Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

However biased any of us are, at least we can say that calling for an ethics investigation of oneself is a bit more robust than denying everything and getting your friends to monster your accusers.

 djones520 wrote:
The cynic in me, and yes maybe a little bit of partisanship as well, thinks that he may be calling for a toothless ethics investigation, to avoid giving up his seat. He can always say he owned up to it, and "insisted he be investigated" while knowing nothing would ever come of it.

That's why I ask. Cause if the Ethics Committee can do something substantial, then good on him for taking that route. If it's just his play at a get out of jail free card though...

I guess it could depend on what they find. I assume that he called for it because it was an isolated incident, but I could be wrong. I hope I am right, but I could be wrong.

What I'm getting from all this is that men really are pigs.

I don't even know how much I am joking right now. This is a ripple with the past 40(?) years coming into focus and I am so grateful it is happening.

Imagine the alternative. All these men going through successful, esteemed careers and getting nice garlands on their caskets while their victims live in crazy land.

"No one will ever believe you."

"No one cares."

No wonder people hate existing power structures. No wonder.

It would be pretty ballsy to call for an investigation if you know you're actually deep down in the doo-doo.

Though the hyper-cynic might say it was a super-cunning quintuple bluff. Or something.

 djones520 wrote:
The cynic in me, and yes maybe a little bit of partisanship as well, thinks that he may be calling for a toothless ethics investigation, to avoid giving up his seat. He can always say he owned up to it, and "insisted he be investigated" while knowing nothing would ever come of it.

That's why I ask. Cause if the Ethics Committee can do something substantial, then good on him for taking that route. If it's just his play at a get out of jail free card though...

I didn't look this up so it's entirely from memory, but I think that the main issue is that the Ethics Committee cannot actually do any sanctioning of any kind (at least in one of the chambers). I thin the way the process is supposed to work is for the Ethics Committee to do the actual investigation, release their findings,and recommend whatever sanctioning they think is appropriate. And then it is up to the Senate itself to actually follow through on that sanctioning to implement it. Basically the Ethics Commission is the prosecutor, and the Senate itself is the Jury/Judge.

But like I said, I'm typing this from memory about the some other time we talked about these bodies, so I could have things turned around in my head. But if that's the case then I think putting it before the Ethics Committee isn't a bad thing, let a bipartisan experienced body investigate if this impacts his work as a senator and then recommend any sanctions. But it's only really helpful if the Senate as a whole is then willing to implement whatever sanctions may be recommended.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It would be pretty ballsy to call for an investigation if you know you're actually deep down in the doo-doo.

Though the hyper-cynic might say it was a super-cunning quintuple bluff. Or something.

"Hey guys, good news! I only wrote a script to tongue a female associate behind stage and then take a picture of myself fondling her breasts once so we're all good to go here!"

A hyper-cynic may also say handing it to the Ethics Committee is also a subtle reminder to all of them that they probably have their own skeletons in the closet on the same issue.... so maybe his colleagues should STFU about it?

I mean, didn't we hear their was a special congressional fund for dealing with such claims, and it has been used.... a lot?

 Easy E wrote:
A hyper-cynic may also say handing it to the Ethics Committee is also a subtle reminder to all of them that they probably have their own skeletons in the closet on the same issue.... so maybe his colleagues should STFU about it?

I mean, didn't we hear their was a special congressional fund for dealing with such claims, and it has been used.... a lot?

Oi... this is blowing up:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html?sr=twCNN111617settlements-congress-sexual-harassment1005AMVODtop

So a special fund has paid out 260 settlements totaling $15 million over the past 20 years.

The fund handles all types of workplace discrimination issues, so knowing the percentage of that total paid to victims of sexual harassment or misconduct is unknown. Unless I misread the whole thing...

Also, the details of the claims are not reviewed, even by the senior leadership that approves the payouts.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The cynic in me, and yes maybe a little bit of partisanship as well, thinks that he may be calling for a toothless ethics investigation, to avoid giving up his seat. He can always say he owned up to it, and "insisted he be investigated" while knowing nothing would ever come of it.

That's why I ask. Cause if the Ethics Committee can do something substantial, then good on him for taking that route. If it's just his play at a get out of jail free card though...

I guess it could depend on what they find. I assume that he called for it because it was an isolated incident, but I could be wrong. I hope I am right, but I could be wrong.

In my experience, there is very rarely just the single instance. Odds are, he's a repeat offender. Franken was a comedian before right? Wasn't there a discussion in here a little while ago about how the comedian circuit tries to cover this type of stuff up?

Scrabb wrote:

"Hey guys, good news! I only wrote a script to tongue a female associate behind stage and then take a picture of myself fondling her breasts once so we're all good to go here!"

Still, if it were true at least he'd be in a better spot than the freaking President of the United States.

Jeez... that's why he got in. It really was locker room talk. God have mercy on us as a nation. Lest we get what we deserve.

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The cynic in me, and yes maybe a little bit of partisanship as well, thinks that he may be calling for a toothless ethics investigation, to avoid giving up his seat. He can always say he owned up to it, and "insisted he be investigated" while knowing nothing would ever come of it.

That's why I ask. Cause if the Ethics Committee can do something substantial, then good on him for taking that route. If it's just his play at a get out of jail free card though...

I guess it could depend on what they find. I assume that he called for it because it was an isolated incident, but I could be wrong. I hope I am right, but I could be wrong.

In my experience, there is very rarely just the single instance. Odds are, he's a repeat offender. Franken was a comedian before right? Wasn't there a discussion in here a little while ago about how the comedian circuit tries to cover this type of stuff up?

One part of me wants to say that there is a difference between someone who grabs a breast to go “haha funny” and someone who does it to exert power or sexual satisfaction.

But If you are a woman who has a random guy just grab your breast, does it really matter why he grabbed your breast?

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The cynic in me, and yes maybe a little bit of partisanship as well, thinks that he may be calling for a toothless ethics investigation, to avoid giving up his seat. He can always say he owned up to it, and "insisted he be investigated" while knowing nothing would ever come of it.

That's why I ask. Cause if the Ethics Committee can do something substantial, then good on him for taking that route. If it's just his play at a get out of jail free card though...

I guess it could depend on what they find. I assume that he called for it because it was an isolated incident, but I could be wrong. I hope I am right, but I could be wrong.

In my experience, there is very rarely just the single instance. Odds are, he's a repeat offender. Franken was a comedian before right? Wasn't there a discussion in here a little while ago about how the comedian circuit tries to cover this type of stuff up?

One part of me wants to say that there is a difference between someone who grabs a breast to go “haha funny” and someone who does it to exert power or sexual satisfaction.

But If you are a woman who has a random guy just grab your breast, does it really matter why he grabbed your breast?

The kissing part certainly seemed an exertion of power in my eyes. My eyes are very jaded on the topic though, as I explained towards the beginning of this thread.

I was looking at it more from a generalized “cop a feel to be funny” aspect that happens a lot in society. I admit that I can be inclined to think that “a joke” is different from “an assault”. I had similar thoughts after Bush Sr and thinking “that’s not a sexual predator” and instead thinking “that’s just regular dirty old man stuff”.

My wife is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, and I don’t take sexual abuse lightly. At least I thought I didn’t, but then I look at my internal justifications of “it was a joke” and “dirty old man is gonna be dirty” for situations like that and realize just how easy it is to normalize things like that.

I’ve had to do a lot more soul searching within myself over this past month, that’s for sure. How can I change my own behavior and tolerances for behavior to make this world better for my daughters?

 d-usa wrote:
I was looking at it more from a generalized “cop a feel to be funny” aspect that happens a lot in society. I admit that I can be inclined to think that “a joke” is different from “an assault”. I had similar thoughts after Bush Sr and thinking “that’s not a sexual predator” and instead thinking “that’s just regular dirty old man stuff”.

My wife is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, and I don’t take sexual abuse lightly. At least I thought I didn’t, but then I look at my internal justifications of “it was a joke” and “dirty old man is gonna be dirty” for situations like that and realize just how easy it is to normalize things like that.

I’ve had to do a lot more soul searching within myself over this past month, that’s for sure. How can I change my own behavior and tolerances for behavior to make this world better for my daughters?

Teach them guns. All the guns. My daughter will be a better shot then both my sons combined.

 d-usa wrote:


One part of me wants to say that there is a difference between someone who grabs a breast to go “haha funny” and someone who does it to exert power or sexual satisfaction.

But If you are a woman who has a random guy just grab your breast, does it really matter why he grabbed your breast?

Did you read the Al Franken link Easy E posted? It wasn't a 'haha funny.' It was a 'I'm not going to let you ignore/escape from me.'

At least from the testimony of the accuser.

In seriousness, that just puts the responsibility for stopping things like that on women. I know this could be part of the whole “sissyfication of America” complaint that gets thrown around at times, but the seeds for behavior like this get started early. “Boys will be boys” is a saying that needs to be gone.

This summer my mother and grandmother were talking about how my 4 year old is going to have a nice butt when she grows up. I asked them to stop sexualizing my pre-schooler because she will have enough time to worry about being “pretty” when she’s older, and to let her be a freaking child. We do the “tell everyone goodnight, give hugs and kisses” routine, and if my daughter doesn’t want to give any hugs and kisses to mom or dad it’s a simple “okay, have a good night”. They are her hugs and kisses to give away, not anyone else’s to take, even at 4 years old. When teaching her to smile for school pictures we focused on telling her to “look happy” and not to “look pretty”. We try to reinforce her measure of herself by what she can do, because everyone telling her “you’re so pretty” just teaches her that looks matter most.

Yesterday we walked by the pool to the gym and she wanted to swim, so I reminded her that we didn’t bring our swimming clothes. She replied “because I don’t have a swimming shirt, and I have to wear a shirt because I’m not a boy”. It’s probably my European upbringing, but that comment made me sad and angry. The fact that my 4-year old daughters chest is a sexual thing that must be hidden says more about us as a society than anything else. And at 4 years old she is already learning that her body is something she must hide.

It’s rambling now, but until we can learn to be comfortable with “normal” sexuality how can we expect to raise children of both genders with healthy outlooks on their bodies, sex, and consent?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scrabb wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


One part of me wants to say that there is a difference between someone who grabs a breast to go “haha funny” and someone who does it to exert power or sexual satisfaction.

But If you are a woman who has a random guy just grab your breast, does it really matter why he grabbed your breast?

Did you read the Al Franken link Easy E posted? It wasn't a 'haha funny.' It was a 'I'm not going to let you ignore/escape from me.'

At least from the testimony of the accuser.

If it was a “haha, funny” tit-grab, would it have been okay? Would it have been better?

That’s the discussion I am having with myself.

Basically, sexual assault and rape needs to be seen as a serius criminal offence, not a game of social engineering.

If men went around beating women up, cutting off their hands and killing them, there would be a massive outcry.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Basically, sexual assault and rape needs to be seen as a serius criminal offence, not a game of social engineering.

If men went around beating women up, cutting off their hands and killing them, there would be a massive outcry.

It’s not that long ago that wife-beating was a simple domestic affair that didn’t concern the state.

Exactly. That clearly and sadly expresses the changing power relationship between (un-reconstructed cave-) men and women.

 Scrabb wrote:
What I'm getting from all this is that men really are pigs.

I don't even know how much I am joking right now. This is a ripple with the past 40(?) years coming into focus and I am so grateful it is happening.

Imagine the alternative. All these men going through successful, esteemed careers and getting nice garlands on their caskets while their victims live in crazy land.

"No one will ever believe you."

"No one cares."

No wonder people hate existing power structures. No wonder.

As a man, I don't understand it. I do not fething understand what is so goddam hard about just. not. doing. that. How much of a fething animal do you have to be to justify actions like this. I don't get it. I would make a comparison to zoo animals and being locked up like one, but that would be an insult to zoo animals.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Exactly. That clearly and sadly expresses the changing power relationship between (un-reconstructed cave-) men and women.

It's a weird mix of feeling like we've made progress, while also looking about how much progress there is still left to go.

It's "only" been 30 years since Thurman v. City of Torrington.

@USA, gotcha, my bad.


@Musketeer, this reminds me of when I learned other kids didn't necessarily have parents with their best interests at heart. It's all I'd ever known so when I heard kids complaining about their parents I'd always go "yeah right, he's exaggerating" in the back of my mind. But they were telling the truth. And I just couldn't wrap my head around it.

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The cynic in me, and yes maybe a little bit of partisanship as well, thinks that he may be calling for a toothless ethics investigation, to avoid giving up his seat. He can always say he owned up to it, and "insisted he be investigated" while knowing nothing would ever come of it.

That's why I ask. Cause if the Ethics Committee can do something substantial, then good on him for taking that route. If it's just his play at a get out of jail free card though...

I guess it could depend on what they find. I assume that he called for it because it was an isolated incident, but I could be wrong. I hope I am right, but I could be wrong.

In my experience, there is very rarely just the single instance. Odds are, he's a repeat offender. Franken was a comedian before right? Wasn't there a discussion in here a little while ago about how the comedian circuit tries to cover this type of stuff up?

Yes, that is what will help us understand the "nature" of this case. Was it just poor USO tour "locker room" humor, or was it part of a wider predatory nature.

Either way, if he wanted to run for President, the dream is over now that this picture is out.

 Easy E wrote:
Either way, if he wanted to run for President, the dream is over now that this picture is out.

That depends which party he is running for.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Either way, if he wanted to run for President, the dream is over now that this picture is out.

That depends which party he is running for.

Yup.

Franken's full apology:

Al Franken wrote:The first thing I want to do is apologize: to Leeann, to everyone else who was part of that tour, to everyone who has worked for me, to everyone I represent, and to everyone who counts on me to be an ally and supporter and champion of women. There's more I want to say, but the first and most important thing—and if it's the only thing you care to hear, that's fine—is: I'm sorry.
I respect women. I don't respect men who don't. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed.
But I want to say something else, too. Over the last few months, all of us—including and especially men who respect women—have been forced to take a good, hard look at our own actions and think (perhaps, shamefully, for the first time) about how those actions have affected women.
For instance, that picture. I don't know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn't matter. There's no excuse. I look at it now and I feel disgusted with myself. It isn't funny. It's completely inappropriate. It's obvious how Leeann would feel violated by that picture. And, what's more, I can see how millions of other women would feel violated by it—women who have had similar experiences in their own lives, women who fear having those experiences, women who look up to me, women who have counted on me.
Coming from the world of comedy, I've told and written a lot of jokes that I once thought were funny but later came to realize were just plain offensive. But the intentions behind my actions aren't the point at all. It's the impact these jokes had on others that matters. And I'm sorry it's taken me so long to come to terms with that.
While I don't remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does, I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences.
I am asking that an ethics investigation be undertaken, and I will gladly cooperate.
And the truth is, what people think of me in light of this is far less important than what people think of women who continue to come forward to tell their stories. They deserve to be heard, and believed. And they deserve to know that I am their ally and supporter. I have let them down and am committed to making it up to them.

Tweeden has accepted Franken's apology:

Leeann Tweeden wrote:“Yes, people make mistakes and, of course, he knew he made a mistake,” she said at a news conference in Los Angeles, where she works as a radio news anchor for KABC. She said she would leave any disciplinary action up to Senate leaders and was not calling for Franken to step down. “That’s up to them. I’m not demanding that.”

djones520 wrote:

Spoiler:

 d-usa wrote:
I was looking at it more from a generalized “cop a feel to be funny” aspect that happens a lot in society. I admit that I can be inclined to think that “a joke” is different from “an assault”. I had similar thoughts after Bush Sr and thinking “that’s not a sexual predator” and instead thinking “that’s just regular dirty old man stuff”.

My wife is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, and I don’t take sexual abuse lightly. At least I thought I didn’t, but then I look at my internal justifications of “it was a joke” and “dirty old man is gonna be dirty” for situations like that and realize just how easy it is to normalize things like that.

I’ve had to do a lot more soul searching within myself over this past month, that’s for sure. How can I change my own behavior and tolerances for behavior to make this world better for my daughters?

Teach them guns. All the guns. My daughter will be a better shot then both my sons combined.

That's not good enough and it also often doesn't work. Like somebody else already mentioned that puts the burden on women. And further, do you know how she will react under stress (and not in a controlled environment)? What if she just panics and freezes instead of shooting if somebody were to attack her, like this (scroll a bit to the top for the start of the thread)?

NinthMusketeer wrote:

Spoiler:

 Scrabb wrote:
What I'm getting from all this is that men really are pigs.

I don't even know how much I am joking right now. This is a ripple with the past 40(?) years coming into focus and I am so grateful it is happening.

Imagine the alternative. All these men going through successful, esteemed careers and getting nice garlands on their caskets while their victims live in crazy land.

"No one will ever believe you."

"No one cares."

No wonder people hate existing power structures. No wonder.

As a man, I don't understand it. I do not fething understand what is so goddam hard about just. not. doing. that. How much of a fething animal do you have to be to justify actions like this. I don't get it. I would make a comparison to zoo animals and being locked up like one, but that would be an insult to zoo animals.

It's not just men, women in power do that too but in our society we have more men in power so we end up with many more instances of men doing these horrible things. I think it's probably partly to blame on the hedonic treadmill because we get used to stuff so we need more extreme versions to feel excitement.

Hedonic adaptation is a process or mechanism that reduces the affective impact of emotional events. Generally, hedonic adaptation involves a happiness "set point", whereby humans generally maintain a constant level of happiness throughout their lives, despite events that occur in their environment.[2][4] The process of hedonic adaptation is often conceptualized as a treadmill, since one must continually work to maintain a certain level of happiness. Others conceptualize hedonic adaptation as functioning similarly to a thermostat (a negative feedback system) that works to maintain an individual's happiness set point. One of the main concerns of positive psychology is determining how to maintain or raise one's happiness set point, and further, what kind of practices lead to lasting happiness.

Whatever Weinstein (for example) needed sexually or what he found exciting got worse over time (in addition to him having grown up in a decade with different moral expectations). Add all the power and influence (people do all kinda of stuff for you because you can help them and they tend to not disagree with you too much) and how that also gets affected and you end up with somebody who needs more transgressive experiences because the regular consent is not interesting anymore (and people already do all kinds of things for you). And he can already buy whatever he wants with his money (or hire prostitutes) so things escalate.

This is not an excuse for his behaviour because everybody learns to use their willpower to function in civilised society. Even dogs can be taught/trained to not steal the steak off the plate no matter how longingly they look at it and want a bite. So Weinstein should be able to control himself but with more power come more extreme needs but also means to fulfil them (like hiring ex-Mossad agents to suppress allegations …):
John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men,..."

That's why we find large scale abuse in the shadows of powerful institutions (be it Hollywood, politics, military, academia, religion, corporations, or anything else).

Well, at least that was the best apology so far.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The contrast in response is between Franken and Moore is...interesting.

Franken releases new statement, calls for ethics investigation of himself

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/360697-franken-releases-new-statement-calls-for-ethics-investigation-of-himself

At least he's not blaming it on Russian hackers. *shrugs*

I have no idea if Franken calling for an ethics investigation in to himself is a stunt or not. I do know that both of Franken's apologies were crap. Also a lot of the coverage is also crap. Everyone is focusing on the photo, and calling it evidence he groped her. But he's not touching her. That doesn't make it okay, it's still objectifying her, but the claim of groping elevates the issue, turns the claim in to something this is not, and buries the really serious parts of the allegation. Franken himself buries the worst part of the accusation, that's why his apology is crap.

The first really bad thing Franken was accused of is use his position to contrive a scene where he kisses Tweeden. The second thing he did is after being rebuffed - he isolated her, only spoke to her in petty insults. Both of those things are very serious. In contrast, pretending to grope her in a funny photo is awful, but the other two are direct uses of power to force intimate contact from a women, and then punish her when she refused - and those are despicable acts.

Anyhow, been interesting to follow the reaction to this. On the right it seems all of the people who kept adding 'if true' to their comments about Moore... have given almost identical statements about Franken, albeit without the 'if true' part, somehow this time all their doubts never surfaced. On the left the response has been one of two types on the whole. Well, three types if you include that one guy who claimed Tweeden's statement was linked to Roger Stone, and that Tweeden gave to McCain in 2008 so therefore the claim was dodgy or something... feth that guy, unfollow. But apart from that one guy, what we've seen has been either 'Franken did a horrible thing', or 'Franken did a horrible thing, same as Trump'.

That's not perfect by any means. But there is progress of a sort, because on the right slowly a lot of those right wingers are dropping the 'if true', and on the left that whataboutism appears in the minority to me, and has been of the 'both Franken and Trump should be punished' variety, not the 'Trump isn't punished so nor should Franken be' variety.

So we are in a lot better place than where we've been before now.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm quite sure I've fallen into this exact trap. I always thought Juanita Broaddrick was a little hard to swallow for... well, it was easy to find reasons why. As time has gone by though, I've wondered, especially over the course of the election when it was all rehashed again. I've now come to think that she's almost certainly telling the truth. Why do I believe her now? Her story hasn't changed, she hasn't gotten any more credible. I'd like to say because we've become more aware of how widespread sexual assault actually is, and how much more people understand that victims may take a very long time to come forward, and so on....but on some level I have to wonder how my bias comes into play. As Whembly says, now that it doesn't matter and in fact in some part HRC helped to put Trump in the White House, is that why I'm more inclined to see things in a light less favorable to my team? Just lame ass tribalism? I assume the answer has to be yes.

Thankyou, well said, and my own experience is much the same. I actually find it quite difficult to explain how there was a time when I saw Clinton actions with Lewinsky as just a blow job, and somehow missed that it was the President of the United States initiating sex with an intern, which is a plainly disgraceful abuse of power. While it's true that almost everyone missed that core issue at the time, including most Republican accusers (who focused instead on the adultery and the perjury), that's not a real excuse, because the primary reason I defined the Lewinsky affair down to something I could ignore is because I supported Clinton politically.

And yeah, whembly is right, this all too late to make a difference to Clinton's time in Washington. But it at least is a chance of changing the conversation, and changing the culture of how we address these things moving forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Oi... this is blowing up:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html?sr=twCNN111617settlements-congress-sexual-harassment1005AMVODtop

So a special fund has paid out 260 settlements totaling $15 million over the past 20 years.

Nobody reads the posts I make, nobody knows their content...
(sung to the tune of Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen)

Anyhow, I posted that like 4 pages ago You are right that there's a few issues with exactly what that $15m makes up, it could also include non-sexual harrassment elements, which makes the $15m figure meaningless (as other forms of worker's comp could make up $14m of the $15m). But even just failing to seperately track sexual harrassment shows congress has not taken this issue seriously enough.

 sebster wrote:
And here's a stat for everyone - a member of the House yesterday reported that in the last 10 to 15 years $15 million has been paid out by a special fund to victims of sexual harassment. Whether that's just harrasment by members of the House or if it also includes their senior staff, I don't know.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
In my experience, there is very rarely just the single instance. Odds are, he's a repeat offender. Franken was a comedian before right? Wasn't there a discussion in here a little while ago about how the comedian circuit tries to cover this type of stuff up?

Yeah, I posted something a while back, a radio conversation I heard with... some lady... talking about the Cosby scandal. She talked about the comedy industry being a huge number of acts that make little money, with the whole system being propped up by a small number of big name, highly profitable stars, which led to a strong motive to protect those few cash cows. She said Cosby wasn't the only one like that, the interviewer asked if she was asking about Louis CK, and she avoided answering that question while heavily implying yes but not only him, if you get what I mean.

So Franken gets added to that list, and it also makes me suspect there will probably be more accusations coming out against him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
“Boys will be boys” is a saying that needs to be gone.

Yes. Boys will be what we make them to be.

This summer my mother and grandmother were talking about how my 4 year old is going to have a nice butt when she grows up. I asked them to stop sexualizing my pre-schooler because she will have enough time to worry about being “pretty” when she’s older, and to let her be a freaking child. We do the “tell everyone goodnight, give hugs and kisses” routine, and if my daughter doesn’t want to give any hugs and kisses to mom or dad it’s a simple “okay, have a good night”. They are her hugs and kisses to give away, not anyone else’s to take, even at 4 years old. When teaching her to smile for school pictures we focused on telling her to “look happy” and not to “look pretty”. We try to reinforce her measure of herself by what she can do, because everyone telling her “you’re so pretty” just teaches her that looks matter most.

My four year old has started saying she doesn't want any more food because it will make her fat. That is a terrifying thing to hear from a four year old. It's not a huge problem for her at this point, because it's really just a concept a thing she's parroting - at other times she'll sit there eating as many twisties as we'll let her, and other times still she'll eat her whole meal saying she wants to grow strong, and then when she's finished she'll flex her biceps to show how strong she is. But the idea that's she's familiar with that concept at all is terrifying.