would rightly invite widespread and intense public scrutiny. We ask that you approach this material with a clear understanding of the long history of her thoughtful and successive mentorship, the singular brilliance of this intellectual, the international reputation she has rightly earned as a stellar scholar in her field, her enduring commitments to the university, and the illuminated world she has brought to your campus where colleagues and students thrive in her company and under her guidance. She deserves a fair hearing, one that expresses respect, dignity, and human solicitude in addition to our enduring admiration.
It does play nicely into what Tarana Burke, the original founder of the MeToo movement, had to say about the Argento situation*:
I’ve said repeatedly that the #metooMVMT is for all of us, including these brave young men who are now coming forward. It will continue to be jarring when we hear the names of some of our faves connected to sexual violence unless we shift from talking about individuals and begin to talk about power. Sexual violence is about power and privilege. That doesn’t change if the perpetrator is your favorite actress, activist or professor of any gender. And we won’t shift the culture unless we get serious about shifting these false narratives..
What Butler and company are doing is siding with power and, like I said, yuck.
However, the only way to demonstrate that MeToo is for everyone and not just women is to publicly deal with these hypocrites and bounce them from positions of influence and power.
Argento has broken her silence on this. She now denies there was any inappropriate contact ever. She also blames the settlement on Bourdain (deceased boyfriend that committed suicide) basically saying that he didn't want the bad press and they should just throw money at the problem.
Wow, class act there. Throwing your dead boyfriend under the bus.
Quite frankly, even if it was the boyfriend's plan she went along with it.
I do believe she molested this boy. If other evidence comes out I'd be willing to adjust that opinion.
Now, none of this should take away from the fact that she herself is a victim. Perpetrators can be victims too. Separate crimes that should be judged separately. I also don't think we should be getting out the pitchforks quite yet either. She deserves her due process.
cuda1179 wrote: Now, none of this should take away from the fact that she herself is a victim. Perpetrators can be victims too. Separate crimes that should be judged separately.
Agreed. This doesn't take away from her victimization at the hands of Weinstein.
cuda1179 wrote: I also don't think we should be getting out the pitchforks quite yet either. She deserves her due process.
Last I read she wasn't under investigation by police. There is photographic evidence of her and the boy both topless in bed. She settled with him out of court last year to obtain those photographs and shut him up. She got away with statutory rape it seems. What due process is she afforded at this point?
cuda1179 wrote: Now, none of this should take away from the fact that she herself is a victim. Perpetrators can be victims too. Separate crimes that should be judged separately.
Agreed. This doesn't take away from her victimization at the hands of Weinstein.
cuda1179 wrote: I also don't think we should be getting out the pitchforks quite yet either. She deserves her due process.
Last I read she wasn't under investigation by police. There is photographic evidence of her and the boy both topless in bed. She settled with him out of court last year to obtain those photographs and shut him up. She got away with statutory rape it seems. What due process is she afforded at this point?
Statutory rape is NOT something you can sweep under the rug with a payoff. In fact, the police are legally obligated to file charges if a minor is assaulted, regardless of if they made a criminal complaint. They have NO legal ability to no file charges. If they don't they can be held criminally liable themselves.
In other news, leaked emails and texts from Argento show that she has admitted to a friend that sex did occur when he was underage.
cuda1179 wrote: Statutory rape is NOT something you can sweep under the rug with a payoff. In fact, the police are legally obligated to file charges if a minor is assaulted, regardless of if they made a criminal complaint. They have NO legal ability to no file charges. If they don't they can be held criminally liable themselves.
In other news, leaked emails and texts from Argento show that she has admitted to a friend that sex did occur when he was underage.
Just read that that Los Angeles Sheriff's Department is investigating, so let's see where this goes!
Thanks for posting that. Butler's apology is excellent (not surprising given her ability with language) and reassuring. I was disappointed seeing her as a signatory of that letter because it seemed inconsistent to positions she has taken in the past, so her clarification is definitely helpful.
cuda1179 wrote: [Statutory rape is NOT something you can sweep under the rug with a payoff. In fact, the police are legally obligated to file charges if a minor is assaulted, regardless of if they made a criminal complaint. They have NO legal ability to no file charges. If they don't they can be held criminally liable themselves.
I think you have a few things mixed up here.
Police don't file charges at all in the sense that you're saying - that's for prosecutors to do.
I also think you're confusing police officers and mandatory reporters. Mandatory reporters are not required to be law enforcement but as you say they are obligated to report abuse that they see, reasonably suspect, or have reported to them and can be held liable if they do not.
The reason I point out this distinction isn't pedantry, but that last point: the police absolutely cannot be held criminal liable for failing to protect. There is well established case law at this point that the police have no responsibility to protect any one specific citizen.
) were the same why would I advocate nuance in reaction? You wouldn't need it if everything could be labelled cleanly.
