quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Why just politics?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wild haggis:
Maybe we women should give men a taste of their own medicine and start passing personal comments about them - especially their sexy (or lack of) bits! See how they like it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wild haggis:
Men the problem is you.
So do something about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by wild haggis:
Maybe we women should give men a taste of their own medicine and start passing personal comments about them - especially their sexy (or lack of) bits! See how they like it!

---

So your answer to sexual harassment at work is to increase it, rather than end it? Become the problem rather than seek a solution?

That'll work. Brilliant idea. (Except that female-on-male harassment in female-majority workspaces is rife, and you can draw your own conclusions as to how effective your suggestion is.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Did you miss the part where she walks this back? Talk about fragility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
Before men are men, they are boys. We need a thoughtful look at how we bring men up, the role models we supply them with, and the fact that, developmentally, boys tend to be raised by women and seem to spend a good deal of psychic energy on differentiating themselves from femininity as they individuate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Did you miss the part where she walks this back? Talk about fragility.

---

Or previous victim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Did you miss the part where she walks this back? Talk about fragility.

---

Or previous victim.

---

You mean you sexually harrassed a woman and she fought back? And you seek sympathy?

---

I mean, yes, that's exactly the opposite of what I mean.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I thought Doc Tor was referring to women sexually harassing men? It happened to me a lot, and of course, you laugh it off. I don't know how this connects with the reverse abuse, or how to deal with it, I suppose by a general campaign against abuse and harassment.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Did you miss the part where she walks this back? Talk about fragility.

---

Or previous victim.

---

You mean you sexually harrassed a woman and she fought back? And you seek sympathy?

---

I mean, yes, that's exactly the opposite of what I mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought Doc Tor was referring to women sexually harassing men? It happened to me a lot, and of course, you laugh it off. I don't know how this connects with the reverse abuse, or how to deal with it, I suppose by a general campaign against abuse and harassment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

One of the big shocks which Freud received was when female analysts (Karen Horney, and so on), began to report male envy of women's bodies, breast envy, and so on. I think Freud just blanked it out, but we are still wrestling with it. Thus, the female body becomes enviable and also greatly feared by some boys - but so what? What do we do now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

One of the big shocks which Freud received was when female analysts (Karen Horney, and so on), began to report male envy of women's bodies, breast envy, and so on. I think Freud just blanked it out, but we are still wrestling with it. Thus, the female body becomes enviable and also greatly feared by some boys - but so what? What do we do now?

---

Pretty much thought that Horney rejected the general concept, with exceptions. Positing instead that it was the power, not the part, that was envied.
There will always be abuse, but refusing to accept it as part of the environment is the first step in reducing it.
Ironically perhaps, though power is a component, females harassing males in the workplace is a child of sexism.

---

quote:

---

I thought Doc Tor was referring to women sexually harassing men? It happened to me a lot, and of course, you laugh it off. I don't know how this connects with the reverse abuse,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
One ominous reaction to the current calling out of lecherous males is that some men are retaliating by refusing to interact one on one with women in the workplace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keibat:
quwtzalcoatl wroe:

quote:

---

I thought Doc Tor was referring to women sexually harassing men? It happened to me a lot, and of course, you laugh it off. I don't know how this connects with the reverse abuse,

---

BUT it's much easier to 'laugh abuse off' if you are in the default-dominant/empowered status, which adult men are (even or perhaps especially in women-majority contexts). Massively easier.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keibat:
quwtzalcoatl wroe:

quote:

---

I thought Doc Tor was referring to women sexually harassing men? It happened to me a lot, and of course, you laugh it off. I don't know how this connects with the reverse abuse,

---

BUT it's much easier to 'laugh abuse off' if you are in the default-dominant/empowered status, which adult men are (even or perhaps especially in women-majority contexts). Massively easier. One of the points that's emerging fom the current surge of revelations in the entertainment industry and in professional politics is that women (and children) keep quiet because they do not feel they have the 'clout' – perceived authority – to be heard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by keibat:
BUT it's much easier to 'laugh abuse off' if you are in the default-dominant/empowered status, which adult men are (even or perhaps especially in women-majority contexts). Massively easier. One of the points that's emerging fom the current surge of revelations in the entertainment industry and in professional politics is that women (and children) keep quiet because they do not feel they have the 'clout' – perceived authority – to be heard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
It was also the first time I could recall any male co-worker ever asking permission before swooping in for the expected embrace in rare moments of farewell, celebration, etc.

---

I had that happen a number of years ago. Mr. Drop-Dead-Gorgeous had accepted another job, and when he was leaving he asked me -- since we were no longer co-workers -- if he could give me a hug. You betcha!

He was a really nice guy, which surprised me when he came to work for us. I have my own stereotypes and assumed anyone that attractive would think he was God's gift to women.

(He was also much younger than me and had a serious girlfriend... oh well!)
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Doc Tor--

I'm sorry for your bad experience.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Even former president George H. W. Bush has sexually harassed women. A couple of them came forward, recently. He reportedly touched their backsides, making a joke of "Who's my favorite magician? David Cop-a-feel." (Copperfield)


A statement was put out to the effect of "he sometimes does things playfully, but apologizes for any distress he may have caused".

I don't know if he still does this. I think he's in his 90s, but that doesn't mean he's stopped. He seems to do it when a woman is standing next to him, as when having a picture taken.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
It does seem to me that male-on-female harassment is more common than the other way round, but it's not clear to me whether this is because

a.) Men want to harass women more than women want to harass men; or
b.) Men have more power and so are more likely to get away with it.

If (a) is true, then the solution is a combination of men's education and female empowerment.

If (b) is true, then female empowerment won't necessarily solve the issue; it'll just put more women in a position where they can harass men. So harassment may end up more equitably distributed between the sexes but the overall level of harassment won't actually go down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But we all, men and women, need to be alive to the temptations that come with power. This can't be seen as a 'men only' problem. Because it's not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But we all, men and women, need to be alive to the temptations that come with power. This can't be seen as a 'men only' problem. Because it's not.

---

Slight tangent, but if you've done it, is there any way to redeem yourself other than apologising and never doing it again for the rest of your life?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you look at the rates of domestic violence, there's been a gradual upswing of female on male/female violence

---

quote:

---

until they are (at least in some studies) equal.

---

quote:

---

But we all, men and women, need to be alive to the temptations that come with power. This can't be seen as a 'men only' problem. Because it's not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
There is something deeply troubling that the people who argue (IMV correctly) that DT's behaviour as a sex-pest made him unfit to be POTUS are then silent about the husband of the other candidate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And it is sadly notable (I've noticed it more than once on these boards) that if someone posts about men abusing women, immediately someone will pop up with, "But what about women abusing men?"

---

It might be sadly notable, but there is an awful lot of people for whom the problem is simply abuse. We can work together, or you can ignore half the issue.

Men who've been abused by other men or by women, and women who've been abused by women, in the workplace and in the home, deserve to be part of the conversation. Unless you think otherwise, of course.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I have such a sense of hurt and outrage, that I tend to speak out about being abused. I suppose we could all exist in separate compartments, and only speak to identikits.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It might be sadly notable, but there is an awful lot of people for whom the problem is simply abuse. We can work together, or you can ignore half the issue.

Men who've been abused by other men or by women, and women who've been abused by women, in the workplace and in the home, deserve to be part of the conversation. Unless you think otherwise, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
It's going to be interesting. Theresa May literally cannot fire more than one of her MPs, or risks losing her majority in the House of Commons. According to The Independent, which is fairly anti-Tory biased, there's a lot of them that probably should be...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And it is sadly notable (I've noticed it more than once on these boards) that if someone posts about men abusing women, immediately someone will pop up with, "But what about women abusing men?"

---

It might be sadly notable, but there is an awful lot of people for whom the problem is simply abuse. We can work together, or you can ignore half the issue.

Men who've been abused by other men or by women, and women who've been abused by women, in the workplace and in the home, deserve to be part of the conversation. Unless you think otherwise, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not simply abuse. If you decide to punch me, for no reason, then it is simply abuse. However, if you punch me because you think power gives you permission, then understanding why you think this is true is important. Especially if society gives explicit or implicit approval of that power dynamic.
(Spoiler alert: it does!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Except when you say it, you don't seem to think it applies to women in positions of power.

---

quote:

---

I'm also not disagreeing with you that it's mainly men in positions of power. But I am also saying, and you appear to be denying, that subordinate men also suffer abuse under that system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And it is sadly notable (I've noticed it more than once on these boards) that if someone posts about men abusing women, immediately someone will pop up with, "But what about women abusing men?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
I agree this is, if a trend, an ominous reaction. It is also faulty logic. Our workplace categories now include not only women and men, but also straights and gays and bi and trans, etc. So segregating the sexes protects no one from anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

I am saying that subordinate men suffer abuse because of the system men set up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

Maybe men are less empathetic than women, so the threshold at which we stop caring that someone might not want to see a picture of our genitalia is lower. How you answer that question will affect what you think the solution is,

---

quote:

---

and it's hard to answer it without considering the case of women-on-men abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is impossible to answer without changing the way society views women and power.

---

quote:

---

Again, a lot of this is within the framework that women are complaining about. Solve the real problem and it solves for everyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is impossible to answer without changing the way society views women and power.

---

OK, so let's do that.

---

quote:

---

Not really sure what you're getting at.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
I agree this is, if a trend, an ominous reaction. It is also faulty logic. Our workplace categories now include not only women and men, but also straights and gays and bi and trans, etc. So segregating the sexes protects no one from anything.

---

The men who do this are publicly known to be straight (generally, they would have rather strong religious objections to anything else), so they consider themselves "at risk" - either to being overcome with lust, misunderstood, have false allegations made against them or whatever - when in the company of a woman, but not when with a man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Women need truly equal access to jobs and power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
The point that I am getting at, though, is that if you have a situation where men and women both have equal access to high-powered roles (such as MPs)...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
The contemporary workplace is, if sufficiently populous, likely to contain individuals 'publicly known' to be bi, gay, or straight.

That's the logical failure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
One ominous reaction to the current calling out of lecherous males is that some men are retaliating by refusing to interact one on one with women in the workplace.

---

I agree this is, if a trend, an ominous reaction. It is also faulty logic. Our workplace categories now include not only women and men, but also straights and gays and bi and trans, etc. So segregating the sexes protects no one from anything.

---

quote:

---

False accusations, AFAIK, are fairly rare. Such rare instances could as readily come from a male subordinate as a female one.

---

quote:

---

The contemporary workplace is, if sufficiently populous, likely to contain individuals 'publicly known' to be bi, gay, or straight.

That's the logical failure. Women are not necessarily safer alone with other women. Men are not necessarily safer alone with other men. Men who basically mistrust women simply prefer to imagine they are. It's bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is impossible to answer without changing the way society views women and power.

---

OK, so let's do that.

---

Join the feminist movement. We've been working on this for a while.

---

 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Can't we join forces to oppose social condoning of the abuse of power? I'm NE working class, grew up knowing what it meant to be put down for where you came from, not who you were. An experience which made me intuitively supportive of various civil rights movements. All prejudice tastes the same when you're on the receiving end of it. And most of it is based on instinctive pecking order assumptions, whether related to gender, tribe, social status.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Except when you say it, you don't seem to think it applies to women in positions of power.

---

Incorrect.

quote:

---

I'm also not disagreeing with you that it's mainly men in positions of power. But I am also saying, and you appear to be denying, that subordinate men also suffer abuse under that system.

---

Not even close.
I am saying that subordinate men suffer abuse because of the system men set up. Fixing the problem requires addressing the general power imbalance as well as not accepting individual cases of abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Can't we join forces to oppose social condoning of the abuse of power? I'm NE working class, grew up knowing what it meant to be put down for where you came from, not who you were. An experience which made me intuitively supportive of various civil rights movements. All prejudice tastes the same when you're on the receiving end of it. And most of it is based on instinctive pecking order assumptions, whether related to gender, tribe, social status.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think there is a danger of things getting out of hand.

For example, in the paper today there is a story about an MP who touched the knee of a journalist. The MP admitted it was inappropriate, the journalist has said that there were sharp words at the time but that she didn't think it particularly significant or important.

It seems to me that there are things that are undoubtedly happening in Westminster - such as daily drunkenness, bawdy behaviour, casual misogyny - without raking up someone touching someone else's knee.

Far more serious it seems to me are the stories that circulate about workers complaining about MP's bullying behaviour and nobody doing anything about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

And I don't think it is just about power - or at least it isn't always. MPs shagging secretaries is a bit of a game* in many different sectors of society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:


I don't want to see the really big issues - sexual assault, sexual harassment of the kind that derails careers and leads victims to make choices that limit their own lives so as to avoid further harassment - getting buried under a lot of hands on knees and "nice tits" comments, which would allow men to say it's all trivial.

The cultural issue and the power imbalance is massive, and not trivial at all. Sexual assault and harassment are not trivial.

A male colleague commenting audibly on the size of my "melons" (yes, that happened) is - relatively speaking - trivial.

---

FFS. This just drives me nuts - where the fuck where these men brought up? In what world is it funny or banter to talk to someone else about their body parts? I just don't understand.

I am not a paragon of virtue. But I can't imagine ever smirking to someone else about their body.

Nope. Sorry I'm a liar, I once asked someone about a tattoo. I hadn't even thought until now that it might have been inappropriate.

 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Unfortunately I don't think this is a class thing,

---

quote:

---

misogyny is endemic in working-class communities.

---

quote:

---

One can be entirely "right-on" with regard to various progressive causes and horrible to women.

---

quote:

---

And I don't think it is just about power - or at least it isn't always. MPs shagging secretaries is a bit of a game* in many different sectors of society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Would it happen without the power structure?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:


Nope. Sorry I'm a liar, I once asked someone about a tattoo. I hadn't even thought until now that it might have been inappropriate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

After a bit of self-examination, I have to admit that I've done it (commented audibly on the physique of a male colleague in an inappropriate way in the pub). But while "all have sinned and fallen short" may be helpful to us in our relationship with God, I'm not sure it helps us take action about a serious problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think there is a danger of things getting out of hand.

.... without raking up someone touching someone else's knee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
I think it more important to ask the political questions: Who is behind the publication of the list of malefactors? Why has it been published now? What agenda is it designed to promote?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Tories can afford to lose precisely one MP to this. Any more than one, and the game is up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some people just want to watch the world burn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Can't we join forces to oppose social condoning of the abuse of power? I'm NE working class, grew up knowing what it meant to be put down for where you came from, not who you were. An experience which made me intuitively supportive of various civil rights movements. All prejudice tastes the same when you're on the receiving end of it. And most of it is based on instinctive pecking order assumptions, whether related to gender, tribe, social status.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Women need truly equal access to jobs and power.

---

But I don't think anyone has actually denied that.

The point that I am getting at, though, is that if you have a situation where men and women both have equal access to high-powered roles (such as MPs),

---

quote:

---

but there is still a huge power imbalance between managers and staff, then it's not clear that you wouldn't just be creating more opportunities for female-on-male harassment.

---

quote:

---

IOW, I absolutely agree we need to address the power imbalance between men and women, but we also need to address power imbalances more generally in the workplace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I am literally not disagreeing with what you're posting.

---

quote:

---

And yet you feel the need to school me. It's as if you believe a mere man can't quite comprehend what a fucked-up system the Patriarchy is for most men. Trust me, I get it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think it is a fucked up system for most men.

---

No, of course not. We stand there at war memorials on 11 November remembering the men who died. Died in their tens, hundreds of thousands. No, not fucked up them at all.

And then there's the countless millions taught not to cry, to settle arguments with the fists, to play sports they have no aptitude for, to turn away from books, the arts, to be manly and not sissy and for God's sake, conform. That's not fucked up either.

And then there's the culture of 'breadwinning' that takes men out of the home and away from their children, to see childcare as something that women do, to become estranged from their own kids' lives until they become strangers because they never see each other. No, definitely not fucked up for most men whatsoever. Most of us men have got it peachy and we don't want to change it.


 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think it is a fucked up system for most men.

---

No, of course not. We stand there at war memorials on 11 November remembering the men who died. Died in their tens, hundreds of thousands. No, not fucked up them at all.

---

quote:

---

And then there's the countless millions taught not to cry, to settle arguments with the fists, to play sports they have no aptitude for, to turn away from books, the arts, to be manly and not sissy and for God's sake, conform. That's not fucked up either.

---

quote:

---

And then there's the culture of 'breadwinning' that takes men out of the home and away from their children, to see childcare as something that women do, to become estranged from their own kids' lives until they become strangers because they never see each other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Tories can afford to lose precisely one MP to this. Any more than one, and the game is up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Ye gods, I hadn't even thought of that.

A couple of MPs standing down, causing a by-election and their parties losing seats could be enough to cause the government to fall.

Eeek.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you want to bash patriarchy in general, I'm more with you than against. What we seem to have a disagreement on is how much men suffer from it. You seem to be implying a closer parity between men and women on this than I think is merited.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:


The uncertainty would be enormous, particularly if the mathematics worked out that if a few seats were lost by the Tories, the government would then fall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:


This is why there's a lot of staring intently at shoes going on at Westminster - it's possible that no party is going to emerge unscathed from this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The other parties are going to have to assemble a long list of miscreants to catch up - which they might.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:


This is why there's a lot of staring intently at shoes going on at Westminster - it's possible that no party is going to emerge unscathed from this.

---

True, but at the moment it is a list of Tories. The other parties are going to have to assemble a long list of miscreants to catch up - which they might.

The problem is that the Parliamentary arithmetic is tight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You don't appear to want to listen to men's experiences of how they too suffer under patriarchy.

---

I never said they do not. What I am saying is that the problem is not equally shared by men and women. Do you think it is?
 

---

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
I'm finding the political angle on this rather interesting, but I'm going to break the flow with a small anecdote.

Since I gave up my career to look after my kids (just establishing some right-on credentials, 'cos I'm going to need them in a minute) I've taken a PT job as a lab tech with my former employer.

I was chatting to a new, young-ish female postgrad a few weeks back, who is starting to work on an existing project which (as I have mused privately) looks somewhat doomed.

My own postgrad experience was not overly sunny, and in a spirit (I thought) of wry camaraderie, I mentioned 'I was a postgrad a good while back - eventually I even ended up with a PhD'.

No response.

'You know what that stands for, right?'

No response.

[Here I must point out that amongst all my cohort, the joke was that we were working towards Permanent Head Damage. Some of us have the prescriptions (and, in the case of two pure mathematicians, the mental in-patient status) to prove it].

Then she gave me a hard stare and said

'I've heard it claimed that it stands for Pretty Huge Dick'.

So is it my fault that postgrad banter has coarsened?

 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm not sure if anyone remembers something I said here a while back, but Oxfam says it has investigated 87 claims of "exploitation and abuse" for the year ending April 2017 leading to 22 dismissals.

Ominously, that charity says it is "not unique".
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Good. If every offender is instantly cashiered, and if the more famous ones are immediately pelted with insults, rotten tomatoes and horse manure, it's got to have a beneficial and chilling effect. Even with an unrepentant pussy-grabber in the Presidency, we can prune out a lot of the lower-level offenders. As I say, everyone is very welcome to lust in their heart. Be as dirty as you like in your fantasies. Go wild! But never tell anyone about it without asking first and securing a full and informed consent.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You don't appear to want to listen to men's experiences of how they too suffer under patriarchy.

---

I never said they do not. What I am saying is that the problem is not equally shared by men and women. Do you think it is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
It does seem rather unfair that some people are on this list for having had affairs or for having specific turn-ons. That's embarrassing, but nothing more. Does make me wonder who compiled this list and why.

---

I've seen what purports to be The List.

It's
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

It's

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
What is the origin of the list? The reason I ask is that it seems not too dissimilar from the kind of information known as 'Dirts' for which the Tory whips were famous, and threatened to broadcast to bring recalcitrant backbenchers into line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think anyone knows. I'd be amazed if the most scandalous details turn out to be true (..or provable).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Not for a moment to diminish the items that *are* properly serious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:


And then there's the culture of 'breadwinning' that takes men out of the home and away from their children, to see childcare as something that women do, to become estranged from their own kids' lives until they become strangers because they never see each other. No, definitely not fucked up for most men whatsoever. Most of us men have got it peachy and we don't want to change it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
As to the standards required of members of the armed forces, one is reminded of Churchill's comment: "Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I caught Anna Soubry (MP for Broxtowe - Con) on Woman's Hour. She'd worked for Fallon at Defence for a couple of years, spoke very highly of his capabilities as a minister

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Leadsom has used the criterion that harassment involves a woman feeling uncomfortable. Well, fair enough, but a few MPs must also be feeling a bit uncomfortable now. But as Doc Tor just said, maybe a bit of discomfort over a sexual advance is OK with an MP, but not a Minister.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Back to the Fallon resignation.

Q Who advised the PM on whether or not to accept (Parliamentary-speak for force to it) the resignation of Michael Fallon?
A Gavin Williamson, Government Chief Whip

Q Who advised the PM on a likely successor to Fallon?
A Gavin Williamson

Q Who did the PM appoint as Secretary of State for Defence
A Gavin Williamson

You couldn't make it up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Back to the Fallon resignation.

Q Who advised the PM on whether or not to accept (Parliamentary-speak for force to it) the resignation of Michael Fallon?
A Gavin Williamson, Government Chief Whip

Q Who advised the PM on a likely successor to Fallon?
A Gavin Williamson

Q Who did the PM appoint as Secretary of State for Defence
A Gavin Williamson

You couldn't make it up.

---

Given that there is a suggestion that the Whips office knew/knows a whole lot of stuff that they've not acted upon, is it a stretch to think that Williamson somehow used this as leverage to get a ministerial role?

---

quote:

---

If we weren't in a frenzy of denunciations, I wonder when either party would have done anything.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
betjemaniac

quote:

---

If we weren't in a frenzy of denunciations, I wonder when either party would have done anything.....

---

Quite so, but why should the whips make the information public? It's more useful if kept secret because the whips can use the threat of disclosure to keep individual MPs in line. That is why I find the disclosure of the information by Conservatives so intriguing. Who complied this dossier? Why was it disclosed now? To what purpose?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Q--

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Leadsom has used the criterion that harassment involves a woman feeling uncomfortable. Well, fair enough, but a few MPs must also be feeling a bit uncomfortable now. But as Doc Tor just said, maybe a bit of discomfort over a sexual advance is OK with an MP, but not a Minister.

---

Would you explain that last sentence, please? I can think of more than one interpretation, not all good.

Thx.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
betjemaniac

quote:

---

If we weren't in a frenzy of denunciations, I wonder when either party would have done anything.....

---

Quite so, but why should the whips make the information public? It's more useful if kept secret because the whips can use the threat of disclosure to keep individual MPs in line. That is why I find the disclosure of the information by Conservatives so intriguing. Who complied this dossier? Why was it disclosed now? To what purpose?

---

because, no matter how it's being trailled in the press, this basically *isn't* the whips list. It's a list which seems to have been drawn up by some Tory staffers for the benefit of new arrivals in the house for who to watch out for. It's a *gossip* list rather than the sort of thing the whips would have. Which is why much of it is embarrassing rather than worse, and some of it (not all) has already fallen apart as untrue on the first contact with daylight...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Apparently Michael Fallon put his hand on Julia Hartley-Brewer's knee - about 7 years ago. That's it. He, being one of the few gentlemen in the Commons at the moment, now realises that this was inappropriate and offered his resignation, which was accepted, etc, etc, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Leadsom has used the criterion that harassment involves a woman feeling uncomfortable. Well, fair enough, but a few MPs must also be feeling a bit uncomfortable now. But as Doc Tor just said, maybe a bit of discomfort over a sexual advance is OK with an MP, but not a Minister.

---

quote:

---

“... If someone is made to feel uncomfortable, or believes that others have acted inappropriately towards them, they should be able to contact an external, independent, specially trained support team—via phone, the intranet or face to face—so that any issue can be raised confidentially, and appropriate advice and support can be given.”

---

My problem with this statement is that I'm not sure that being made to feel uncomfortable is as bad as "being treated inappropriately" or deserves the same response.

I doubt if there's a single person in the history of the world ever who hasn't made someone else feel uncomfortable. But that's totally different from bullying, sexual harassment or other equally unacceptable stuff.

Tubbs

[ 03. November 2017, 11:15: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 

---

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
A question that needs to be raised concerns how sanctions might be imposed on an MP who has transgressed the prevailing moral norms. It is difficult to see how such decisions can be made by an ‘independent’ authority given that any recommendation for the suspension or expulsion of an MP, preventing him/her from voting, could have critical political and partisan consequences when the government’s control over parliament is fragile, as at the present time. That is why historically an important privilege for MPs was ‘freedom from arrest and molestation’. Is it desirable that the transgression of an individual MP, or several MPs, should be allowed to subvert the collective decision of citizens in the previous general election? At the end of the day, however dressed up, any decision on sanctions will be political rather than judicial in character, unless criminality rather than morality is involved.

What I find somewhat bizarre in the present situation is that Sir Michael Fallon is seen fit to remain an ‘Honourable Member’, a member of the Privy Council, and have his knighthood unquestioned, but unfit to be a member of the government. Does that mean that only the righteous can serve as members of the executive? Reform might promote virtue, but is more likely to enhance hypocrisy and political blackmail to the advantage of the whips, not to mention the yellow press.
 

---

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
What I find somewhat bizarre in the present situation is that Sir Michael Fallon is seen fit to remain an ‘Honourable Member’, a member of the Privy Council, and have his knighthood unquestioned, but unfit to be a member of the government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
A question that needs to be raised concerns how sanctions might be imposed on an MP who has transgressed the prevailing moral norms. It is difficult to see how such decisions can be made by an ‘independent’ authority given that any recommendation for the suspension or expulsion of an MP, preventing him/her from voting, could have critical political and partisan consequences when the government’s control over parliament is fragile, as at the present time. That is why historically an important privilege for MPs was ‘freedom from arrest and molestation’. Is it desirable that the transgression of an individual MP, or several MPs, should be allowed to subvert the collective decision of citizens in the previous general election? At the end of the day, however dressed up, any decision on sanctions will be political rather than judicial in character, unless criminality rather than morality is involved.

What I find somewhat bizarre in the present situation is that Sir Michael Fallon is seen fit to remain an ‘Honourable Member’, a member of the Privy Council, and have his knighthood unquestioned, but unfit to be a member of the government. Does that mean that only the righteous can serve as members of the executive? Reform might promote virtue, but is more likely to enhance hypocrisy and political blackmail to the advantage of the whips, not to mention the yellow press.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Phew. Don't things happen quickly?

I confess I have very few ideas to deal with this problem, but this thread has certainly given me plenty to think about: without debate, we all have silos in which our thought tends to be confined.

One thing I'm sure of is that we can't just wait for human nature to improve by itself. Parliament and government must tighten up their disciplinary procedures. That said, I know personally how difficult it is to raise a grievance against someone in a senior position. The more senior they are, the more evidence seems required to mount a case, and if you're the poor idiot who first raises the grievance, they can make your life intolerably uncomfortable in the meantime. I can only imagine it must be nigh-on impossible to bring a case against someone in the position of an MP.

One thing I think Parliament should do to improve discipline: close the bars. British MP must be one of the few jobs left where you can turn up to work drunk, and still have a job at the end of the day. Impose a rule of absolute sobriety on MPs while on official business. There's nothing like clear-headedness to make men think twice before allowing their hands to wander.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Apparently Michael Fallon put his hand on Julia Hartley-Brewer's knee - about 7 years ago. That's it. He, being one of the few gentlemen in the Commons at the moment, now realises that this was inappropriate and offered his resignation, which was accepted, etc, etc, etc.

BUT if its not appropriate for him to be SoS for Defence, how is it appropriate for him to be an MP?

(IMO while JH-B may not have welcomed the hand is that really worth the resignation of someone who was actually doing well at Defence? Really?)

---

quote:

---

One of those things - power and gender - is the chicken and the other is the egg; it's hard to know, I suspect, whether men tend to be abusive because they tend to be in power, and power is constructed so as to include violence; or whether people in power become abusive because they tend to be men, and masculinity is constructed so as to include violence. But it is all a construction, which means we can take it back apart and re-construct it differently if we work hard enough. For Christians, Jesus is a great example of de- and re-constructing both masculinity and power!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

It has been reported that the hand-on-knee wasn't the inappropriate action that led to him having to resign, but instead that he said something inappropriate to Andrea Leadsom.

Now it sounds a bit like even this wasn't absolutely terrible and could possibly be explained away as a very bad joke or stupid comment that slipped out.*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
churchgeek wrote:

quote:

---

One of those things - power and gender - is the chicken and the other is the egg; it's hard to know, I suspect, whether men tend to be abusive because they tend to be in power, and power is constructed so as to include violence; or whether people in power become abusive because they tend to be men, and masculinity is constructed so as to include violence. But it is all a construction, which means we can take it back apart and re-construct it differently if we work hard enough. For Christians, Jesus is a great example of de- and re-constructing both masculinity and power!

---

These are interesting points, but I would suggest that the 'construction' of masculinity, and also patriarchy itself, are social things. In fact, it's often called 'social construction'.

Another point is that these things are also unconscious, well, that is arguable, but it strikes me that way.

The problem then is how we are to deconstruct such things, if they are collectively carried out and unconsciously carried out.

I don't think it's impossible, as we can see from the current news events, but it's difficult to do it by lifting our bootstraps.

---

quote:

---

The Tories should suspend / remove the Whip from their MPs while investigations are on-going in the same way Labour has.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Tubbs

quote:

---

The Tories should suspend / remove the Whip from their MPs while investigations are on-going in the same way Labour has.

---

The problem is that this would occasion the collapse of the government given the number against whom accusations have been made. Labour, by contrast, is not so inconvenienced by suspending the odd MP at the present time. The difficulty is how to sanction an MP while securing the essentials of democratic government..

---

quote:

---

Tubbs: The Tories should suspend / remove the Whip from their MPs while investigations are on-going in the same way Labour has.

Kwesi:The problem is that this would occasion the collapse of the government given the number against whom accusations have been made. Labour, by contrast, is not so inconvenienced by suspending the odd MP at the present time. The difficulty is how to sanction an MP while securing the essentials of democratic government..

Tubes: I’m not seeing that as a downside...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
An American congresswoman is heroically trying to clean out the Augean stables that we call Capitol Hill. I think the only solution, especially in relatively closed environments like the government, is for the members themselves to step up and fix it.

---

Brenda the article stated than neither interns or fellows were covered by some of the protections mentioned. What are "fellows?".

Huia
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re Weinstein allegations:

Was watching Stephen Colbert's "Late Show" a little while ago. One guest was Ronan Farrow, who wrote the investigative piece about Weinstein that sparked this whole thing.

He's smart, dedicated, very well spoken, looks about half his age.

Hmmm, I thought. One of actress Mia Farrow's kids? And, given the abuse attributed to Woody Allen, this could be interesting.

So I looked him up (Wikipedia). Mia's his mom...and Woody is officially his biological father. (There are questions about that.)

RF made it clear in the interview, without naming names, that part of his interest was because sexual abuse had happened in his family, to one of his sisters, and he hadn't always taken it as seriously as he should. (From what I read in the Wiki on Mia, that would be his sister Dylan. The court info is very interesting.) Plus WA married Soon-Yi Previn, his step-daughter and RF's sister. RF and Mia are estranged from WA because of this.

So RF wound up with doing the Weinstein investigation. He said it was simply assigned to him. He's probably one of the best possible choices to do it.

So all the Hollywood guys who are tumbling are doing it because of Mia's kids.


As you can see in the Wiki article on him, RF has quite the resume': law, politics, activism, journalism. Maybe president someday?
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

If Fallon has said such inappropriate things as reported, and that is enough to resign, then there are likely to be a lot more people due for the chop. Because I have had that sort of comment said to many more times than I can remember.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Huia:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
An American congresswoman is heroically trying to clean out the Augean stables that we call Capitol Hill. I think the only solution, especially in relatively closed environments like the government, is for the members themselves to step up and fix it.

---

Brenda the article stated than neither interns or fellows were covered by some of the protections mentioned. What are "fellows?".

Huia

---

quote:

---

The terms fellowship and internship are sometimes used interchangeably in the names of specific programs. Fellowships are generally intended for persons with advanced degrees or substantial professional experience and are usually salaried positions lasting nine months to a year or more. Internships, which are either salaried or volunteer short-term arrangements, usually require relatively little experience and are often filled by students.

Although they are sometimes confused with interns, congressional pages are high school students who serve Congress as messengers. The House page program ceased operations in August 2011, but the Senate still employs pages. For more information on the Senate page program, see its website.

...

Fellowships in congressional offices are offered by many organizations—such as the American Political Science Association (APSA), the American Psychological Association, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers—which offer fellows exposure to public policy and the legislative process. Placement for these fellowships is generally not done through the Members’ or committees’ offices but instead through the sponsoring organizations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wild haggis:

I remember travelling to work on a crowded London Tube train a few years ago. A man behind me started to rub my bum (not acceptable by anyone except hubby!). In those days I did not have arthritis. I was wearing heels. I gave him a good backward kick on the shins! That soon stopped it. If he had complained I would, in my loud primary teacher's playground voice, have broadcast what he had been up to. I didn't need to, the kick was enough.

---

quote:

---

Boozy men often think they have the right to do and say anything. Never mind the fact these people formulate our laws.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Andrea Dworkin suggested the death penalty for rapists. I have no issue with this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And if there are four victims? Forty? At some point 'he said, she said' moves beyond the realm of possibility. Furthermore, if there are many victims a solid case could be made that the perpetrator is irredeemable and incurable.

---

quote:

---

Andrea Dworkin suggested the death penalty for rapists. I have no issue with this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
When the bad man does it with a weapon or violence, it's a little easier to consider doing them extreme violence. I've gotten over retaliatory dreams and fantasies of causing painful death. But they are fully understandable; .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Well if you insist, I would be good with life sentences with no parole. Hard labor, while we're at it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would hate to live in a society where people were executed out of revenge fantasies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Carl Sargeant, the Welsh Labour minister who had been stood down to face allegations about his behaviour, has been found dead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
As a rape survivor, I can't support such extreme penalties as death or life without parole. Too many of us subscribe to the belief that rape permanently and utterly destroys its victims. That this is sometimes true ignores the fact that most victims recover and move on with their lives. They may be changed -- I was -- but are not necessarily done in by the trauma.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Obviously this death is a tragedy - but unless I have missed something - this guy was not subjected to prolonged monstering by the press or anyone else. Allegations were made, he was suspended for an investigation to take place.

It is terribly sad that he reacted in this way, and we do not know what vulnerabilities he may have that led him to despair - but I don't think we know that he was mistreated in the process of the investigation.

(Also, mudfrog, afaik - this case was never at a level that required referral to the police.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think this piece is very good, in relation to the call to believe women - and what that actually means in terms of press reporting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

I'm sorry? Is it the police's duty or privilege to decide on that?
Surely it's for the police to decide if there's enough evidence to
arrest somebody.
It is for the magistrate to decide if there's enough evidence to send a suspect for trial, and for the jury to decide if there is enough evidence to convict.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:


I don't know how anyone is to navigate this. On the one hand, women who say things should be believed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No.
This is the problem.
When a woman is believed just in her accusation that means automatically that the accused is seen as guilty and that what he says is disbelieved.

---

quote:

---

That entirely removes 'innocent until proven guilty' and, as I said, believing the allegation even at the stage of accusation and before the arrest, means that the investigating police officer will then only look for evidence to corroborate the allegation and will ignore any evidence that does not uphold the 'truth' of the accusation.

---

quote:

---

What should happen is that an accusation is listened to, taken seriously and acted upon.

To automatically believe an allegation is to damn the accused even before he is arrested; and this is exactly what we are seeing.

---

quote:

---

I would also like a new law to be introduced that says an accused person cannot be suspended on account of an accusation, cannot be named on account of an accusation; rather they should only be named and suspended when an actual charge is made against them.

---

quote:

---

It can be months before an accused is actually charged with a crime; and they will be named, suspended from work, or even church, and deemed to be guilty by law enforcement, the media and the public. It should be at the point of being charged, not arrested that these things should be done.

---

quote:

---

I have spoken to women in the last few days and without exception they are all horrified, think this is a witchhunt and say that soon men will be afraid to leave the house because of these accusations of sexual abuse that amount to little more than touching a leg: words of women, not my words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would also like a new law to be introduced that says an accused person cannot be suspended on account of an accusation, cannot be named on account of an accusation".

---

quote:

---

They should only be named and suspended when an actual charge is made against them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan.

It strikes me that the classic case is of a male doctor or teacher upon whom a female makes advances. He quite rightly declines those advances, at which point the disgruntled woman or girl claims that he tried to assault her. It's one word against another ... but mud sticks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I know of a teacher who was at my sons' school a number of years ago.
An 8 year old girl accused him of touching her.
He was immediately suspended, the entire community was outraged that he had done this unforgivable thing - you can imagine a whole community of mothers and the hatred that was coming from them.
The poor bloke had a complete breakdown.

The girl then confessed that she'd lied because he'd told her off in class.

---

quote:

---

The evidence that I have seen strongly suggests that the vast majority of accusations of serious sexual assault(over 90% in most studies) are indeed truthful. The studies themselves are problematical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

"Always" doesn't seem to be a safe word in these cases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No.
This is the problem.
When a woman is believed just in her accusation that means automatically that the accused is seen as guilty and that what he says is disbelieved.

That entirely removes 'innocent until proven guilty' ....

---

quote:

---

The so-called W.(D.) test, set out by the Supreme Court in 1991, allows for an acquittal if a court has a reasonable doubt based on the totality of the evidence, even if the trier of fact does not believe the testimony of the accused. This has resulted in scores of trial judgments over the years, where judges say in written reasons that the defendant is “probably guilty,” but they must acquit.

---

quote:

---

... soon men will be afraid to leave the house ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

It depends on the sentence. Always take the accusation as undeniable fact? No. Always take it seriously? Yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

It depends on the sentence. Always take the accusation as undeniable fact? No. Always take it seriously? Yes.

---

Yes, that's my position exactly. It is much more likely too be truthful than not.

So far as the stats are concerned, I understand why they are problematic, from the viewpoint of statistical rigour. But the different studies all point towards predominant truthfulness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

As for this:

quote:

---

... soon men will be afraid to leave the house ...

---

Now you know what it is like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
even if his "Oh no's the false accusations" were accurate, it isn't a phenomenon limited to men. And he still doesn't have to worry about actually being raped nearly anywhere, being groped at work,* denied promotion or even a job, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
You'll have heard of Blackstone's ratio - better that 10 guilty people go unpunished than that one innocent person be punished.

You may or may not agree with that in the case of "ordinary" crimes. Like theft, where you as an individual run both the risk of someone stealing from you and getting away with it, and the risk of being wrongly accused.

Seems to me that the problem comes when people want to apply different rules to "gendered" crimes where someone's gender means that - to a first approximation - they run one risk and not the other.

Because if you change your mind about the relative acceptability of those two risks in the direction that your self-interest dictates, isn't that a contemptible double standard ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
You'll have heard of Blackstone's ratio - better that 10 guilty people go unpunished than that one innocent person be punished. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No.
This is the problem.
When a woman is believed just in her accusation that means automatically that the accused is seen as guilty and that what he says is disbelieved. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

As for this:

quote:

---

... soon men will be afraid to leave the house ...

---

Now you know what it is like.

---

No, actually he doesn't. Because even if his "Oh no's the false accusations" were accurate, it isn't a phenomenon limited to men. And he still doesn't have to worry about actually being raped nearly anywhere, being groped at work,* denied promotion or even a job, etc.

*Yes, I know, these do happen to men. But not nearly as often and typically by other men. And most men I know do not worry about it, but most women do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


The judge actually said that she wanted to find the accused not guilty but because of the nature of the case felt she had no choice but to give him a conditional discharge, make him pay £500 to the victim and place him on the sex-offenders' register.

---

quote:

---

I have yet to find anyone, man or woman, friend or stranger, after all this time later, who believes this man was guilty.


The arresting officer was a woman.
The prosecution and defence were women.
The judge was a woman.
The accusers were women.

---

quote:

---

That's the difference.
In 2017 even to be accused of an offence is to be automatically and indelibly guilty of the unforgivable sin - even if the case is dropped.

Mud does indeed stick and people will always whisper as the 'exonerated' and falsely accused man walks past them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:


In your example you say "conditional discharge". Here that means if the accused complies with conditions, there are no consequences. If he was finded and registered, it wasn't conditional.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:


In your example you say "conditional discharge". Here that means if the accused complies with conditions, there are no consequences. If he was finded and registered, it wasn't conditional.

---

I don't think this is the situation in the UK. A "conditional discharge" means that you get a fine and no other (eg custodial) penalty.

You get put on the register whether you go to prison or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Placement on the Sex Offenders can be timed, I've come across that for a particular case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, it is as No Prophet describes:

https://tinyurl.com/y7vx769b

No punishment = no fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, it is as No Prophet describes:

https://tinyurl.com/y7vx769b

No punishment = no fine.

---

Well it seems absolutely sure that a conditional discharge means you get on the sex offenders register, see here - where it is stated that one is on the register for the duration of the conditional discharge.

And according to this you still pay the Victim Surcharge, and possibly other fines and costs.

---

Other costs yes. But a fine is considered a punishment and that doesn't happen under a conditional discharge. A fine is a specific thing in law; other costs are not fines. Having to sign the register is not considered a punishment either; it's a public protection measure. Things like 'fine' and 'punishment' have precise meanings in law.

[ 09. November 2017, 14:19: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
OK. I'm wrong. But it is consistent to say that someone got a conditional discharge and had to pay something to a victim and also was put on the register. Possibly this is not technically a fine.

[ 09. November 2017, 14:29: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
This is everywhere now, US Senate candidate Roy Moore accused of molesting teen girl.
This is a good example of why waiting for the courts to grind around to a verdict is sometimes impossible. The election is in December; a good decision surely cannot be made in that time frame. The last thing that any voter would want to do is to vote for a man who gropes underaged girls. (Women beyond their teens? Oh, go wild, you can be president.) There are four women with similar stories, lowering the odds that this is just one lying slut. Moore himself is highly problematic, laden with baggage that you could kick up on Google, and this one more straw on the camel's back is already getting other Republicans to call for his withdrawal.
It is sad but too common, that public figures who loudly tout their own Godliness and moral stature are unmasked like this.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
One of my favourite comedians, and a bit of a hero, Jo Brand on why the smaller harassments matter.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Somewhere else on the internet we are discussing how far this should go. Like, suppose every other man you know has groped a pussy in the day. Should they be outed, shamed, fired, held up to ignominy and scorn?
I suggested the dividing line should be whether they are alive or dead. If you're dead, you get a bye, it can then be consigned to history. The past is another country; I do not care if Dwight D. Eisenhower or Benjamin Disraeli squeezed a knee. An exception could also be made for people like George HW Bush, who is clearly either senile or under heavy meds. Every other man? The pillory.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Missed the edit window, but this is too good not to cite. The headline says it all, but here's the money quote:
“Take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus,” Alabama State Auditor Jim Zeigler told The Washington Examiner. “There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here. Maybe just a little bit unusual.”
 

---

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Apparently he overlooked the Bible passage where Mary, unlike the women complaining about Moore, consents.
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 


Jim Ziegler's comment is just vile.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Firstly, no consent in modern law can be given even if you wanted to. A minor can be as willing as anything, but legally it's non-consensual.

Secondly, there is nothing in the Bible about the ages of Mary or Joseph. There;s a lot of summising (Mary was 12, 'Joseph was an old man', as the song says).

I myself have said in carol services in years gone by that Mary, being unmarried, would have been 13 or 14.
I think it would be a brave minister who trotted that stuff out nowadays!

Best to stick to what the Bible actually says - just because she was a virgin doesn't mean she was a child. There's nothing to suggest Joseph was old, a widower, or anything like that.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Given the time period, a young Mary/adult Joseph is a reasonable assumption.
But it isn’t a reasonable pairing now nor when Moore allegedly did so.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't think we should really be taking marriage guidance (and/or sexual guidance) lessons from the bible. And those who do should be loudly mocked.

Stick to the damn point: we all agree that doing this with a 12 year old is bad, whatever the blessed Mary may or may not have been.

edit: sorry this isn't attacking Mudfrog, I was trying to direct it at the ridiculous Republican defenders

[ 10. November 2017, 11:14: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Best to stick to what the Bible actually says - just because she was a virgin doesn't mean she was a child. There's nothing to suggest Joseph was old, a widower, or anything like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I thought the point of the Mary story was to have God plant his seed into unplowed soul. With the ancient belief that women provided only the growth medium for the man's planting. Because the seed is wholly God, Jesus is fully divine. The biblical is of course that God asked for her consent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Because the seed is wholly God, Jesus is fully divine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There are those who condemn it as self-serving, inaccurate, and omitting the key word 'sorry.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a great article, written by a conservative columnist. After years of dismissing the complaints of women, he allows that we should not always but some of the time be heeded. And what changed his mind? The Me Too movement, which produced so much testimony that he could no longer attribute it all to feminine cupidity or foolishness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There are those who condemn it as self-serving, inaccurate, and omitting the key word 'sorry.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I could condense it down even further for you: Do as you would be done by. You do not want your crotch grabbed? Don't grab crotches. You don't want your boss chasing you around and around the xerox machine? Don't chase your secretary. You would dislike it if your 14-year-old were assaulted? Don't assault 14 year olds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I hate to point out to you that Bill Clinton is no longer in office. i

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Is that so complicated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK. I'm wrong. But it is consistent to say that someone got a conditional discharge and had to pay something to a victim and also was put on the register. Possibly this is not technically a fine.

---

In murder and manslaughter, (1) A person should be taken to intend a result if he or she acts in order to bring it about and (2) In cases where the judge believes that justice may not be done unless an expanded understanding of intention is given, the jury should be directed as follows: an intention to bring about a result may be found if it is shown that the defendant thought that the result was a virtually certain consequence of his or her action. The rules might be the similar for other offences, but IANAL.

It sounds like the judge decided the actions could result in an offense, the defendant was aware of that but did it anyway.

Sometimes a Judge might prefer to let someone off having heard all the evidence, but they have to follow the sentencing guidelines so they award the least they can. The entry on the Register lasts for the period of the discharge.

Someone who was in the building but didn’t witness the incident doesn’t automatically get interviewed. Or if they are interviewed, it would be very short.

Q: Did you see the incident?

A. No

Job done. Nothing else is relevant.

I read way too many crime books.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And now, per the news, Al Franken (senator and "Saturday Night Live" alum) has joined the list of offenders.


Will be interesting to see if, how, and when SNL handles this.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
{Presented for your consideration, on a YMMV basis.}

I was looking around on Instructables, and came across "Street Safety For Women", written by a woman who survived two attacks on the street. IMHO, it's really well done, and she won a contest for it, too.

A lot of this could be used for indoor, at-work situations, I think. Worth a read.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Golden Key:
[QB] {I've been trying to figure out whether I should say this, or how. I think it might be important. So please bear with me. If you get angry, please skip to the end and read that.}


...when there's a lot of justified rage against certain people, it can spill over onto other people...

So I gently suggest that decent guys and trying-to-be-decent guys be extra circumspect about touch, comments, and sexual behavior.

A few guidelines,
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
{I've been trying to figure out whether I should say this, or how. I think it might be important. So please bear with me. If you get angry, please skip to the end and read that.}


...when there's a lot of justified rage against certain people, it can spill over onto other people...

So I gently suggest that decent guys and trying-to-be-decent guys be extra circumspect about touch, comments, and sexual behavior.

A few guidelines, which you probably already know, but just in case:

--Don't behave remotely sexually (however playful you might think it is) with someone over whom you have power.

--No whistling "appreciatively" at people passing by, or people you know (kids included). (I've yet to hear a woman say she likes that, and we generally take it as very inappropriate.)

--Hands off, literally.

--Don't make sexual jokes.

--ASK FIRST, politely, if you want to behave sexually with a person. Unless they very specifically say "Yes", don't proceed.

If, for whatever reasons, you find that problematic, talk to a therapist who can help you figure out if there's a problem you need to address.

I've been in a bunch of "me, too" situations, throughout my life. I know there are good guys. I also know that sometimes guys think boundary lines are fuzzy. And I know that many, many victims/survivors of abuse/harassment are raging. If we/they go all Krakatoa, you don't want to unnecessarily be in the way.

FWIW, YMMV. Apologies for any offense. I'm pragmatic, and this is me acknowledging that there are a) decent guys and b) I don't want them hurt. (Not always easy for me.)

---

A couple of additions. Some from my own experience, on the receiving end. And, while I'm mostly writing to men to keep them from over-stepping boundaries with women that they may not have considered, I think it probably applies to women and other genders, too.

--Do not sneak up behind a girl/woman. Even if you know her. Especially not in an isolated place. Don't poke, tickle, or grab her. Do not try to scare her. No matter how "funny", "cute", or "clever" you think it is, or think *you* are.

(IME, some normally decent guys can be totally and completely clueless about this.)

--Do not put your hands around a girl's/woman's neck to choke her, whether pretend, playfully, or seriously. And if you find out that you spaced out or lost time while doing that, {get thee to a therapist immediately. No excuses.

--Don't block a girl's/woman's way--on the street, on the stairs, on public transportation, at work, at school.

--Don't grade girls/women, put notches in your bedpost (figuratively or otherwise), compete over getting a girl/woman, or toss money at a woman or girl.

--In an elevator, don't stand close to a girl/woman--especially if you're the only ones there.

--If anyone tells you that the way you treat girls/women is way out of line, take them seriously--even if you think they're being over-sensitive spoilsports. You're lucky they're telling you, rather than beating the crap out of you. Seriously. Take the hint.

--Don't keep targeting a girl/woman, like she's a prize to win. Get a hobby.

--Don't take/hide her keys, purse, phone, etc.

--Don't offer her a ride home, if the purpose is to behave sexually with her--or if you think that's your deserved bonus for being a good guy.

--Don't pursue the babysitter.

--Don't assume that a girl/woman is "playing" hard to get. If she doesn't specifically, verbally say "Yes, I want to be involved with you", leave her the hell alone.

--Just be a *good* man.


 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm not sure who you think you are talking to or how typing this list here is helping, GK.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mr cheesy--

It goes with my original list, which I also included in this recent post.

I suggested that "decent and trying-to-be-decent men" be extra circumspect, because it would be easy for the righteous anger at abusive men to spill over onto them.

I've also found, personally and repeatedly, that a lot of guys I know to normally be decent sometimes truly don't get where the boundaries are--ESPECIALLY if they think they are being funny. Sometimes, when a person thinks of something they find funny, everything else in their mind/brain seems to shut down. No behavioral filters. No empathy. No common sense. Even if they normally excel at those things. I've found that, after some guys have fallen into that "oh, I'm sooo brilliantly funny" trap, they have a really hard time understanding what they did was over the line. So, if they know ahead of time, and can avoid crossing the boundaries, life will be much easier for everyone concerned.

And...well, I'm in the "me, too" camp, and a good many things on those lists have happened to me. And all the news and revelations are triggering a lot of things with me, and I figured this was a positive way to deal with that.

FWIW, there are people who agreed with my original list.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I understand, I just don't think your list is particularly helpful. And isn't really helping discussion here.

For example these two:

-- Don't keep targeting a girl/woman, like she's a prize to win. Get a hobby.

-- Don't assume that a girl/woman is "playing" hard to get. If she doesn't specifically, verbally say "Yes, I want to be involved with you", leave her the hell alone.

If I'd listened to these, I'd have never have met my wife properly.

We met briefly but not for long enough to exchange contact details. I had to use various other ways (bearing in mind this was more than 20 years ago and things like facebook didn't exist) to get back in contact.

At some level one has to go out on a bit of a limb in order to risk meeting someone. The problem is the point where that become stalking and/or creepy unwanted attention. I think almost everyone has to "target" a desired lover.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
FWIW: I said "don't *keep* targeting". As in, over and over again.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
FWIW: I said "don't *keep* targeting". As in, over and over again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

2/ it must have been generally considered that those who'd formerly had their pussys grabbed by him were, 'up for it' as it were.

---

AKA a variant of the "but she was wearing a miniskirt" rape "defense".
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
The root assumption seems to be that women are black holes, mysterious and unfathomable beings. You poor man, you cannot know what we are thinking and therefore you have to keep on pestering us, looking for secret signal flags.

Could you instead treat us as adult human beings? Ask. "Is there a possibility of this going somewhere, or should I move on?" When she says no, believe her and seek elsewhere; do not ask again. If she says 'maybe,' then ask her what your next move should be. (If she says 'yes' then I assume you can manage the picking up of the ball and running yourself.)

And you will be aware, won't you? That sometimes she feels she cannot say no, because you're an employer, a teacher, a Congressman, because she's 14 years old. But at the very least you can ask out loud and get a verbal consent. That gets you past the 'grope her pussy' bar.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Brenda
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
FWIW: I said "don't *keep* targeting". As in, over and over again.

---

Almost everyone has to keep targetting a desired lover. What does this mean?

I suspect what you are intending to say is that if one gets the brush-off, then a "good man" realises that the lady isn't interested and stops pursuing her.

But it isn't as easy as that - which is another reason why posting a list isn't very helpful in-and-of itself. For example - many stalkers are people who previously were in a relationship with someone else, the relationship broke down and the person continued trying to get back together until the point where it became incredibly creepy, unwanted and horrible.

On the other hand, someone who is attracted to someone else and then tries to see them again (and again and again) but isn't given a direct instruction to stop is not necessarily being creepy. Quite often in human relationships things are ambiguous - and not everyone has the emotional intelligence to pick up signals (in both directions).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK, so please stop saying targeted in defence of your position, it is creepy as fuck.
There is a distance between obvious stalker and innocent, but determined wooing; but there is also an overlap in the middle.
One problem I see is that people can see another person as a potential partner and then begin the pursuit. The problem with this is that the potential partner is not always viewed as a complete person, but a goal. Becoming a friend along the way is never part of the plan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK, so please stop saying targeted in defence of your position, it is creepy as fuck.
There is a distance between obvious stalker and innocent, but determined wooing; but there is also an overlap in the middle.
One problem I see is that people can see another person as a potential partner and then begin the pursuit. The problem with this is that the potential partner is not always viewed as a complete person, but a goal. Becoming a friend along the way is never part of the plan.

---

I very much agree with all of this. I'd add that cultural traditions are highly problematic here. The dating culture of my youth seems to have largely disappeared, but the assumption behind it have not - men are still assumed to be the stronger actors in the beginning stages of relationships. Women used to wait to be asked out; now they wait for men to send them messages on dating sites. Obviously a lot of people have figured out that they don't need to do things this way, but the narratives in popular movies and books are a potent reminder of the highly gendered roles of pursuit, and it will take time to make that go away and replace it with a more egalitarian model of relationship building.

---

Not so much an overlap as the potential for things to go either way depending on the situation and the people involved.

A determined wooer moves on if the person they’re attempting to woo gives them no encouragement or tells them to go away. They give it a go, but accept the other person has agency and may not want the same outcome as them.

The stalker takes no hints, however blunt, or any account of the other person’s feelings / situation. They are convinced if they keep at it they will eventually get what they want.

We definitely need a different dating model. And movies / TV needs to stop normalising behaviour that in normal circumstances would be deeply weird.

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
And now journalist Charlie Rose. (Am currently listening to the PBS Newshour on the radio.)


 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Finally, someone proposes a solution that I think will actually work. Of course these allegations are being weaponized. Here's how to cut that off at the knees.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Non-disclosure agreements are simply hush-money, and have no place in this, or any world.
 

---

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
What do i do with the naggng despair that I as an autistic male virgin at 40 don't know the first thing about what to do if ai was ever presented with possible signals of interest- and may not know what they are.. but the testosterone is blasting away and i feel that knot of despair of ever experiencing that thing Successful Men experience.. when a couple finally unite and that is written about in Song of Songs?

I don't want to do wrong - but I also don't want to die a virgin...
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
What do i do with the naggng despair that I as an autistic male virgin at 40 don't know the first thing about what to do if ai was ever presented with possible signals of interest- and may not know what they are.. but the testosterone is blasting away and i feel that knot of despair of ever experiencing that thing Successful Men experience.. when a couple finally unite and that is written about in Song of Songs?

I don't want to do wrong - but I also don't want to die a virgin...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I believe the SoF Commandments prevent the giving of personal advice. So I will only point out that the solution must be found locally, close to you. By definition having (partnered) sex involves being in proximity to a partner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I believe the SoF Commandments prevent the giving of personal advice. So I will only point out that the solution must be found locally, close to you.

---

quote:

---

The Ship is not an adequate stand-in for counselling services. Posts which seek to elicit such responses are strongly discouraged, and repeated posts along those lines will be deleted

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex Cockell:

I don't want to do wrong - but I also don't want to die a virgin...

---

The word but absolutely, in the strongest possible sense and with the utmost emphasis, does not belong in that sentence.
[..]
The sentence, as structured, implies that the first part is conditional on the second. This may well not be the way you mean it, I don't wish to imply it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
That's not how I parse Alex's sentence.

My reading of Alex's post is that he doesn't want to miss out on an opportunity that is being offered though an excessive abundance of caution.

---

Pedantically, but is used to contradict or modify the preceding statement. Using and would have been a clearer choice, regardless.
However, I’d did say I didn’t want to assume.
Dating, for the unsure, is a fraught affair. False expectations, such as the “Successful Men experience” certainly don’t help.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Alex may also simply have meant that sex outside of marriage is proclaimed to be wrong; he doesn't want to do anything wrong; but he doesn't wish to remain a virgin.

From what he said, and from what I've seen from his posts over the years, I don't think he's referring to doing anything non-consensual. He simply has a rough time picking up on signals, because of his autism.



I wonder...would it be wise to start an All Saints thread for this branch of the discussion? There's a little more leeway there for personal matters.

FWIW.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I can only offer Alex sympathy and reflect that navigating this is a minefield for people with autism.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can only offer Alex sympathy and reflect that navigating this is a minefield for people with autism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can only offer Alex sympathy and reflect that navigating this is a minefield for people with autism.

---

Yup.

Add to that how I'm hauling myself back from the very gravemouth - after 30 years of suicidal eating (you know the story). It's difficult to believe oneself as "attractive" and somehow magic up this "confidence" I am supposed to have from nowhere...

Add knee damage from carting around all the excess weight... and after all that internalising of sex-neg.. and get hammered by even more of it...

[ 23. November 2017, 12:59: Message edited by: Alex Cockell ]
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Alex C--

Would it be possible for you to talk to a therapist? At least for a few sessions?

I'm in therapy for other things, and I know that it helps me a lot to vent, let everything out, and have someone there who can help me figure out what to do next.

If you already have a therapist, great. I'm not trying to push you away from talking to us. But a therapist can be there just for *you*, uninterrupted, and has skills we don't.


 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Yes, that was my first thought: hiring professional assistance. There are therapists who can help with these issues.

As to the sending of ucky photos, I would hope that by this late date all men, everywhere, know what shall ensue. An unsolicited photo is likely to be laughed at, shown to girlfriends over drinks with many snorts and giggling, memed with witty captions and shared on social media ("Planter's Peanut, the Return of the Inadequate!"), and (if you are unlucky) discussed solemnly on the evening news. Do not let Anthony Weiner's suffering be in vain, gentlemen. Learn from the folly of your elders.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

Let me say this again, in bold for emphasis:

The Ship's FAQs say this:

quote:

---

The Ship is not an adequate stand-in for counselling services. Posts which seek to elicit such responses are strongly discouraged, and repeated posts along those lines will be deleted

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Eutychus--

Eeep! I apologize. My understanding, from a variety of past Ship circumstances, was that we were supposed to refer a Shipmate in need to counseling, which is what I did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can only offer Alex sympathy and reflect that navigating this is a minefield for people with autism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
Getting back to the original purpose of this thread, may I suggest a title change to "What are we going to do about men?"

Apparently Garrison Keillor has now been accused of inappropriate conduct, according to the Washington Post.

---

And Minnesota Public Radio has ended all contracts with him, and there's talk of changing the name of "Prairie Home Companion". (For those who don't know: it's an old-timey radio show he created, long-running and beloved. He retired from the show last year, and it's now hosted by Chris Pheelie, and changed somewhat.)

This one really shocked me. I don't know the truth of it. But...


And journalist Matt Lauer has been fired, after 20 years, from NBC's "Today Show" for inappropriate conduct. Someone on the news said this had been known. He had a button on his desk that would lock his office door. In one case, he got a woman in there, locked her in, and forced her to have sex. Etc.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Garrison Keillor's statement on his own page.

From this and what I heard on the news, I think his position is that whatever he did was misunderstood, but he's just done with the whole thing.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Oh, and I misspelled the name of the current host of "Prairie Home Companion". It's Thile.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
What's sadly ironic is that Keillor wrote an opinion piece in the Post only the other day (and now I can't find the link) defending Matt Lauer.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Damn, missed the edit window. No, my mistake. He wrote about Al Franken. Here is a (free) think piece from the Atlantic about Keillor's downfall.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Just wanted to note that the majority of men who have owned what they did have been lefties and the majority of men who attempt to deny what they did have been conservative.
This plays directly against the "liberal hypocrisy" bullshit which has been trotted out after Weinstein.

OK, now cue the usual band of idiots to claim otherwise.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't know much about Garrison Keillor and dislike anything I've heard heard that he's made.

It does seem a bit extreme of Minnesota Public Radio to "fire" him based on an allegation.

Again, as we've discussed before, it is a tricky thing to get right. I dunno, I'd just think that it ought to be possible to pause the editorial relationship until the allegation is investigated. Right now, he's become a scapegoat.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Brenda--

Thx for the links re Keillor and Franken. The one in The Atlantic about Keillor is very good. The Washington Post article *by* Keillor has an interesting header--Keillor evidently wrote a defense of Franken, while knowing that he himself was under investigation, and didn't warn the Post. They're not happy.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune also covered the story. Keillor told them:

quote:

---

“I put my hand on a woman’s bare back,” he told the Star Tribune by e-mail minutes after MPR’s statement. “I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Caesar's tax payer funded computer must be clean, let alone his wife, I suppose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I suppose this had to be plainly stated so that everyone knows it. No. No one wants to see your penis.

---

Brilliant! Thx for this, Brenda.

The opening made me think of the musical/movie "How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying". And that reminded me of the scene with "A Secretary Is Not A Toy" (MetroLyrics).

In the performance, though, it's iffy whether the characters really mean the lyrics. But the lyrics are good.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I saw a production of Pajama Game a week ago. I'm sure all the chasing of secretaries and predating of female co-workers was merely funny back in the day. Now it has a dark, ugly edge.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
The Minneapolis Star Tribune also covered the story. Keillor told them:

quote:

---

“I put my hand on a woman’s bare back,” he told the Star Tribune by e-mail minutes after MPR’s statement. “I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.”

---

As I read that, it's more serious than the original news that he simply put his hand on her back. It sounds like a) she was wearing an open shirt (presumably over something else, maybe a halter top); and b) he slipped his hand up *under* her shirt.

I don't know what the truth is. But, if true, this isn't good.

---

quote:

---

Keillor told the Minneapolis Star Tribune he committed an accidental act of indecorum when, intending to pat a colleague on the back, he accidentally reached underneath her untucked shirt.

---

Putting his hand under her shirt and sliding his hand up 6 inches, by his reckoning, is very different from simply patting an emotional colleague on the back.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
"John Hockenberry, Former NPR Radio Host, Accused Of Sex Harassment" (MSN).

I wonder if this has anything to do with his leaving his show "The Takeaway", earlier this year? As a listener, it seemed very sudden. Afterwards, both he and NPR (?) put out the kind of pleasant, but cryptically uninformative statements that happen when there's a problem.

He allegedly harassed a guest (!), and she recently did some investigating on her own. She found other victims.

His apology is in the article. I'm getting so sick of apologies that basically say "oh, I didn't know, I'm sorry you were uncomfortable, you misconstrued what I meant, blah blah blah".

 

---

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Damn, missed the edit window. No, my mistake. He wrote about Al Franken. Here is a (free) think piece from the Atlantic about Keillor's downfall.

---

quote:

---

That effect is its own kind of landscape, its own kind of frontier—a version of manifest destiny in which expansion is not geographical but ideological, and in which justice, rather than justification, is the guiding ethic. The new American landscape is a cultural space that is cognizant of power differentials and mutual respect. It is one that strives for equality. And it is one that takes for granted the conviction that belittling those who are less powerful—all the women are strong—will have, finally, meaningful consequences.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't know what the truth is. But, if true, this isn't good.

---

The WNG site interprets somewhat similarly to me.

quote:

---

Keillor told the Minneapolis Star Tribune he committed an accidental act of indecorum when, intending to pat a colleague on the back, he accidentally reached underneath her untucked shirt.

---

Putting his hand under her shirt and sliding his hand up 6 inches, by his reckoning, is very different from simply patting an emotional colleague on the back.

---

quote:

---

A few guidelines, which you probably already know, but just in case:

--Don't behave remotely sexually (however playful you might think it is) with someone over whom you have power.

--No whistling "appreciatively" at people passing by, or people you know (kids included). (I've yet to hear a woman say she likes that, and we generally take it as very inappropriate.)

--Hands off, literally.

--Don't make sexual jokes.

--ASK FIRST, politely, if you want to behave sexually with a person. Unless they very specifically say "Yes", don't proceed.

If, for whatever reasons, you find that problematic, talk to a therapist who can help you figure out if there's a problem you need to address.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Writer C.J. Cherryh condensed the rules down even further for us the other day: Don't do anything that you wouldn't want done to you in a cell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
saysay--

In what way are those guidelines unreasonable, please?

Thx.

---

quote:

---

--Don't behave remotely sexually (however playful you might think it is) with someone over whom you have power.

---

quote:

---

--No whistling "appreciatively" at people passing by, or people you know (kids included). (I've yet to hear a woman say she likes that, and we generally take it as very inappropriate.)

---

quote:

---

--Hands off, literally.

---

quote:

---

--Don't make sexual jokes.

---

quote:

---

--ASK FIRST, politely, if you want to behave sexually with a person. Unless they very specifically say "Yes", don't proceed.

---

This is another rule that people simply won't follow because they hate it. They've tried it on college campuses with affirmative consent rules (and, in CA & MY, with actual laws). But most people don't want the rule as it destroys too much of what they enjoy about romantic and sexual encounters. Personally I advocate for the base system, and realistically I think it's incumbent on the few people who do prefer explicit verbal consent to make that clear. Because they've been trying to get that one to catch on since the early 90s, and it hasn't, because it really just doesn't seem to be something most people want. Most people are capable of handling an unwanted kiss or come-on.

I think a lot of these things are things we can teach people to be more aware of (and we can tell them that they need to pay more attention to how their behavior may be affecting others, or how it may be read by them). But I don't think they're realistic as general rules.

And, in the end, I'm not sure how much they'd have an effect on the overall level of egregious sexual harassment, because I doubt that people who commit crimes would be willing to follow them.
 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
How about simplifying to: The other person gets to decide. You get to offer sex/touch/kisses/romantic dinner with violins playing/whatever to the person you desire. You get to do this once, and you have to make the explicit offer =before= deploying the hands, tongue, penis, violins, etc.

The other person gets to decide whether he/she wants to or not. Period. If the answer is no, then that's final. You don't get to go back and ask again, ten minutes/ten hours/ten days later. You do not get to assume that no means yes.
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Let's simplify it even more. Is it in your job description? Part of your assigned tasks or responsibilities? No? Then don't do it at work. Every second wasted on harassing colleagues is money stolen from the employer.

As all these stories come out, I'm continually astonished at the rationalizations and the arguments about shades of grey, when we're talking about what is, aside from all other considerations, unprofessional behaviour. In our office, we manage just fine without wolf-whistling, pussy-grabbing, and inappropriate jokes. We don't have rules; we are expected to exercise good judgment.

I'm told by some male colleagues that men simply cannot stop thinking about sex for a few minutes, let alone an 8-hour-shift. If this is actually true, it's still no excuse. Should I find myself thinking about sex at work, I can keep it to myself. We don't need a rule for that either; we are expected to have self-control.

And as for the 40% of millennials who think it's ok to fuck the boss, well, tell them they're just plain wrong. Unless their career goals include being fired by an ex and despised by their colleagues.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
After PBS talk show host Charlie Rose, now Tavis Smiley (Politico).


[ 14. December 2017, 08:11: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 

---

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :
 
Saysay wonders, "Do we no longer believe in redemption?"

Sadly, no. Not since boatloads of US televangelists did wrong, publicly repented, begged publicly for forgiveness, and then went and sinned again.

The real problem here is that there is no due process. Just as with Franken -- who agreed to undergo an ethics investigation and abide by the outcome -- Keillor has been ousted with no due process. Sen. Killebrand and others crying "Off with their heads!" do nobody any service when they cast due process aside. It's the Republicans who want to rule by fiat; liberals do themselves no favors by adopting the same tactic.
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:


The real problem here is that there is no due process. Just as with Franken -- who agreed to undergo an ethics investigation and abide by the outcome -- Keillor has been ousted with no due process. Sen. Killebrand and others crying "Off with their heads!" do nobody any service when they cast due process aside. It's the Republicans who want to rule by fiat; liberals do themselves no favors by adopting the same tactic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
The real problem here is that there is no due process. Just as with Franken -- who agreed to undergo an ethics investigation and abide by the outcome -- Keillor has been ousted with no due process. Sen. Killebrand and others crying "Off with their heads!" do nobody any service when they cast due process aside. It's the Republicans who want to rule by fiat; liberals do themselves no favors by adopting the same tactic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
We must also distinguish sharply between due process in a court of law, and employment. If you are on trial in a court you get your innings, the defendant has rights. But your employer does not owe you a job; you can get canned for any reason or no reason at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA: Reply to Ohher and Twilight
Hang on.
You are seriously saying that people who have been accused retain their positions? So the person accused of paedophilia should still run your child's crèche? Removing an accused person is SOP.
of accusations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
The real problem here is that there is no due process. Just as with Franken -- who agreed to undergo an ethics investigation and abide by the outcome -- Keillor has been ousted with no due process. Sen. Killebrand and others crying "Off with their heads!" do nobody any service when they cast due process aside. It's the Republicans who want to rule by fiat; liberals do themselves no favors by adopting the same tactic.

---

This is all about due process for the accused person. There has never been due process for victims. They get nil, and the bar in criminal court is so high that most didn't even try to initiate any process whatsoever. Now the things have shifted. The question is not to have the past due process reinstituted, it is to decide what the new due process should be. Which balance things better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA: Reply to Ohher and Twilight
Hang on.
You are seriously saying that people who have been accused retain their positions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
The real problem here is that there is no due process. Just as with Franken -- who agreed to undergo an ethics investigation and abide by the outcome -- Keillor has been ousted with no due process. Sen. Killebrand and others crying "Off with their heads!" do nobody any service when they cast due process aside. It's the Republicans who want to rule by fiat; liberals do themselves no favors by adopting the same tactic.

---

This is all about due process for the accused person. There has never been due process for victims. They get nil, and the bar in criminal court is so high that most didn't even try to initiate any process whatsoever. Now the things have shifted. The question is not to have the past due process reinstituted, it is to decide what the new due process should be. Which balance things better.

---

Ah, it the, "We were unfair to X in the past so let's be unfair to Y in the present and that will fix everything," plan. It's how OJ Simpson got away with murder. I don't think it serves anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ETA: Reply to Ohher and Twilight
Hang on.
You are seriously saying that people who have been accused retain their positions?

---

Perhaps you could just point out where exactly I said this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Whoa. No one said anything like that at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:

In our hypersexualized culture, where intimacy seems to been erased from our cultural menu, it is perfectly possible for two people to part company after a sexual encounter with one sincerely believing he's had consensual sex and the other sincerely believing she's had sex against her will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The issue right now is that the legal system is massively unfair to victims. It's awful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
The real problem here is that there is no due process. Just as with Franken -- who agreed to undergo an ethics investigation and abide by the outcome -- Keillor has been ousted with no due process. Sen. Killebrand and others crying "Off with their heads!" do nobody any service when they cast due process aside. It's the Republicans who want to rule by fiat; liberals do themselves no favors by adopting the same tactic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:

In our hypersexualized culture, where intimacy seems to been erased from our cultural menu, it is perfectly possible for two people to part company after a sexual encounter with one sincerely believing he's had consensual sex and the other sincerely believing she's had sex against her will.

---

Sorry, this is rubbish. Rape, date rape and other sexual abuses date back farther than our "hypersexualised" culture.
Yes, having two different ideas of what occurred can happen, but it is often due to male expectations that far pre-date any cultural shift.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:

In our hypersexualized culture, where intimacy seems to been erased from our cultural menu, it is perfectly possible for two people to part company after a sexual encounter with one sincerely believing he's had consensual sex and the other sincerely believing she's had sex against her will.

---

Sorry, this is rubbish. Rape, date rape and other sexual abuses date back farther than our "hypersexualised" culture.
Yes, having two different ideas of what occurred can happen, but it is often due to male expectations that far pre-date any cultural shift.

---

Again, try reading what I wrote. I did not claim that rape, sex assault, date rape, and other abuses did not exist before these current times. I am just pointing out that communication about sex, and communicating our expectations, hopes, desires, and needs about sex is often fraught, and often nonexistent, and often very badly managed even when attempted. The faults here are not necessarily exclusively on the masculine side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You said ' In our hypersexualized culture'. I am actually hypersexual. It brings compulsive thoughts and desires, but it does not force actions. I have never once even considered engaging in sex without explicit consent or a partner initiating every stage of the encounter.
Modern culture is not the factor you claim. If anything, modern culture is bringing more awareness that communication is important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You said ' In our hypersexualized culture'. I am actually hypersexual. It brings compulsive thoughts and desires, but it does not force actions. I have never once even considered engaging in sex without explicit consent or a partner initiating every stage of the encounter.
Modern culture is not the factor you claim. If anything, modern culture is bringing more awareness that communication is important.

---

My apologies for using a term in a way which differs from your more direct experience. I intended no slight to you or others similarly situated.

I've also been around for possibly more decades than strictly necessary. Contemporary culture, at least as I experience this in today's USA, emphasizes and exploits sexuality in far more explicit ways, and far more often, and in more numerous ways, than the one I experienced, say, in the late 1950s and early 60s. Your mileage may vary; so be it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that Franken has not been "ousted", he's planning to resign. Under pressure, yes, but he hasn't been "ousted" by the Senate voting to eject him, which is the only way he could be "ousted" at this point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
To take a broader point, most employment in the U.S. is at will. This means that employers can (and do) fire employees for any reason or no reason without much restriction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You said ' In our hypersexualized culture'. I am actually hypersexual. It brings compulsive thoughts and desires, but it does not force actions. I have never once even considered engaging in sex without explicit consent or a partner initiating every stage of the encounter.
Modern culture is not the factor you claim. If anything, modern culture is bringing more awareness that communication is important.

---

My apologies for using a term in a way which differs from your more direct experience. I intended no slight to you or others similarly situated.

I've also been around for possibly more decades than strictly necessary. Contemporary culture, at least as I experience this in today's USA, emphasizes and exploits sexuality in far more explicit ways, and far more often, and in more numerous ways, than the one I experienced, say, in the late 1950s and early 60s. Your mileage may vary; so be it.

---

I did not feel a slight, but feel that terminology so applied misses reality.
My point was that what I actually experience is what people imagine is caused by sexuality being more on display. Whilst I agree that society is more sexualised, I disagree that this is a cause or excuse for sexual harassment or abuse. The culture that created the expectations of sex is, IME/IMO older. Cinema from the 1940s and 1950s is far worse in how it treats sexuality. The expectations of female acquiescence is fairly rapey in those decades.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simontoad:
Speaking of the expectations of female acquiescence, I suppose somewhere in this thread that I have been avoiding is a discussion of pornography. There are some fairly rapey expectations on display there, inter alia, although the more destructive portrayal is probably the idea that women are in every circumstance and relationship imaginable up for sex all the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that Franken has not been "ousted", he's planning to resign. Under pressure, yes, but he hasn't been "ousted" by the Senate voting to eject him, which is the only way he could be "ousted" at this point.

---

LOL. We might ask Mr. Franken just how profoundly resigning under heavy pressure from his own party differs from being ejected by the Senate (a highly likely, but not necessarily certain, outcome had push come to shove).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
To take a broader point, most employment in the U.S. is at will. This means that employers can (and do) fire employees for any reason or no reason without much restriction.

---

As someone with a long and checkered employment history, sometimes with some small authority to hire and fire of my own, I can only say that's not my experience. Well, hiring is usually straightforward enough. Firing people is another matter. Most companies I've worked for had pretty well-defined policies in place about what would constitute cause, and what procedures people in my position had to follow to effect a dismissal that would not then lead to potential legal action or Labor Board hearings or some such.

I do, of course, understand that there are many other kinds of companies, and that many workers have absolutely zero protection, and that if more of us would only recognize that forming unions is perhaps the shortest route to securing some protection, we'd likely all be better off.

---

quote:

---

Last month, MPR was notified of the allegations which relate to Mr. Keillor's conduct while he was responsible for the production of A Prairie Home Companion (APHC). MPR President Jon McTaggart immediately informed the MPR Board Chair, and a special Board committee was appointed to provide oversight and ongoing counsel. In addition, MPR retained an outside law firm to conduct an independent investigation of the allegations.

---

quote:

---

It isn't clear cut, but the overall research suggests porn≠negative, not inherently. Overuse of porn appears to be of potential harm, as does violent porn. Both are often indicative of prior behaviour patterns, rather than the patterns being caused by porn.
I am not a massive fan of the objectification of women that is a huge feature of the majority of porn. However, I think porn reflects the objectification problem that society has rather than the reverse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am certain that porn gives men the idea to do stupid things.

---

quote:

---

I wonder if the solution to the problem postulated in the thread title is not sex education. Much much better sex education, to counterbalance all the misinformation in porn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
It actually seems highly unlikely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Last month, MPR was notified of the allegations which relate to Mr. Keillor's conduct while he was responsible for the production of A Prairie Home Companion (APHC). MPR President Jon McTaggart immediately informed the MPR Board Chair, and a special Board committee was appointed to provide oversight and ongoing counsel. In addition, MPR retained an outside law firm to conduct an independent investigation of the allegations.

---

To me it sounds like a Keillor got a lot more due process than a typical retail worker would get if they were fired after being accused of stealing their co-worker's lunches out of the break room fridge (or refusing to give the boss a blow job), but to some it seems like no process that results in the firing of a wealthy/famous white dude is ever considered "fair".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Last month, MPR was notified of the allegations which relate to Mr. Keillor's conduct while he was responsible for the production of A Prairie Home Companion (APHC). MPR President Jon McTaggart immediately informed the MPR Board Chair, and a special Board committee was appointed to provide oversight and ongoing counsel. In addition, MPR retained an outside law firm to conduct an independent investigation of the allegations.

---

To me it sounds like a Keillor got a lot more due process than a typical retail worker would get if they were fired after being accused of stealing their co-worker's lunches out of the break room fridge (or refusing to give the boss a blow job), but to some it seems like no process that results in the firing of a wealthy/famous white dude is ever considered "fair".

---

Perhaps my understanding is faulty, but I was under the impression that Keillor was unaware of the accusation and the investigation until the firing, and therefore had no opportunity to respond -- a kind of "guilty until proven innocent" approach from which any chance of proving innocence is voided. Apparently that's yet another of many rights ordinary workers surrender when they cross an employer's threshhold.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
To me it sounds like a Keillor got a lot more due process than a typical retail worker would get if they were fired after being accused of stealing their co-worker's lunches out of the break room fridge (or refusing to give the boss a blow job), but to some it seems like no process that results in the firing of a wealthy/famous white dude is ever considered.
<snip>

Keillor's firing come from Keillor himself. He's not a disinterested party. That doesn't necessarily mean he's being dishonest, but it's a factor we have to take into account. Most of what we think we "know" about his case comes from a party with an obvious agenda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
All of what we "know" about the accusations come from the woman herself, she has an agenda, too.

---

quote:

---

People don't kill themselves because they got fired, they do because they have become despised pariahs and have no way to defend against what is someone else's word when there were no witnesses.

---

quote:

---

other than "famous" makes the disgrace worse.

---

quote:

---

The famous person can no longer show his face anywhere in the country.

---

quote:

---

But this idea that it's perfectly okay to publically humiliate and disgrace any person on the unsubstantiated words of one accuser seems very dangerous to me.

---

quote:

---

Or is it that it's okay to condemn innocent people to public disgrace in the interests of a sea change? I understand the desire for that change, but do not believe the end justifies the means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Garrison Keillor's statement on his own page.

From this and what I heard on the news, I think his position is that whatever he did was misunderstood, but he's just done with the whole thing.

---

Am watching ABC's "World News Now". The news crawl at the bottom of the screen says that Keillor was fired due to "dozens" of accusations.

 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
Is misogyny (at best, abuse at worst) OK if it's for charity?
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
Before men are men, they are boys. We need a thoughtful look at how we bring men up, the role models we supply them with, and the fact that, developmentally, boys tend to be raised by women and seem to spend a good deal of psychic energy on differentiating themselves from femininity as they individuate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
Before men are men, they are boys. We need a thoughtful look at how we bring men up, the role models we supply them with, and the fact that, developmentally, boys tend to be raised by women and seem to spend a good deal of psychic energy on differentiating themselves from femininity as they individuate.

---

Yes! All of this!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Is misogyny (at best, abuse at worst) OK if it's for charity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
Before men are men, they are boys. We need a thoughtful look at how we bring men up, the role models we supply them with, and the fact that, developmentally, boys tend to be raised by women and seem to spend a good deal of psychic energy on differentiating themselves from femininity as they individuate.

---

Yes! All of this!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Here's a summary of the case against Keillor, from NPR. He seems to have run a thoroughly unpleasant workplace, not a place I would like to be employed in.

---

quote:

---

From this same main National Public Radio page, a congressman says it was okay to hit on a staffer because she was his soul mate. The feeling was decidedly one-way. She filed a complaint, got a large cash settlement, which the taxpayer paid for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If she really is your soul mate, she'll be your soul mate after hours. (But count on your wife to have a couple of home truths for you.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
I think that a ban on hitting on fellow employees - especially anyone whose career you have influence over - should be apply at all times and contexts so as to avoid any ambiguity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
I think that a ban on hitting on fellow employees - especially anyone whose career you have influence over - should be apply at all times and contexts so as to avoid any ambiguity.

---

16% of people these days meet their partner at work. The only category higher is 'through friends'.

So, no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
60% of the marriages in the world are arraigned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Is misogyny (at best, abuse at worst) OK if it's for charity?

---

Nope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
My feeling about that event is, at root, that it should not be necessary for men to do good through going to an expensive shindig in an expensive venue, with expensive prizes, which would siphon off some of the "donations", instead of writing a simple cheque and sticking it quietly in the post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Is misogyny (at best, abuse at worst) OK if it's for charity?

---

Nope.

---

It seems to me that a lot of the commentary on this news story is solely focused on whether the women at the event were being exploited/abused (hence the commentators criticising "lefties" for "infantilising women" instead of treating them as consenting adult). The bigger question is whether events like this damage society as a whole - in my view they do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I half heard today someone from a charity explaining that over a year they received far more from the numbers of coffee mornings, bazaars and such like held by ordingary folks than they did from the one off fundraisers of this sort. Figures were mentioned, but, as I said, I only half heard, being half asleep at the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It seems to me that a lot of the commentary on this news story is solely focused on whether the women at the event were being exploited/abused (hence the commentators criticising "lefties" for "infantilising women" instead of treating them as consenting adult).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I half heard today someone from a charity explaining that over a year they received far more from the numbers of coffee mornings, bazaars and such like held by ordingary folks than they did from the one off fundraisers of this sort. Figures were mentioned, but, as I said, I only half heard, being half asleep at the time.

---

As a data point the amount said to be raised from this particular event was 2M

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
Why do I imagine that there's no male attendees under sixty at such events?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
Why do I imagine that there's no male attendees under sixty at such events?

---

There were a number of people under 60 at the event, including a minor minister from the Department of Education who originally claimed to have left early.

The paradox was that various commentators have said that the women knew what they were getting in to, even as all the male attendees claim to have not known what was happening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:

As to the women, when someone specifies that you must wear black underwear to an event, what brand of thick must you be not to suspect that the underwear is going to play a role at some point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The question isn't the agency of women, but the acceptability of the behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
As the article claimed this event has a 30-year history (granted there will have been turnover among attendees) it seems unlikely that the men involved had no idea about the program.

---

quote:

---

As to the women, when someone specifies that you must wear black underwear to an event, what brand of thick must you be not to suspect that the underwear is going to play a role at some point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb]The kind of people who would enjoy this event are also the kind of people who would take business guests to a strip club.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:

As to the women, when someone specifies that you must wear black underwear to an event, what brand of thick must you be not to suspect that the underwear is going to play a role at some point?

---

You could think that the underwear was to match the dress so that it would be less apparent.
One would know that the outfit would be short, even potentially enticing, but still not think that propositioning and touching would be expected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
It's depressing that some people's first reaction to the situation of the hired hostesses is still to say: what did the women expect, having been asked to dress skimpily?

Journalist, Rachel Johnson (Boris's sister, no less!) was on 'The Third Leg' the other night, and this was the first thing she said. 'What did the women think was going to happen? They were told to wear short dresses, high heels etc?'

In other words, how stupid must they have been NOT to think that regardless of what they had been hired to do, implicitly they were clearly being employed to receive and encourage sexual advances.

I thought about places like Playboy clubs and Stringfellows. Do all workers in such places willingly accept sexual harrassement in the workplace because of what they're wearing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
Of course, some of us will guess wrong at some point. Creeps are creeps and are sometimes expert at getting under our radar. We're not responsible for what they do. We are responsible for knowing ourselves, what we will and will not put up with, and exercising such judgment as we've been afforded on that basis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I always find these top tips help me to have a rape-free life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ohher:
We all have the right to walk alone through high-crime neighborhoods at 2 a.m. wearing expensive attire, carrying wads of cash, and sporting valuable jewelry. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so.

---

quote:

---

Would the aforementioned columnists feel comfortable if their kid's teacher, for example, was accused by multiple students of sexual assault, but kept teaching until proven guilty?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0