Why Now is it ok for Women (and the occasional man) to talk abut sexual abuse?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Gorfias:
I did answer this already... see below.

You're the one who said it all makes sense if you understand female hypergamy. If you can't qualify that statement, it ain't my fault.

Now, do you have an opinion on the matter?

I generally find it's a bad idea to source your dating at the workplace. Too much unnecessary drama. There are the occasional couple who make it work, but that's the exception rather than the rule. As for regulation, comprehensive reform of how our society addresses sexual harassment in general would deal with most of the related questions.

BeetleManiac:
As for regulation, comprehensive reform of how our society addresses sexual harassment in general would deal with most of the related questions.

I think what we see happening now will be enough.
Women are coming forward now like I cannot recall in my lifetime. And famous, well known men are losing their jobs. Biggest watershed event since the Hill-Thomas hearings in the early 90s but I think it will stick more this time due to sheer numbers and more ease at getting word out. For instance, I think Bette Midler has been saying for years that Geraldo drugged and assaulted her.
Now she is being heard.
Geraldo tried apologia for this behavior. That did not go well. So even he is announcing contrition.

Because they get more attention now. Most of that was necessary in all fairness, some of it wasn't. I feel the situation overall was adequate and only in rare cases overblown.

Thaluikhain:
If someone is uncertain if their advances would be welcome or harassment, they should not do it.

While that's a reasonable-sounding statement, it's also a logical dead end as you can never be totally certain. It could be better if we had tact instead of politeness. Tactful initiative that's tactfully rejected or accepted.

Women have always talked about sexual abuse, it's just getting more media attention now.

Gorfias:
I think what we see happening now will be enough.

I presume that includes pending overhaul of how our country handles sexual harassment and assault. If the changes are going to stick we need fix the parts of the system that are broken.

This level of unacceptable actions and behavior from powerful men for so many years and how thoroughly they were covered up could only happen in a broken system. We're overdue for some basic maintenance.

Gorfias:

BeetleManiac:
Is it possible that those causative features [of hypergamy] are also directly tied to the culture of workplace sexual harassment?

EDIT:
About as much as a man's sex drive is... less but a partial explanation (as without his sex drive I don't think you could have sexual harassment issues... anywhere.. not a lot of sex either). I don't want to end men's sex drives to avoid a problem.

And I don't want to lobotomize women to get rid of hypergamy, even if that would do the trick.

Men are not machines programmed by their sex drive. Humans have the ability to act in a moral fashion. Men are entirely responsible for their own actions, and their sexual harassment is not excused by the concept of sex drive. If people said they had a murder drive and couldn't stop themselves from killing, would you pardon them?

BeetleManiac:

Gorfias:
I think what we see happening now will be enough.

I presume that includes pending overhaul of how our country handles sexual harassment and assault. If the changes are going to stick we need fix the parts of the system that are broken.

This level of unacceptable actions and behavior from powerful men for so many years and how thoroughly they were covered up could only happen in a broken system. We're overdue for some basic maintenance.

What do you suggest we do to overhaul the system?

Mothro:
What do you suggest we do to overhaul the system?

First thing to do would be to look at what parts of the system makes this kind of exploitation possible. It's been recently unveiled that Congress has a surprising amount of ability to keep these sorts of "scandals" quiet. Blake Farenthold of Texas actually paid $84 thousand in taxpayer money to settle one of his boyish indiscretions quietly.

In the corporate world, let's take a look at how Harvey Weinstein put together his system of getting away with it. Same for Fox News, Roger Ailes and his ghoulish sideshow of geezers. Regulating out the legal nooks and canyons these pricks dwell in will require not just legislation but time to enforce. Which of course will mean having to clean house in the justice department. It's going to be a long haul sort of endeavor.

Gorfias:
That clip I showed has him saying to a coworker that its a nice view when she bends over. I think that alone should have gotten him fired. But believe it, there are women out there that would think, "this attractive $60 million man has signaled interest. I will reciprocate". And when that happens, the guy gets rewarded for bad behavior. That positive reinforcement is going to make it that much harder to police things in the workplace.

Again, if it's not unwanted, it's not harassment. There's no problem with him making comments to people that like those comments.

CyanCat47:

Men are not machines programmed by their sex drive. Humans have the ability to act in a moral fashion. Men are entirely responsible for their own actions, and their sexual harassment is not excused by the concept of sex drive. If people said they had a murder drive and couldn't stop themselves from killing, would you pardon them?

I would not "pardon" even ML for that bend over comment. Our lives are full of "blurred lines" where there is risk, penalty and rewards. For ML, grotesque behavior was sometimes met with rewards that reinforced bad behaviors. Murder someone, you risk even more stringent penalties (up to and including death). This all effects behavior. Women coming forward now, and being believed and, thanks to diversified media, being heard at all, I think, will change the mathematics of risk reward.

Thaluikhain:

Again, if it's not unwanted, it's not harassment. There's no problem with him making comments to people that like those comments.

Except the same exact comment in 2 different circumstances can have 2 very different impacts: from welcome sexual attention to a law suit.

I am coming to think that we just have to blanket make it a fireable offense. Get laid on your own time.

Gorfias:
Except the same exact comment in 2 different circumstances can have 2 very different impacts: from welcome sexual attention to a law suit.

More or less anything you can say or do to another person may be appropriate or not depending on the circumstances.

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
Except the same exact comment in 2 different circumstances can have 2 very different impacts: from welcome sexual attention to a law suit.

More or less anything you can say or do to another person may be appropriate or not depending on the circumstances.

But for a Matt Lauer, what is the differing circumstance? A number of things. And it is possible that a hard and fast rule against ANY such sexual attention in the workplace might have protected him and his victims. And yes, they are victims. I have to think his behavior harmed them.

But in this thread, that hard and fast rule has been lambasted. That proffered solution appears to not be acceptable.

That leaves us with what we have now which is pretty good: a greater ability to get one's truth out there with results from Al Franken continuing in the Senate to Matt Lauer getting fired... depending upon what is appropriate.

Gorfias:
But for a Matt Lauer, what is the differing circumstance? A number of things.

Exactly as it is for any other person in any other situation.

Gorfias:
And it is possible that a hard and fast rule against ANY such sexual attention in the workplace might have protected him and his victims.

Nope. He knew what he was doing was wrong, or should have. He is not an innocent person who made a mistake, or rather kept making the same mistakes over and over. Now, a rule that people shouldn't be turning blind eyes to that sort of thing, perhaps.

Gorfias:
And it is possible that a hard and fast rule against ANY such sexual attention in the workplace might have protected him and his victims.

Thaluikhain is right, man. There are already rules against what Matt Lauer did. He knew he was in the wrong, he just expected to get away with it forever. Men are not as rule a bunch of naive, innocent bumblefucks.

Thaluikhain:

Nope. He knew what he was doing was wrong, or should have. He is not an innocent person who made a mistake, or rather kept making the same mistakes over and over. Now, a rule that people shouldn't be turning blind eyes to that sort of thing, perhaps.

BeetleManiac:

Thaluikhain is right, man. There are already rules against what Matt Lauer did. He knew he was in the wrong, he just expected to get away with it forever. Men are not as rule a bunch of naive, innocent bumblefucks.

I do not think he went from 0 to 60 in an instant. I think that early on, Lauer would solicit sex or relationships at work and got sex and relationships. Not only was it not wrong: his behavior was rewarded. At some point, I agree with you. That "nice view" comment from him: he had to how creepy that was. Between those two points was a grey area. My 2 cents.

Gorfias:
I think that early on, Lauer would solicit sex or relationships at work and got sex and relationships. Not only was it not wrong: his behavior was rewarded.

So? For the third time, if what he is doing isn't unwanted, it's not harassment. That some women in the past, or even the same women in the past, wanted to have sex with him is no excuse for sexual harassment.

EDIT: You say you met your wife at work. I'm going to guess that you still knew that sexual harassment in the workplace was something you shouldn't do. The same applies to him.

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
I think that early on, Lauer would solicit sex or relationships at work and got sex and relationships. Not only was it not wrong: his behavior was rewarded.

So? For the third time, if what he is doing isn't unwanted, it's not harassment. That some women in the past, or even the same women in the past, wanted to have sex with him is no excuse for sexual harassment.

again, I'm thinking there is a grey area. He won't know if a solicitation is unwanted until he puts it out there. I doubt he went from 0 to 60 in an instant.
Without a hard and fast rule against seeking dates at work, people are going to go into that grey area, sometimes resulting in sexual harassment issues that will impact the employer and customers/clients.

EDIT: You say you met your wife at work. I'm going to guess that you still knew that sexual harassment in the workplace was something you shouldn't do. The same applies to him.

I asked, (sorta: she asked me really) and this was pre-hill-thomas. But what if I wanted to say no? Under today's rules, I could make a claim against her stating she made me really uncomfortable. I think in the workplace we need to do what we can to be rid of this grey area.

Gorfias:
again, I'm thinking there is a grey area. He won't know if a solicitation is unwanted until he puts it out there. I doubt he went from 0 to 60 in an instant.
Without a hard and fast rule against seeking dates at work, people are going to go into that grey area, sometimes resulting in sexual harassment issues that will impact the employer and customers/clients.

So what do you think is the bigger issue? That women will overreact or that guys won't take no for an answer?

BeetleManiac:

Gorfias:
again, I'm thinking there is a grey area. He won't know if a solicitation is unwanted until he puts it out there. I doubt he went from 0 to 60 in an instant.
Without a hard and fast rule against seeking dates at work, people are going to go into that grey area, sometimes resulting in sexual harassment issues that will impact the employer and customers/clients.

So what do you think is the bigger issue? That women will overreact or that guys won't take no for an answer?

They are both big issues, people who won't take no for an answer are super stressful to the recipient while people over-reacting leads to lost careers and broken lives. I can't choose which is worse.

Mothro:
They are both big issues, people who won't take no for an answer are super stressful to the recipient while people over-reacting leads to lost careers and broken lives. I can't choose which is worse.

I didn't ask you and that wasn't the question. Although I do have to ask now: do you believe it to be the norm for women to overreact? Because let's be honest, when people talk about overreactions to flirting and sexual overtures, they're talking about women.

BeetleManiac:

Mothro:
They are both big issues, people who won't take no for an answer are super stressful to the recipient while people over-reacting leads to lost careers and broken lives. I can't choose which is worse.

I didn't ask you and that wasn't the question. Although I do have to ask now: do you believe it to be the norm for women to overreact? Because let's be honest, when people talk about overreactions to flirting and sexual overtures, they're talking about women.

Over-reacting, like not taking no for an answer is not limited to one gender. I cannot say if it is the norm or not, I have no stats on the matter but people over-react sometimes.

Also, this is a public forum, anyone can respond to a comment.

Mothro:

BeetleManiac:

Gorfias:
again, I'm thinking there is a grey area. He won't know if a solicitation is unwanted until he puts it out there. I doubt he went from 0 to 60 in an instant.
Without a hard and fast rule against seeking dates at work, people are going to go into that grey area, sometimes resulting in sexual harassment issues that will impact the employer and customers/clients.

So what do you think is the bigger issue? That women will overreact or that guys won't take no for an answer?

They are both big issues, people who won't take no for an answer are super stressful to the recipient while people over-reacting leads to lost careers and broken lives. I can't choose which is worse.

"Super stressful"

Hun, men not taking no for an answer leads to rape and sexual abuse, not just uncomfortable elevator conversation

You can't just list the 'best' outcomes for one situation, and the worst outcomes for the other situation and compare them.

undeadsuitor:

Mothro:

BeetleManiac:

So what do you think is the bigger issue? That women will overreact or that guys won't take no for an answer?

They are both big issues, people who won't take no for an answer are super stressful to the recipient while people over-reacting leads to lost careers and broken lives. I can't choose which is worse.

"Super stressful"

Hun, men not taking no for an answer leads to rape and sexual abuse, not just uncomfortable elevator conversation

You can't just list the 'best' outcomes for one situation, and the worst outcomes for the other situation and compare them.

The truth is, you object to me not saying that women are perpetual victims and men are assholes.

Mothro:
Over-reacting, like not taking no for an answer is not limited to one gender. I cannot say if it is the norm or not, I have no stats on the matter but people over-react sometimes.

When you said you were worried about over-reactions, what were you thinking of specifically? Here's a blog post from a third-wave sex-positive feminist about the issue. Here's blogger and scientist PZ Meyers describing how the one time he was threatened with a false accusation didn't end his career or life.

Mothro:
The truth is, you object to me not saying that women are perpetual victims and men are assholes.

Playing the victim card in so disingenuous a way does you no favors.

Mothro:

undeadsuitor:

Mothro:

They are both big issues, people who won't take no for an answer are super stressful to the recipient while people over-reacting leads to lost careers and broken lives. I can't choose which is worse.

"Super stressful"

Hun, men not taking no for an answer leads to rape and sexual abuse, not just uncomfortable elevator conversation

You can't just list the 'best' outcomes for one situation, and the worst outcomes for the other situation and compare them.

The truth is, you object to me not saying that women are perpetual victims and men are assholes.

I object to you presenting a false biased comparison

BeetleManiac:

So what do you think is the bigger issue? That women will overreact or that guys won't take no for an answer?

Edit: and what do you mean by "won't take no for an answer"? Rape? Asking a 2nd time if she's sure she doesn't want to hang? Could you be more specific?

Mothro:

They are both big issues, people who won't take no for an answer are super stressful to the recipient while people over-reacting leads to lost careers and broken lives. I can't choose which is worse.

Edit: being told no, or going through the stress of being the one expected to ask in the first place? Good video on a Lesbian posing as a man to experience it...

That would be easier to answer outside the grey area. Matt Lauer telling a woman he like the view when she bent over seems way on one side. That I worked with an air woman that could have badly harmed a man's career because she didn't like the terms for electronic test leads as "male" and "female" way on the other (He was headed to OTS: had she complained, he would have lost his slot so that an investigation could be conducted). Sometimes over reaction isn't the issue. Another young woman slept with a guy, got all sorts of benefits from the relationship and then dumped him. She could have done even worse to him rather than just leave him feeling used.

I honestly don't know which is more likely to happen. And in the grey area? Anyone's call as to which is which.

You're thoughts?

Gorfias:
Edit: and what do you mean by "won't take no for an answer"? Rape? Asking a 2nd time if she's sure she doesn't want to hang? Could you be more specific?

Harassment is repeated, unwanted contact, attention or communication. If you flirt with a girl and she says she's not into it, you stop. If you keep doing it, then it is harassment. There are a lot of guys who don't get that no means no. A failure of the part of our society that so many men don't understand how consent works.

My general experience has been that guys who are the most terrified of "false accusations" are also guys who are really bad at talking to women. There is the occasional socially awkward guy with good intentions, but most of them are assholes who feel the need to either lie about their intentions or make way too many assumptions about what is and is not acceptable behavior. Sometimes both. You forget, I used to hang out with pickup artists a decade ago. I've seen just how ugly these aspects of masculine culture can get and we'd do well to consign them to the dustbin of history as quickly as possible.

So here's a good rule of thumb for you. Ask a woman if she'd like to go for a drink sometime. If she says no, then that's it. You can keep talking to her if she's okay with that, just put away the flirting because she's not into it. It's really not that difficult.

BeetleManiac:

Harassment is repeated, unwanted contact, attention or communication. If you flirt with a girl and she says she's not into it, you stop.

Done that before, and it cost me. But that kind of conduct will protect a guy over all (stop after a no... even if she's expecting you to ask again).

...
My general experience has been that guys who are the most terrified of "false accusations" are also guys who are really bad at talking to women. There is the occasional socially awkward guy with good intentions, but most of them are assholes who feel the need to either lie about their intentions or make way too many assumptions about what is and is not acceptable behavior. Sometimes both. You forget, I used to hang out with pickup artists a decade ago. I've seen just how ugly these aspects of masculine culture can get and we'd do well to consign them to the dustbin of history as quickly as possible...

Fair enough. I've seen it from the other side. My best friend, who I think is MGTOW now, quit teaching when a he asked to speak to a troubled girl after class. He spoke to her of her falling grades. She resented it and falsely, (he says and I believe) accused him of propositioning her.

But your overall advice is advice given me when I was about 14 and while it has cost me, it is the right thing to do. Guys are going to have to drop it after a no, even if they think it is actually a, "no, but ask me again". Its the best way for a guy to stay safe and avoid conflicts that will harm at least one party.

Thaluikhain:
Oh, another thing that hasn't been mentioned, Taylor Swift winning her $1 court case. That was really high profile, and a decisive victory. Of course, it's only saying "the system works" with "if you happen to be have the advantages Taylor Swift has" stuck on the end, but it was still something of a big deal.

Oh, update on this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/david-mueller-radio-dj-accused-groping-taylor-swift-gets-new-n843226

So, in case you were wondering, looks like you can sexually assault a rich, famous and powerful woman, get taken to court, lose, and it won't hurt your career. All those men worried about the #MeToo moment can relax.

Also, "Stonewall Jackson". To give him a southern twist,

Thaluikhain:
Oh, update on this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/david-mueller-radio-dj-accused-groping-taylor-swift-gets-new-n843226

So, in case you were wondering, looks like you can sexually assault a rich, famous and powerful woman, get taken to court, lose, and it won't hurt your career. All those men worried about the #MeToo moment can relax.

Also, "Stonewall Jackson". To give him a southern twist,

That said, the guy has no criminal convictions, I guess, as it was a civil court case. The fact it was a civil court case suggests the evidence was insufficient to criminally prosecute him. I'm not sure, but under regular circumstances no employer would ask about civil judgements, only criminal convictions, so you could ask why it would be different here. And then there is the question of why people would expect even a criminal to be made permanently unemployable, as that just leads to a circle of criminality.

And considering he is now at a radio station in Mississippi, as opposed to wherever he was previously, I'd say it hurt his career.

Catnip1024:

Thaluikhain:
Oh, update on this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/david-mueller-radio-dj-accused-groping-taylor-swift-gets-new-n843226

So, in case you were wondering, looks like you can sexually assault a rich, famous and powerful woman, get taken to court, lose, and it won't hurt your career. All those men worried about the #MeToo moment can relax.

Also, "Stonewall Jackson". To give him a southern twist,

snip

I'm not sure, but under regular circumstances no employer would ask about civil judgements, only criminal convictions, so you could ask why it would be different here.

Because he was in the national news in a controversial case against Taylor Swift. As a radio station employer, you would need to be a big ignorant to read that name and not ask the candidate "David Mueller? THAT David Mueller?".

But another point is that when roles have been reversed, the woman's career in the radio/music industry is usually over.

CaitSeith:
Because he was in the national news in a controversial case against Taylor Swift. As a radio station employer, you would need to be a big ignorant to read that name and not ask the candidate "David Mueller? THAT David Mueller?".

But another point is that when roles have been reversed, the woman's career in the radio/music industry is usually over.

Sure, you might know who he is. But surely discriminating against people for prior civil rulings is a step backwards, particularly in a lawsuit happy place like the US? I mean, I have no sympathy for the guy, I think he is a prick, but why should he be punished just because his case is higher profile?

Well, I'm not sure when I last saw a case where a female DJ sexually harrassed a male pop star, so I'll take your word for that one.

Catnip1024:
Sure, you might know who he is. But surely discriminating against people for prior civil rulings is a step backwards

Let's not forget what the job is: radio DJ. Public will hear him and people will recognize him, so the radio owner must think about how such publicity would affect his business (which he did, that's why he hired him).

Fuss said he hired Mueller because "in the radio business, it's all about what comes out of the speakers" and Mueller "sounds good." But he did admit that the decision was "maybe a tiny bit" about publicity.

https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2018/01/31/denver-dj-fired-for-groping-taylor-swift-gets-new-job-at-mississippi-radio-station.html

CaitSeith:
Let's not forget what the job is: radio DJ. Public will hear him and people will recognize him, so the radio owner must think about how such publicity would affect his business (which he did, that's why he hired him).

Fuss said he hired Mueller because "in the radio business, it?s all about what comes out of the speakers" and Mueller "sounds good." But he did admit that the decision was "maybe a tiny bit" about publicity.

https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2018/01/31/denver-dj-fired-for-groping-taylor-swift-gets-new-job-at-mississippi-radio-station.html

Yup, it's a combination of talent and branding. Which, hang on a minute, is pretty much what an employer should be considering (including negative elements of branding, yes).

It's a perfectly valid position to disapprove of the move. But considering he has no actual criminal convictions, you are pretty much limited to voting with your feet. We should not be aiming to be in a world where moral disapproval alone forces people into unemployment.

The guy has clearly fallen a long way from where he was. At what point do the mob decide he's suffered enough to make up for the "crime" (quotes because it is a civil case, and I'm being pinickety)? Crime and punishment should be proportional - if you go nuclear for a case like this, what do you do for the proper arseholes?

Catnip1024:
We should not be aiming to be in a world where moral disapproval alone forces people into unemployment.

Hands up anyone who is aiming for that. Or rather, as it was CaitSeith posting, hands up any CaitSeiths who are aiming for that. I'll wait, but I'm sorta guessing there won't be many hands up.

Catnip1024:
Crime and punishment should be proportional - if you go nuclear for a case like this, what do you do for the proper arseholes?

One might say that sexually assaulting someone makes you an arsehole. But if you mean those who are convicted of a crime, they should be convicted of their crime/s. That's how it's supposed to work.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here