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.

You guys realise you can easily sexually harrass people via face time, right?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You guys realise you can easily sexually harrass people via face time, right?

It's impossible to see a penis over a computer, my friend. I've spent enough time on Chaturbate to know that.

You knew this would happen... (note mods: if this is too much into politics, feel free to edit)

CBS News‏Verified account
@CBSNews
More
NEW: Women who have publicly accused President Trump of sexual harassment and assault will speak at a news conference, hosted by @bravenewfilms, Monday at 10:30 a.m. ET. The women are calling for an investigation by Congress of sexual misconduct by the president.

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You guys realise you can easily sexually harrass people via face time, right?

It's impossible to see a penis over a computer, my friend. I've spent enough time on Chaturbate to know that.

"Oh I am so sorry Karen, I opened Chatroulette on accident!"

 whembly wrote:
You knew this would happen... (note mods: if this is too much into politics, feel free to edit)

Its weird its taken this long, to be honest.

I was going to dissect several parts of the thread since I posted, but most was covered. A few key points are necessary to address:

1. The shark analogy was referring to accusations, not actually being bit.

2. Pence is a very large target for both liberal groups and mainstream media. Going out of his way to make sure that they have less ammunition shouldn't be that hard to understand. Also with respecting his wife's wishes. I know my wife would not be thrilled with any social one on one meeting between me and another woman, regardless of why it was happening. DOUBLY so if alcohol was present. That doesn't speak of my willpower as much as it does her self-consciousness. Though in my mind, no other woman would have as bad of taste in men as her...

3: I've been in the Indiana Army National Guard since 1993. Most, if not all, of you know this. There is a soldier at the unit I just transferred out of for a promotion named SGT Grubb (Might be SSG Grubb, but I'm not sure if she also promoted recently) who worked for Governor Pence, and was brought onto his staff when he became Vice President. There is no glass ceiling for her, nor any of the other women who work on his staff. They just don't get the chance to slam Harvey Wallbangers with him solo. That, of course, doesn't fit the rhetoric which is why I will open the floor to the obligatory "anecdotal evidence" commentary.

And as far as the actual topic, bringing to light this criminal behavior can only be looked at as a good thing. I'm only hoping that this galvanization of legitimate victims doesn't pull in any false allegations.

 Just Tony wrote:
I was going to dissect several parts of the thread since I posted, but most was covered. A few key points are necessary to address:

1. The shark analogy was referring to accusations, not actually being bit.

2. Pence is a very large target for both liberal groups and mainstream media. Going out of his way to make sure that they have less ammunition shouldn't be that hard to understand. Also with respecting his wife's wishes. I know my wife would not be thrilled with any social one on one meeting between me and another woman, regardless of why it was happening. DOUBLY so if alcohol was present. That doesn't speak of my willpower as much as it does her self-consciousness. Though in my mind, no other woman would have as bad of taste in men as her...

3: I've been in the Indiana Army National Guard since 1993. Most, if not all, of you know this. There is a soldier at the unit I just transferred out of for a promotion named SGT Grubb (Might be SSG Grubb, but I'm not sure if she also promoted recently) who worked for Governor Pence, and was brought onto his staff when he became Vice President. There is no glass ceiling for her, nor any of the other women who work on his staff. They just don't get the chance to slam Harvey Wallbangers with him solo. That, of course, doesn't fit the rhetoric which is why I will open the floor to the obligatory "anecdotal evidence" commentary.

And as far as the actual topic, bringing to light this criminal behavior can only be looked at as a good thing. I'm only hoping that this galvanization of legitimate victims doesn't pull in any false allegations.

Do you not have any female friends? I regularly got hammered with my roommates girlfriend while she was at the house waiting for him to get home. Not once did he walk in and accuse us of doing anything. Nor did anything ever happen. It is kind of ridiculous to make that assumption.

There is a glass ceiling. She cannot have a private 1 on 1 convo with him, ever. She must have a chaperone, however her male counterparts do not have that same issue, do you not see the problem with that?

I posted this link from the Atlantic on how these rules create a glass ceiling one page ago. How can people already start claiming it doesn't again?

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/pences-gender-segregated-dinners/521286/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Do you not have any female friends? I regularly got hammered with my roommates girlfriend while she was at the house waiting for him to get home. Not once did he walk in and accuse us of doing anything. Nor did anything ever happen. It is kind of ridiculous to make that assumption.

It must be very awkward. I have several female friends and my partner has several male friends. We have drinks or dinners with them individually. There is a chance some friends might have feelings for either my partner or me (at least she thinks its the case for at least one of my friends, we know of one in her case). Yet it doesn't stop me or my partner from meeting them, because we are still friends and I'm in a comitted relationship that I fully intend to stay true on just as my partner is. Frankly I don't think I could be in a relationship were I'm not 'allowed' to do that because A. weirdly controlling and B. is that really the person you take me for? It doesn't seem healthy for that distrust to exist, are they always doubting and second guessing what you do or what?

Oh, I see the backlash has all ready hit this thread!

Ms. Sandberg was right!

 Just Tony wrote:
1. The shark analogy was referring to accusations, not actually being bit.

The shark analogy still relies on the idea that women can be reduced down to simple threats. They can't, because a woman is more than a sexual temptation, she's also a human being.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
It must be very awkward. I have several female friends and my partner has several male friends. We have drinks or dinners with them individually. There is a chance some friends might have feelings for either my partner or me (at least she thinks its the case for at least one of my friends, we know of one in her case). Yet it doesn't stop me or my partner from meeting them, because we are still friends and I'm in a comitted relationship that I fully intend to stay true on just as my partner is. Frankly I don't think I could be in a relationship were I'm not 'allowed' to do that because A. weirdly controlling and B. is that really the person you take me for? It doesn't seem healthy for that distrust to exist, are they always doubting and second guessing what you do or what?

It's also because you're adults, and should be able to make your own adult decisions. When fixed rules or the spouse's control become the only way to keep a person from keeping the core promises of the relationship, then the relationship is fethed. Not necessarily fethed as in break up is imminent, but maybe just fethed in the 'this relationship will hurt everyone involved' sense.

I remember years ago, long before I met my wife, I was in town with a friend and his partner. We passed a GW store and me and my friend wanted to go in. After a short, awkward conversation my friend was 'allowed to go in', but my friend had to give his wallet to his wife before he went in. They're still together, I don't see them much, so I can't say how happily overall, but I know that over time he's taken on more and more of the man-child role, and his (now) wife has taken on more and more of the long suffering mother role. I know they've got a pile of debt and a house full of impulse buys.

End of the day, if you're decent and a responsible adult, you don't need these stupid rules, either for your life or your relationship. And if you aren't a decent and responsible adult, no rule is ever going to change that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Oh, I see the backlash has all ready hit this thread!

Ms. Sandberg was right!

Well played sir. And well played Ms Sandberg.

I have also heard some reports about celebrity chefs and NFL analysts being caught up in these scandals.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/ct-mario-batali-the-chew-sexual-harassment-allegations-20171211-story.html

and

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/sports/marshall-faulk-nfl-network-sexual-harassment.html

This is getting outside of just Hollywood and DC now.

 sebster wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
It must be very awkward. I have several female friends and my partner has several male friends. We have drinks or dinners with them individually. There is a chance some friends might have feelings for either my partner or me (at least she thinks its the case for at least one of my friends, we know of one in her case). Yet it doesn't stop me or my partner from meeting them, because we are still friends and I'm in a comitted relationship that I fully intend to stay true on just as my partner is. Frankly I don't think I could be in a relationship were I'm not 'allowed' to do that because A. weirdly controlling and B. is that really the person you take me for? It doesn't seem healthy for that distrust to exist, are they always doubting and second guessing what you do or what?

It's also because you're adults, and should be able to make your own adult decisions. When fixed rules or the spouse's control become the only way to keep a person from keeping the core promises of the relationship, then the relationship is fethed. Not necessarily fethed as in break up is imminent, but maybe just fethed in the 'this relationship will hurt everyone involved' sense.

I remember years ago, long before I met my wife, I was in town with a friend and his partner. We passed a GW store and me and my friend wanted to go in. After a short, awkward conversation my friend was 'allowed to go in', but my friend had to give his wallet to his wife before he went in. They're still together, I don't see them much, so I can't say how happily overall, but I know that over time he's taken on more and more of the man-child role, and his (now) wife has taken on more and more of the long suffering mother role. I know they've got a pile of debt and a house full of impulse buys.

End of the day, if you're decent and a responsible adult, you don't need these stupid rules, either for your life or your relationship. And if you aren't a decent and responsible adult, no rule is ever going to change that.

I thought the adult part spoke for itself, guess that isn't true for the maturity level of some now that I think about it

Yeah, when rules like this are required for the functioning of a relationship there is an immense risk of it failling anyway, from either the reason the rules needed to be there in the first place or just distrust.

That is a bizarre story. I never get why people get satisfaction out of relationships that are controlling/take control away from them. I have seen a similar relationship amongst two not too close friends. Just being around them for the afternoon is tiresome because of their relationship dynamics being much of what you described in your example. Still, its lasted about a decade and it shows no signs of a breakup. They don't seem to especially enjoy their relationship, but I guess something is keeping them together (guess its a time invested fallacy). I don't get how people can get any joy out of such relationships.

Dreadwinter wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I was going to dissect several parts of the thread since I posted, but most was covered. A few key points are necessary to address:

1. The shark analogy was referring to accusations, not actually being bit.

2. Pence is a very large target for both liberal groups and mainstream media. Going out of his way to make sure that they have less ammunition shouldn't be that hard to understand. Also with respecting his wife's wishes. I know my wife would not be thrilled with any social one on one meeting between me and another woman, regardless of why it was happening. DOUBLY so if alcohol was present. That doesn't speak of my willpower as much as it does her self-consciousness. Though in my mind, no other woman would have as bad of taste in men as her...

3: I've been in the Indiana Army National Guard since 1993. Most, if not all, of you know this. There is a soldier at the unit I just transferred out of for a promotion named SGT Grubb (Might be SSG Grubb, but I'm not sure if she also promoted recently) who worked for Governor Pence, and was brought onto his staff when he became Vice President. There is no glass ceiling for her, nor any of the other women who work on his staff. They just don't get the chance to slam Harvey Wallbangers with him solo. That, of course, doesn't fit the rhetoric which is why I will open the floor to the obligatory "anecdotal evidence" commentary.

And as far as the actual topic, bringing to light this criminal behavior can only be looked at as a good thing. I'm only hoping that this galvanization of legitimate victims doesn't pull in any false allegations.

Do you not have any female friends? I regularly got hammered with my roommates girlfriend while she was at the house waiting for him to get home. Not once did he walk in and accuse us of doing anything. Nor did anything ever happen. It is kind of ridiculous to make that assumption.

There is a glass ceiling. She cannot have a private 1 on 1 convo with him, ever. She must have a chaperone, however her male counterparts do not have that same issue, do you not see the problem with that?

Her career isn't hampered by not being able to go solo to dinner with a married man, or to go out drinking with a married man. So yes, no glass ceiling there. It's an old-fashioned mindset, from back when people had principles, I understand why people who weren't raised in that time fail to understand it.

And I don't have female friends that I just go hang out with. I have coworkers that I am friends with, and battle buddies from my old unit, that are female. Guess what? I don't go out to dinner with them, nor would I slam drinks with them in the off hours. In the military, it's pretty much an unspoken rule that any sort of alcohol based festivities involve multiple people, and nobody views that as any sort of glass ceiling, or as a harmful thing.

But yeah, you won't change your mind on this, and I won't come around to your viewpoint.

sebster wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
1. The shark analogy was referring to accusations, not actually being bit.

The shark analogy still relies on the idea that women can be reduced down to simple threats. They can't, because a woman is more than a sexual temptation, she's also a human being.

In what possible way could you interpret that as distilling the woman down to being nothing more than a threat? It's not about sexual temptation, it's about the part regarding him being a constant target by virtue of his position. I didn't think it needed spelled out THAT far.

So we went from business meetings to slamming drinks.
You can put the goal post down, Just Tony.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I thought the adult part spoke for itself, guess that isn't true for the maturity level of some now that I think about it

Yeah, I think the adult part was implied in your post. I just wanted to expand on it

That is a bizarre story. I never get why people get satisfaction out of relationships that are controlling/take control away from them. I have seen a similar relationship amongst two not too close friends. Just being around them for the afternoon is tiresome because of their relationship dynamics being much of what you described in your example. Still, its lasted about a decade and it shows no signs of a breakup. They don't seem to especially enjoy their relationship, but I guess something is keeping them together (guess its a time invested fallacy). I don't get how people can get any joy out of such relationships.

Yep, and the couple I mentioned are still together, and I know other couples with other similarly weird dynamics that have been together for ages. As to why this works, probably the sunk cost fallacy plays a part as you say, but also I think its also a case of people choosing it. Their relationship is in large part a product of who they are as people. Not wanting to have any discipline over money, my friend built a relationship where his partner takes control of money (she's also gak with money, by the way, really they're just a mess financially speaking).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
In what possible way could you interpret that as distilling the woman down to being nothing more than a threat? It's not about sexual temptation, it's about the part regarding him being a constant target by virtue of his position. I didn't think it needed spelled out THAT far.

Because the way the shark metaphor works is that running in to a shark in the water has huge consequences, and zero benefits. It's a shark. Best case scenario is it ignores you, but it's highly likely that it will attack.

On other hand a woman is a human being. There is a very small chance that the dinner or whatever might go wrong despite the man's best intentions, either because something was misunderstood, or even because the woman is evil and tells a lie about what happens. But there's also lots of good that could come out of it, enjoyable company, improved professional relationships etc. All the good stuff you get from talking to human beings, you know?

Steelmage99 wrote:
So we went from business meetings to slamming drinks.
You can put the goal post down, Just Tony.

Pay attention to the thread. The Pence rule covers dinner or drinks, that sort of thing. the Graham rule covers EVERYTHING. People are still conflating the two to push their agenda. Period. It's also why the "glass ceiling" debate is still up and running.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
In what possible way could you interpret that as distilling the woman down to being nothing more than a threat? It's not about sexual temptation, it's about the part regarding him being a constant target by virtue of his position. I didn't think it needed spelled out THAT far.

Because the way the shark metaphor works is that running in to a shark in the water has huge consequences, and zero benefits. It's a shark. Best case scenario is it ignores you, but it's highly likely that it will attack.

On other hand a woman is a human being. There is a very small chance that the dinner or whatever might go wrong despite the man's best intentions, either because something was misunderstood, or even because the woman is evil and tells a lie about what happens. But there's also lots of good that could come out of it, enjoyable company, improved professional relationships etc. All the good stuff you get from talking to human beings, you know?

Try again.

I've been in the ocean several times in my life. I know that I won't get bitten by a shark every time I set foot in the water. I also know, however, that I won't get bit AT ALL if I'm not in the water in the first place.

I don't assume in that instance that the shark is solely out there to bite my fat ass. I also make the assumption that every woman on the planet isn't out to have a meeting with Mike Pence to get assaulted, OR to put themselves in a position to be able to make that claim. Chuck Schumer was just accused of misconduct, which he labels as false, and seems to hold water as a false accusation. If THIS is the sort of thing that can happen, you break it down and do the math. Statistically speaking, the chances of any sort of valid accusation being leveled are the same as the chances of me being attacked by a shark sitting here in a machine shop in Indiana. I don't see why this is so hard to understand, why hyperbole needs to be thrown in to attempt to prove a point or discredit the tactic as unviable, or why it needs to be redirected as evidence of misogyny when it clearly is not.

So, once again, it comes down to that point that you KEEP IGNORING, which is the fact that Pence is a highly targetable person by the left and by the left-supporting media just by virtue of being who he is. So ANY weighing of the good and bad of interactions need to be viewed through that lens.

 Just Tony wrote:
I don't assume in that instance that the shark is solely out there to bite my fat ass. I also make the assumption that every woman on the planet isn't out to have a meeting with Mike Pence to get assaulted, OR to put themselves in a position to be able to make that claim.

To explain it, again, the shark isn't certain to bite you, but not only is that quite possible, there is no upside. There is no chance that the shark will start up a conversation that you will enjoy, and maybe even find enlightening. There's no chance that the shark might become a valuable professional association, on whom you come to rely for advice.

A better analogy would be to a dog.* It is possible for a person to say they never go near dogs, because it might bite them. That's there's choice, but in doing so we can easily see they're missing out on a lot of stuff, because dogs are fun to play with. And we can see how if lots of people made that choice, life would be much harder for the dogs.

Do you get it now? Because the relationship between sharks and men is purely conflict, its a gak analogy. Using a different animal, where as well as a small risk of danger there's lots of upside, we can see the choice made by Pence more clearly.



*I apologise that it sounds like I'm saying women and dogs are the same, that's not my intent. I'd think of a way of explaining this without using dogs as a stand in for women, but I'm not very imaginative.

 sebster wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I don't assume in that instance that the shark is solely out there to bite my fat ass. I also make the assumption that every woman on the planet isn't out to have a meeting with Mike Pence to get assaulted, OR to put themselves in a position to be able to make that claim.

To explain it, again, the shark isn't certain to bite you, but not only is that quite possible, there is no upside. There is no chance that the shark will start up a conversation that you will enjoy, and maybe even find enlightening. There's no chance that the shark might become a valuable professional association, on whom you come to rely for advice.

A better analogy would be to a dog.* It is possible for a person to say they never go near dogs, because it might bite them. That's there's choice, but in doing so we can easily see they're missing out on a lot of stuff, because dogs are fun to play with. And we can see how if lots of people made that choice, life would be much harder for the dogs.

Do you get it now? Because the relationship between sharks and men is purely conflict, its a gak analogy. Using a different animal, where as well as a small risk of danger there's lots of upside, we can see the choice made by Pence more clearly.



*I apologise that it sounds like I'm saying women and dogs are the same, that's not my intent. I'd think of a way of explaining this without using dogs as a stand in for women, but I'm not very imaginative.

I do get it: it's better to twist the intention of a comment to foster a political agenda than to simply see the comment for the principle behind it. It is always much better to drag a thread through the mud just to prove a point and try to make yourself to look more noble than your verbal jousting partner. I get it perfectly.



And I wouldn't worry about apologizing about your comparison. Not everyone on this site eviscerates a person's words in the name of social justice, just a few people...

All meetings between any two people of any gender be chaperoned by at least four independent observers of various gender types, to ensure there is no possibility of a false accusation.

 sebster wrote:
To explain it, again

My favorite part of this thread was when you thought you were engaging in a good faith discussion despite the fact he's raised the spectre of a vast, left wing conspiracy several times.

 Just Tony wrote:
which is the fact that Pence is a highly targetable person by the left and by the left-supporting media just by virtue of being who he is. So ANY weighing of the good and bad of interactions need to be viewed through that lens.

This applies to pretty much every republican politician. Remind us how many false accusations have gained traction and resulted in damage against republican politicians?

Even when right wing groups tried to give false accusations to the papaersto prove that it could be done they failed as the papers saw through the ploy whilst performimg research into it prior to running the story.

 Just Tony wrote:
Her career isn't hampered by not being able to go solo to dinner with a married man, or to go out drinking with a married man. So yes, no glass ceiling there. It's an old-fashioned mindset, from back when people had principles, I understand why people who weren't raised in that time fail to understand it.

It may well be. You're giving male co-workers access to their management that females are denied. She's missing out on networking opportunities, on being able to pitch ideas in a casual setting and in general just preventing her from getting to know her boss (and vice-versa) in the same way that everyone else does.

What "principle", by the way? That you can't be trusted around women? Or that all women are all harlots who try to seduce innocent men?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All meetings between any two people of any gender be chaperoned by at least four independent observers of various gender types, to ensure there is no possibility of a false accusation.

Preferably in FEMA camps under the supervision of the U.N AFTER confiscating all the guns.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All meetings between any two people of any gender be chaperoned by at least four independent observers of various gender types, to ensure there is no possibility of a false accusation.

This last few pages were certainly interesting.

I travel for work a lot. 3 years running with Gold status with United, but they have yet to beat my ass and drag me off a plane despite me being me. Anyway, I have binders full of women in my department that sometimes travel with me. We fly on the same plane, share a rental car, have dinners (and drinks! gasp!) alone if the local employees aren't free, and drive to and from our hotel together. Having a 3rd person would add 50% more to travel costs. Having separate cars is a no-go as at least one of my fellow employees can't drive, and would add to the costs. The Billy Graham rule wouldn't let that happen, I suppose.

It's confirmed, Kronk loves the life of a porn star!

 Just Tony wrote:
I do get it: it's better to twist the intention of a comment to foster a political agenda than to simply see the comment for the principle behind it. It is always much better to drag a thread through the mud just to prove a point and try to make yourself to look more noble than your verbal jousting partner. I get it perfectly.

No, I just thought it was a crap analogy because it walked past half of the issue. All the stuff about twisting intentions, fostering political agenda, mud dragging and making myself look noble... that sounds like a lot of work. All I did was see crap analogy and decide to point out that's a crap analogy,

And I wouldn't worry about apologizing about your comparison. Not everyone on this site eviscerates a person's words in the name of social justice, just a few people...

I'm not an donkey-cave, so I don't just apologise to avoid someone else complaining.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
My favorite part of this thread was when you thought you were engaging in a good faith discussion despite the fact he's raised the spectre of a vast, left wing conspiracy several times.

I think he's debating in good faith, I think when he makes references to vast conspiracies he genuinely believes in them.

Well, it seems that more and more skeletons are bursting from their closets, animated by the fel magic of past sins once hidden, and rising up to destroy their keepers.

While some Democrats like Al Frankin were thrown under the bus, one Republican decided to take the coward's way out.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/37062873/rep-dan-johnson-commits-suicide-on-bridge-in-mt-washington

What Rose McGowan started has become a California style wild fire, burning through all sectors of society.

I don't think Rose McGowan started it. The NYT broke the story on Weinstein and she didn't say anything until a few weeks later about him specifically. The #MeToo hashtag was started by someone else as well.

Salma Hayek has written a bit about Weinstein too. It is, well, not comfortable reading.

 kronk wrote:

 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).