Al Franken is Gone, Sexual Harassment Allegations are Harming Democrats

[birch]

If a woman is driving down the road putting on makeup, or a man is driving on that same road sleep deprived, do we demand they be removed from their jobs and perpetually branded as menaces to society for their recklessness?

i'm curious: do you have a wife or children?

this feigning obtuse is starting to piss me right the fuk off. you are comparing a woman putting makeup on and a man driving while sleep deprived on the same level as sexual harassment?? that's how sickeningly trivial you think it is because you didn't even mention drunk driving. really??

okay, i'm going to play along with your stupid shit little game: if the bitch is putting makeup on while driving and causing an accident time and time again, of course she is a menace to society. if the man continues to drive sleep deprived and causes accidents time and time again, then of course they are a menace to society if they don't correct their behavior.

You didn't answer my question: is it a simple and understandable mistake if a man grabs your wife's ass or sexually harasses her or stalks her or hounds her repeatedly when she has told them to back off??!! do you think that's an innocent mistake?!! you think that's innocent if someone does that to you? would you do that to someone and lie to yourself that it's just a mistake while taking advantage of the fact the woman is physically weaker so not intimidated. is that okay to you?

OTOH, what would you prefer? actual rape before action is taken? does it have to be rape or pedophilia to be taken seriously? is fondling kiddies okay to you? how about just one time? is that excusable to you? how about if it's just one victim and not 8? is that okay?

if your wife was raped, is it okay if that perpetrator hasn't raped anyone before? it sure wouldn't be fair to label them a menace to society if it's just one victim right, according to your values? so you would tell her it's the same as someone who put makeup on or sleep deprived while driving. it was just a reckless 'mistake'.

if someone is sexually harassing you, it means they don't GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS, FEELINGS OR BOUNDARIES. THAT IS DIRECT AND INTENTIONAL. the examples you gave are not intentionally targeting anyone, but could be reckless. PAY ATTENTION: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS INTENTIONAL BECAUSE THEY ARE PICKING THE PERSON TO BE DIRECTING THIS ACTION TOWARD.

HE GROPED AND SEXUALLY HARASSED 8 WOMEN!!! TOO BAD HE DIDN'T WALK HIS TALK - REPEATEDLY AND PAID FOR IT IN REPUTATION WHEN IT WAS REVEALED. IF HIS APOLOGY IS SINCERE THEN HE SHOULD BE GLAD THAT HE HAS BEEN A GOOD EXAMPLE BY RESIGNING IN A TIME WHEN SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS COMING TO THE FOREFRONT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, NOT BE TOLERATED OR SLID UNDER THE RUG TIME AND TIME AGAIN. HE WAS NOT FLOGGED FOR GODSAKES, HE JUST RESIGNED AND HE'S WEALTHY.

you know what is stupid and suspicious about this type of argument is decent men don't sexually harass people. it's actually bizarre how some people try to relegate sexual harassment as some blind and innocent mistake. it is literally no different as a mental and willful choice as someone coming up to you to punch you in the face, and we don't pretend that was just a mistake. you don't accidentally grab people's ass. there is nothing accidental about it.

for instance, my stepfather sexually abusing me is because he didn't care about my rights or boundaries. according to you he should not be labeled a menace to society (and if it doesn't include all of society as a target) and it was just a simple blind mistake people make in life, according to the likes of you. you are either a fuking idiot or a disgusting liar because he damn well knew what he was doing but people like you want to make excuses for them. what's even more lurid is they know you are a fool yourself for believing it's an innocent mistake but they sure will take your support.

where you logic fails is because when you let these things slide, sociopaths know that's a greenlight to keep doing it and further pushing the envelope or just sexually harassing as many women or children as they can because the moral parameters of society are set at that bar such as by people who think like you.

what this means is even if the stepfather i knew sexually assaulted me and not others, so you don't care because it doesn't affect you BUT other sociopaths out there could target your children or wife, sister, brother etc next because of not taking sexual harassment or assault seriously.

 

[birch]

this is the ludricous part. people don't accidentally reach out to grab people's private parts or target people for obscene gestures or comments. i mean, are women coming up to you and grabbing your asses, penises or your manboobs? hmm... why not? if it's such a mistake, why aren't men randomly a victim of such innocent mistakes by other men? hmm...that's a tough one, i know.

i have control of what my hands do and what i say and to whom. i have a link between my brain and my limbs and i can direct where and what my hand do. fascinating, isn't it?

if you have problems with motor control, then you need to see a physician about that. lmfao!

yeah, let's all pretend that we don't have control of our reflexes. that's a good one!!!

 

[Bells]

If a woman is driving down the road putting on makeup, or a man is driving on that same road sleep deprived, do we demand they be removed from their jobs and perpetually branded as menaces to society for their recklessness? Which puts your ass in greater jeopardy, the potential of an occasional grab at a campaign rally, or its extinguishment on the highway? Obviously neither condition is normally desirable, yet the lesser threat commonly garners the greater scorn.

Hope you aren't a smoker. Because that strawman could engulf you.

No, really, this is the comparison you come up with?

if your wife was raped, is it okay if that perpetrator hasn't raped anyone before? it sure wouldn't be fair to label them a menace to society if it's just one victim right, according to your values.

If his wife was raped, he'd probably tell her that she should have had her mobile phone handy...

Then he'd probably ask her if she is feeling guilt for not having enough security to prevent her own rape, you know, normal security like guard dogs, security guards, guns, tasers, pepper spray on her person at all times, mobile phone on hand with an alert app open and ready to press, that kind of apparently reasonable stuff women should be employing to prevent their own rape.

You have to keep in mind that Capracus has a history of playing down sexual violence on this site.

So of course a man grabbing a woman's arse without her consent is going to be a nothing-burger.

if someone is sexually harassing you, it means they don't GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS, FEELINGS OR BOUNDARIES. THAT IS DIRECT AND INTENTIONAL. the examples you gave are not intentionally targeting anyone, but could be reckless. PAY ATTENTION: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS INTENTIONAL BECAUSE THEY ARE PICKING THE PERSON TO BE DIRECTING THIS ACTION TOWARD.

Yes, but you are also forgetting a primary thing. When it comes to our bodies and sexual harassment, we don't really get a say. This last month has taught us one thing. There are men out there who believe that they set the narrative when it comes to our bodies, not us. They lecture us on what is and is not acceptable. A man who gropes women is not doing any harm, it's just an arse grope. It could be worse, we are told, he could be driving his car while drowsy. Or as one other member tried to argue a few weeks ago, there was no threat and fear (despite at least one woman having to flee to the bathroom with a friend to get away from Franken after he suggested he could join her in the bathroom), so it's not really that bad. Another one tried to argue that hey, it can be accidental because his buddy doesn't like to be touched and doesn't even like people shaking his hands or hugging him.

I was reading something, that that long ago, that this is the response we get when we find our voices. What we experience is played down, mocked, diminished and demeaned.

Meanwhile, one member is demanding that "it", perhaps he means "we" be handled?

Keep this in mind when you respond to some of the men in this thread and in regards to this subject matter in general, because this is what you will face:

It helps to laugh in the face of their panic. It really does. Otherwise they can just want to make you bleach your eyes for the ugliness they spout.

HE GROPED AND SEXUALLY HARASSED 8 WOMEN!!! TOO BAD HE DIDN'T WALK HIS TALK - REPEATEDLY AND PAID FOR IT IN REPUTATION WHEN IT WAS REVEALED. IF HIS APOLOGY IS SINCERE THEN HE SHOULD BE GLAD THAT HE HAS BEEN A GOOD EXAMPLE BY RESIGNING IN A TIME WHEN SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS COMING TO THE FOREFRONT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, NOT BE TOLERATED OR SLID UNDER THE RUG TIME AND TIME AGAIN. HE WAS NOT FLOGGED FOR GODSAKES, HE JUST RESIGNED AND HE'S WEALTHY.

Here here!

Well said.

 

[James R]

Capracus:

So much of what we do in our daily lives, politician or private citizen, is far more unacceptable than an occasional grab of the ass.

Do you agree that, although there are many things "more unacceptable" than grabbing an ass, the unwelcome grabbing of an ass is somewhere on your list of unacceptable things, even if it is further down the list than, say, murder? Or do you think women ought to "accept" having their asses grabbed, as a general principle? Just so we're clear and all about where you stand on this...

 

[Neddy Bate]

"an occasional grab of the ass"

Sounds like a recurring issue. (occasional?) Hmm.

 

[Capracus]

i'm curious: do you have a wife or children?

this feigning obtuse is starting to piss me right the fuk off. you are comparing a woman putting makeup on and a man driving while sleep deprived on the same level as sexual harassment?? that's how sickeningly trivial you think it is because you didn't even mention drunk driving. really??

So it’s your contention that people that engage in habitual and willful acts of distracted or impaired driving are less of a threat to the welfare of society than an ass grabber.

okay, i'm going to play along with your stupid shit little game: if the bitch is putting makeup on while driving and causing an accident time and time again, of course she is a menace to society. if the man continues to drive sleep deprived and causes accidents time and time again, then of course they are a menace to society if they don't correct their behavior.

So as long as the reckless drivers haven’t yet caused property damage, injury or loss of life, we should give them a pass? They’re only a danger when they succeed?

You didn't answer my question: is it a simple and understandable mistake if a man grabs your wife's ass or sexually harasses her or stalks her or hounds her repeatedly when she has told them to back off??!! do you think that's an innocent mistake?!! you think that's innocent if someone does that to you? would you do that to someone and lie to yourself that it's just a mistake while taking advantage of the fact the woman is physically weaker so not intimidated. is that okay to you?

If a person grabs another’s ass it’s more than likely an intentional act. If the perpetrator is aware that such an act is likely to offend the recipient, then it could be considered a violation of their sanctity.

OTOH, what would you prefer? actual rape before action is taken? does it have to be rape or pedophilia to be taken seriously? is fondling kiddies okay to you? how about just one time? is that excusable to you? how about if it's just one victim and not 8? is that okay?

Why is a rational comparison of offensive action to be considered an excusal of a lesser offense? The implication of a lesser offense is that its consequences must be seen as such as well.

if your wife was raped, is it okay if that perpetrator hasn't raped anyone before? it sure wouldn't be fair to label them a menace to society if it's just one victim right, according to your values? so you would tell her it's the same as someone who put makeup on or sleep deprived while driving. it was just a reckless 'mistake'.

Is it your contention that grabbing someone’s ass is equivalent to a violent sexual assault? Is grabbing a clothed ass the same as forcibly removing said clothes and shoving that grabbing hand up the ass in question? Intentionally driving while impaired or distracted isn’t some momentary laps of judgment, it’s a calculated risk taken by the driver. The bottom line is that of all the offensive behavior mentioned above, the one that poses the least potential harm is the ass grab.

HE GROPED AND SEXUALLY HARASSED 8 WOMEN!!! TOO BAD HE DIDN'T WALK HIS TALK - REPEATEDLY AND PAID FOR IT IN REPUTATION WHEN IT WAS REVEALED. IF HIS APOLOGY IS SINCERE THEN HE SHOULD BE GLAD THAT HE HAS BEEN A GOOD EXAMPLE BY RESIGNING IN A TIME WHEN SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS COMING TO THE FOREFRONT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, NOT BE TOLERATED OR SLID UNDER THE RUG TIME AND TIME AGAIN. HE WAS NOT FLOGGED FOR GODSAKES, HE JUST RESIGNED AND HE'S WEALTHY.

He’s been ACCUSED of inappropriately groping and kissing eight women, but only admitting to I think one kiss, which was a scripted kiss for a USO act, and that victim didn't think he should resign.

Do you agree that, although there are many things "more unacceptable" than grabbing an ass, the unwelcome grabbing of an ass is somewhere on your list of unacceptable things, even if it is further down the list than, say, murder? Or do you think women ought to "accept" having their asses grabbed, as a general principle? Just so we're clear and all about where you stand on this...

Yes, I agree that grabbing an ass belongs on the list of unacceptable things, and that it belongs far below that of murder, but much closer to rude behavior than forcible rape.

 

[Tiassa]

So it’s your contention that people that engage in habitual and willful acts of distracted or impaired driving are less of a threat to the welfare of society than an ass grabber.

Your framework is problematic. Sexual violence existed before automobiles, will persist after we have self-driving cars, and, you know, probably flourish, and on that point there is a lot that could be dealt with obliquely if only people were capable.

Mobile phones, cigarettes, my goddamn coffee cup, and, fuck-all, have you tried to use the console display in a contemporary Ford? Those displays should be banished, in general, but holy shit, the Ford display is designed to require attention in multi-second blocks, and should not be used by the driver.

So, hey, do we wish to have a discussion about capitalism, consumerism, utility, and safety? Great.

Oh, hey, right, right, right: To what degree are we supposed to have this discussion in lieu of one about sexual violence? And the reason I ask is because for all people's talk about about quasi-justice, and solving the larger ills of society, history indicates quite clearly the result of forfeiting discussion of sexual violence in favor of the larger societal processes that will somehow magically cure the problem is the perpetuation, augmentation, diversification, and reinforcement of the problem.

So, yeah, let's get down to the brass tacks about what the auto company executives will allow the engineers to tell the line workers to build. Because, you know, that will help resolve questions about sexual violence how?

Oh, right, it's not supposed to.

 

[parmalee]

So, hey, do we wish to have a discussion about capitalism, consumerism, utility, and safety? Great.

Oh, hey, right, right, right: To what degree are we supposed to have this discussion in lieu of one about sexual violence? And the reason I ask is because for all people's talk about about quasi-justice, and solving the larger ills of society, history indicates quite clearly the result of forfeiting discussion of sexual violence in favor of the larger societal processes that will somehow magically cure the problem is the perpetuation, augmentation, diversification, and reinforcement of the problem.

While "changing the subject" is hardly a unique Trumpian tactic, one would think, nonetheless, that people would be somewhat mindful about it, at least, in the age of Trump. I mean, all things considered.

 

[Kittamaru]

While "changing the subject" is hardly a unique Trumpian tactic, one would think, nonetheless, that people would be somewhat mindful about it, at least, in the age of Trump. I mean, all things considered.

The question seems to be - would, or perhaps even, could, a piecemeal solution actually solve the problem at hand? Or, would it require a comprehensive solution?

 

[Bells]

Is it your contention that grabbing someone’s ass is equivalent to a violent sexual assault?

Well it is sexual assault. It is an act of violence against another. While there are degrees of violence, such as a slap may cause less harm than a punch physically, groping a person is still an act of violence against that person.

And can you tell me, what sexual assault is not "violent"?

Is grabbing a clothed ass the same as forcibly removing said clothes and shoving that grabbing hand up the ass in question?

It's still grabbing behaviour. It's still sexual assault.

Do you think it is more violent if the man's hand touches the woman's skin on her backside than if there is a clothing barrier there?

Groping a woman's backside is still forcible touching without her consent. It is still a violation of her body.

Intentionally driving while impaired or distracted isn’t some momentary laps of judgment, it’s a calculated risk taken by the driver.

Yes. And?

Unless you are comparing women's bodies to cars? Or are you just trying to change the subject?

The bottom line is that of all the offensive behavior mentioned above, the one that poses the least potential harm is the ass grab.

And the victim is supposed to know this how?

Tell me, when men grope strange women or their co-workers, for example, does he wear a sign on his person telling the woman that he isn't going to rape her, or 'drive distracted or impaired', but that he's just going in for an arse grope and she should just not stress about it? Or does he sidle up to her first and whisper 'don't fret, I am just going to grope your backside, not rape you!', so that she knows?

See, when men do this, we don't know where this will lead. I wonder how Franken's defenders would have responded if one of those women had beaten the shit out of him for groping her, or sprayed him with pepper spray or tasered him, since you know, society demands that women prevent their own sexual assaults. Would you have considered such a response over the top? Since, you know, it's just an arse grab, no harm, right? What about the woman he propositioned that he join her in the bathroom, after she tried to do an exit stage left when he groped her, and he asked her if he could join her in the bathroom, which resulted in her having to have a friend accompany her to the bathroom? She's meant to know that he was only copping a feel? Or when he tells a young intern that it's his right as an entertainer? She's meant to know that he's not going to go much further?

Let me put it this way, when men go in for that grope, the victim does not know and as far as she is concerned, he's using her body to get off in some way.

When you sexually assault a woman this way, even if it's 'just' an arse grab or grope, for us, it's fight or flight. Franken is lucky that his victims opted for flight instead of fight, most probably because they were shocked that someone in his position was groping them to begin with. But there seems to be this expectation that women are supposed to just know the man's intention when he gropes her body without consent. And that she's just meant to accept it because apparently she's meant to know that he's not going to do worse to her.

And rapes, often start with an arse grab or grope.

The question seems to be - would, or perhaps even, could, a piecemeal solution actually solve the problem at hand? Or, would it require a comprehensive solution?

The solution is simple. Don't sexually harass and sexually assault women. Know and understand that the woman is a human being, with equal fundamental human rights. This expectation that 'it's just a pat on the bum', as though it is not harmful, needs to stop.

That is the solution.

While "changing the subject" is hardly a unique Trumpian tactic, one would think, nonetheless, that people would be somewhat mindful about it, at least, in the age of Trump. I mean, all things considered.

It is not unique, because it is the stock standard response when it comes to women's rights, sexual violence and sexual harassment. I am not sure if you were around back in the day, when each time rape was discussed, rape prevention advocates would turn out in force demanding that women should be more careful in how they act, live their lives and behave, and then compare it to locking up the car so the car was not stolen, for example.

 

[Kittamaru]

The solution is simple. Don't sexually harass and sexually assault women. Know and understand that the woman is a human being, with equal fundamental human rights. This expectation that 'it's just a pat on the bum', as though it is not harmful, needs to stop.

That is the solution.

It would be that simple if we could actually force everyone in the world to be a decent person. As it is, that obviously isn't a solution because, well, we cannot. Perhaps it is ironic that Beauty and the Beast is on right now - there will, unfortunately, always be a Gaston, LeFou, or Monsieur D'Arque to think they are God's gift to women and that any girl they so much as blink at should beg for a chance to drape over his arm; simply telling such louts "not to harass or assault women" won't work, so what's the preventative solution? Obviously we have the penal system to punish them after the fact, but it would be far better (at least, I would think so) if we could prevent it from happening in the first place.

Affirmative consent, equal rights, and other such things should be the expectation - how do we make that a universal reality when we cannot control others who would seek to take advantage of others for personal pleasure?

 

[Bells]

It would be that simple if we could actually force everyone in the world to be a decent person. As it is, that obviously isn't a solution because, well, we cannot. Perhaps it is ironic that Beauty and the Beast is on right now - there will, unfortunately, always be a Gaston, LeFou, or Monsieur D'Arque to think they are God's gift to women and that any girl they so much as blink at should beg for a chance to drape over his arm; simply telling such louts "not to harass or assault women" won't work, so what's the preventative solution? Obviously we have the penal system to punish them after the fact, but it would be far better (at least, I would think so) if we could prevent it from happening in the first place.

Affirmative consent, equal rights, and other such things should be the expectation - how do we make that a universal reality when we cannot control others who would seek to take advantage of others for personal pleasure?

It starts at home. It should continue through kid's education with schools enforcing and end to rape culture. It should continue through college and university and in the workplace, with yearly compulsory courses on sexual harassment, sexual assault and ending rape culture.

The media, politicians, public figures should also reinforce this, by not only not abusing women, but also cracking down when people do offend and not embrace rape culture in defending these people or diminishing what they did, when they are outed. The police, schools, colleges and universities, work places, etc should implement various policies to ensure second rape does not happen for victims of sexual violence.

 

[parmalee]

It is not unique, because it is the stock standard response when it comes to women's rights, sexual violence and sexual harassment. I am not sure if you were around back in the day, when each time rape was discussed, rape prevention advocates would turn out in force demanding that women should be more careful in how they act, live their lives and behave, and then compare it to locking up the car so the car was not stolen, for example.

I remember some of it. Honestly, some of it was so disturbing that I just stopped reading--I do not recall the exact analogy, but the gist of it was essentially "men just can't help themselves." How do you even attempt to reason with a person who says such a thing?

What strikes me as odd is this: I believe that, by and large, people are somewhat less racist than they were fifty-odd years. They are somewhat less homophobic, and so forth. To me, it doesn't seem that people are any less misogynistic than they were in decades past. While conditions may have improved--better (though not equal) wages, less discriminatory hiring practices, etc.--attitudes do not seem to have changed all that much. Or, for the ways in which they have progressed, there is a comparable reactionary backlash in other respects. When I was a kid, there was Robert Bly's "Men's Movement." From what I recall, Bly's spiel was more goofy than it was creepy and misogynistic. (Either that, or I am just glossing over something because I've always liked his Rilke translations.) Now there's all this vile, toxic MRA and MGTOW shit.

It's not so much the actual reasons for this seeming inertia that eludes me, rather it's the understanding of it at a visceral, intuitive level.

But yeah, instead of saying whatever it is that they are really thinking, you get people who constantly change the subject, who go to extraordinary lengths to fabricate something (in #metoo, for instance) for which to object to, and who find myriad ways to posit that it is men who are the real victims here.

 

[Kittamaru]

It starts at home. It should continue through kid's education with schools enforcing and end to rape culture. It should continue through college and university and in the workplace, with yearly compulsory courses on sexual harassment, sexual assault and ending rape culture.

I agree - it should start at home, and be reinforced throughout a child and young adults education.

The former, there isn't much we can do (legislatively or otherwise) to actually ensure it is happening. Regarding school - I think we would have to get a number of things out of the way for this to happen (not the least of which includes this absurd fascination we have with the failed abstinence only sex-ed, since right now in many areas, even hinting at anything otherwise can see teachers removed) - there will also, no doubt, be a lot of fighting from social conservatives, which could make things difficult as a large portion of the textbook industry is located in deeply conservative areas.

The media, politicians

I am not certain this will happen without a major shift in both - media is all about ratings (and what gets ratings more than sensationalist headlines) and many politicians have historically been so safe in their districts that they can do whatever they please. Hopefully this will change but...

public figures should also reinforce this, by not only not abusing women, but also cracking down when people do offend

Agreed, though as before - I would recommend caution in attempts to put penalties before process; powerful people able to bring about litigation and cast doubt in the public eye could quite possibly undermine everything being fought for.

and not embrace rape culture in defending these people or diminishing what they did, when they are outed. The police, schools, colleges and universities, work places, etc should implement various policies to ensure second rape does not happen for victims of sexual violence.

I wonder... when something like this were reported to the authorities, and nothing were reported to the media et al until such a time as the case is concluded (or at least reasonably established), would it benefit victims - preventing public outcry and the whole "name and shame" thing that goes on now? Allow the legal system to do its thing, and keep the victim from having the wounds reopened time and time again by the media?

 

[Bells]

I wonder... when something like this were reported to the authorities, and nothing were reported to the media et al until such a time as the case is concluded (or at least reasonably established), would it benefit victims - preventing public outcry and the whole "name and shame" thing that goes on now? Allow the legal system to do its thing, and keep the victim from having the wounds reopened time and time again by the media?

And when the legal system does nothing, then what?

Look at sexual assaults on university campuses as a prime example. The victims advise the campus police and the university. She is then treated like the perpetrator and the accused is protected. What then? The legal system in that regard, has done its thing. Many of the victims end up dropping out of school, because they are expected to remain on campus with their rapist. He gets to continue his education as though nothing happened, the victim is blamed, often named and shamed, often harassed by the friends and family of the accused, sometimes even the school.

I'll put it this way. If your neighbour is accused of rape, would you want to know about it? How about if your wife's boss is accused of rape or numerous sexual groping and sexual assault, would she want to be advised of it?

People name and shame, when they have little to nothing left to rely on.

Franken's victims, for example, would be going up against a well known, very wealthy senator, who has quite a bit of pull. To the one, he should never have acted this way, particularly after touting himself as a defender of women, for example, which allowed him greater access and invitations to women's events, where some of the groping occurred and where he tried to proposition one victim who said she had to go to the bathroom in a bid to escape from him, about joining her in there. These were at Democratic and women's events. So, say they go to the police. Who would believe them? Consider the general reaction when his accusers first came forward, consider how what he did was diminished, how his victims were demeaned. He's a well known senator, with a history of speaking out for rape victims. I don't blame them for outing him. Nor do I blame the other women who spoke out against other members of congress and outed them. They do need to be outed. Particularly because of their position and in Franken's case, because of his utter hypocrisy.

In effect, outing these men, shaming them for the wrongs they have done, sends a that this is not acceptable behaviour from anyone, even well known and well loved politicians. And yes, they should be shamed. Because what they did was shameful.

Did you have a problem with Moore's victims speaking out and outing him? As I recall, you had no issues with that. How about Conyer's victims? Or the many many Republicans who have resigned due to sexual harassment and sexual assault accusations made against them, when they were outed? Would you have wanted to know earlier rather than later, that your tax dollars was being used to pay off sexual violence victims for what members of Congress did to them?

This expectation that these crimes stay hidden, out of sight and out of mind, serves only the people who commit these crimes to begin with.

 

[Kittamaru]

And when the legal system does nothing, then what?

When the legal system does nothing, then it is broken and must be fixed. However, ultimately, that is what must happen, unless we wish to dispense with such a concept entirely.

Look at sexual assaults on university campuses as a prime example. The victims advise the campus police and the university. She is then treated like the perpetrator and the accused is protected. What then? The legal system in that regard, has done its thing. Many of the victims end up dropping out of school, because they are expected to remain on campus with their rapist. He gets to continue his education as though nothing happened, the victim is blamed, often named and shamed, often harassed by the friends and family of the accused, sometimes even the school.

Quite obviously this is broken and should be remedied; expecting vigilante justice to step in and solve the issue instead is a dangerous proposition.

I'll put it this way. If your neighbour is accused of rape, would you want to know about it? How about if your wife's boss is accused of rape or numerous sexual groping and sexual assault, would she want to be advised of it?

Certainly you can see the danger in this kind of thought process...? Innocent until proven guilty, or not. There is no room for middle ground. Fix the system, or dispose of it.

People name and shame, when they have little to nothing left to rely on.

Again, then we need to fix the broken system.

Franken's victims, for example, would be going up against a well known, very wealthy senator, who has quite a bit of pull. To the one, he should never have acted this way, particularly after touting himself as a defender of women, for example, which allowed him greater access and invitations to women's events, where some of the groping occurred and where he tried to proposition one victim who said she had to go to the bathroom in a bid to escape from him, about joining her in there. These were at Democratic and women's events. So, say they go to the police. Who would believe them? Consider the general reaction when his accusers first came forward, consider how what he did was diminished, how his victims were demeaned. He's a well known senator, with a history of speaking out for rape victims. I don't blame them for outing him. Nor do I blame the other women who spoke out against other members of congress and outed them. They do need to be outed. Particularly because of their position and in Franken's case, because of his utter hypocrisy.

In effect, outing these men, shaming them for the wrongs they have done, sends a that this is not acceptable behaviour from anyone, even well known and well loved politicians. And yes, they should be shamed. Because what they did was shameful.

Did you have a problem with Moore's victims speaking out and outing him? As I recall, you had no issues with that. How about Conyer's victims? Or the many many Republicans who have resigned due to sexual harassment and sexual assault accusations made against them, when they were outed? Would you have wanted to know earlier rather than later, that your tax dollars was being used to pay off sexual violence victims for what members of Congress did to them?

This expectation that these crimes stay hidden, out of sight and out of mind, serves only the people who commit these crimes to begin with.

I don't believe that was the question I asked - what I asked was, would it be better for the victims, assuming a functional legal system, for this to all be handled without a media circus and the extra scrutiny and public attention said victim risks garnering playing things out in the spotlight.

If we are going to presuppose the system is unable to be fixed, then I think we have a bigger problem - eg, that the very system of laws and justice we base society on has failed; in that case, perhaps we should all prepare for life ala Mad Max?

My point is simply that something needs to happen... Something, apparently, rather drastic, to get real, effective, progressive change happening. Given how utterly jaded as a nation we seem to be... I don't know what it will take to mobilize the type of turnout it will take to fix these problems; however, a plaster and ointment solution just doesn't seem like it will cut it.

 

[Bells]

When the legal system does nothing, then it is broken and must be fixed. However, ultimately, that is what must happen, unless we wish to dispense with such a concept entirely.

That the justice system must be fixed when dealing with sexual violence is agiven.

What I am asking you is what happens when victims are unable to get justice or they feel they have no recourse?

Quite obviously this is broken and should be remedied; expecting vigilante justice to step in and solve the issue instead is a dangerous proposition.

That is a strange statement. Do you understand what is meant by "vigilante justice"?

What "vigilante justice" have you seen in regards to Franken? Did people beat him up? Threaten him with violence? Has this resulted in his feeling unsafe in his home or out in public because people may assault him, for example?

Have people taken the law into their own hands when it comes to Franken and treated him outside of the law in suggesting that he should resign? Now, I want you to think about that quite carefully.

Because asking Franken to resign is not illegal, nor does that suggestion exist outside of the law. There is also the fact that Franken never faced the criminal justice system for sexually assaulting women. All that came out of it was that people thought he should resign, given the numerous accusations against him. This isn't illegal.

No one has suggested "vigilante justice", nor has anyone advocated "vigilante justice", so I don't quite understand how or why you have decided to throw that in there.

Certainly you can see the danger in this kind of thought process...? Innocent until proven guilty, or not. There is no room for middle ground. Fix the system, or dispose of it.

You didn't answer the question.

If your neighbour was accused of rape or sexually assaulting multiple women, would you have wanted to know about it?

What if your babysitter is accused or charged of sexually assaulting children. Would you want to know about those accusations or charges before or after the trial? How about before you hired the baby sitter? Would you want to know if they stand accused of such crimes? Or would you say 'meh, no trial no foul' and hire them anyway? How about your wife? Do you think she would want to know if her boss was accused of groping multiple women before she goes on a work trip with him, for example? Or has to stay back and work with him, as another example?

Understand how this works? A US Senator was accused by 8 women of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Do you think that the voters have the right to know of this? Or would you prefer this remains hush hush, because you cannot have an opinion on the matter until after a trial (given that Franken was never facing a trial to begin with, which means that people will form an opinion, just as you formed an opinion about Moore running for the Senate with multiple women accusing him of sexual molestation when they were minors). Would you have preferred that never came out because "innocent until proven guilty, or not"? Don't forget, you are on record when it comes to your opinion of Moore:

The "best" part about all this is the number of supporters calling into that radio interview saying that they "don't care" what Roy Moore did because we "survived eight years with a sexual predator in the White House (Clinton)". First, I don't recall any accusations against Bill that were sexual assault - immoral, yes, but adultery isn't automatically sexual assault. Second, even if Billy Bob did diddle someone who didn't want it... we should now excuse someone else doing so as a result? No, they should BOTH be charged and tried for it.

But... they'll vote for a pedo all in the name of keeping "muh party!" in power. It's fucking fantastic how utterly fucked we are as a nation...

When you called him a "pedo", are you not assigning guilt to him as a matter of personal opinion? There was a reason why I asked and commented repeatedly about the hypocrisy and outraged based on politics.

So I'll ask you this. If Moore was a Democrat in your State and he was facing the same accusations, would you vote for him because "innocent until proven guilty"? Would you refer to him as a "pedo", thereby assigning guilt to him, while preaching "innocent until proven guilty" even though he was not facing the criminal justice system, but facing public opinion as to whether he was fit to be a Senator.

And just so you are aware.. "diddling someone who didn't want it" is rape and sexual assault.

Again, then we need to fix the broken system.

The system will not be fixed so long as people keep embracing rape culture, particularly when it is for political reasons.

I don't believe that was the question I asked - what I asked was, would it be better for the victims, assuming a functional legal system, for this to all be handled without a media circus and the extra scrutiny and public attention said victim risks garnering playing things out in the spotlight.

Because if they filed charges, there would not be a media circus?

It wasn't the media affected who those victims as much as it was members of the public and some in the media as well, don't get me wrong, but it was his constituents and supporters who went out and diminished what they experienced by bringing up false allegations in response to their accusations, by diminishing what he did.

And then those very people turned on anyone who dared to suggest they believed his victims, or suggested that there should be consequences for his actions.

What you are essentially doing in a round about way, is blaming the victims for making it public and you are trying to voice it in a manner that is apparently for the benefit of the victims.

I'll be blunt, their keeping it quiet only benefits one person and that is the perpetrator. And since he was not facing the criminal justice system, they are well within their rights to tell others what he did to them.

If we are going to presuppose the system is unable to be fixed, then I think we have a bigger problem - eg, that the very system of laws and justice we base society on has failed; in that case, perhaps we should all prepare for life ala Mad Max?

The law hasn't failed. It is society that has failed in how it views victims and handles their coming forward.

My point is simply that something needs to happen...

And something did happen. Men who commit these crimes are being outed and society is getting the message that this is not acceptable and that women will no longer remain silent. That is a good thing. Because it will put pressure on the criminal justice system to take these crimes seriously and most importantly, the police and employers to handle this properly because if they do not, then their inaction can be outed as well.

Society is seeing a push towards no longer protecting the perpetrators of these crimes, because women are coming forward and are speaking out and are outing them. This is a good thing from a victim's perspective and it can hopefully reduce the number of sexual harassment cases and sexual violence for the pure and simple fact that these men who do this now know that there is a groundswell of support for the victim.

Given how utterly jaded as a nation we seem to be... I don't know what it will take to mobilize the type of turnout it will take to fix these problems; however, a plaster and ointment solution just doesn't seem like it will cut it.

Millions upon millions of women are speaking out in the US alone. Instead of responding by diminishing what they are saying, demeaning them, embracing rape culture by complaining about false accusations (which are exceptionally rare to begin with and is only used to try to silence accusers), instead of trying to cast doubt, instead of arguing that women's human rights is not that important right now because there are bigger fish to fry, then you can solve and fix these problems. But so long as society continues to respond as you did, for example, you won't fix it.

 

[Tiassa]

Affirmative consent, equal rights, and other such things should be the expectation - how do we make that a universal reality when we cannot control others who would seek to take advantage of others for personal pleasure?

I'm an American. I live in a society where we can pass affirmative consent laws, and where we have already rejected a constitutional amendment toward equal rights. It seems very nearly self evident that if "affirmative consent, equal rights, and other such things should be the expectation", then one of the first things we can do toward creating that "universal reality" is to draft and pass the laws that install and inform that reality.

To the other, I'm an American, and as I noted, we have in the past rejected equal rights. And unlike the human rights of women, when we won the Gay Fray, we did it in the courts despite having lost thirty-five of thirty-nine electoral contests. Thus we return to responsible stewardship of our own roles in the discourse↑, because installing and informing that universal reality through the laws requires in the first place that we stop mitigating and making excuses for violations. And we have specific history on this count: marital↱ rape↱. One grim example↗ is an aide for a former military prosecutor turned state politician emailing a newspaper to explain the congressional candidate was "not taking a position for or against marital rape". Hint: The candidate, Dick Black, had as a state legislator argued that marital rape should not be a crime.

Hey, here's one: If a prosecutor skips out on a confessed rape↗ because he ostensibly does not believe a jury in his county will convict a confessed rape, then ... er ... ah ... what? I mean, I suppose we could always send him to Congress.

Okay, so, in short:

Q: Affirmative consent, equal rights, and other such things should be the expectation - how do we make that a universal reality when we cannot control others who would seek to take advantage of others for personal pleasure?

A: If "affirmative consent, equal rights, and other such things should be the expectation", then one of the first things we can do toward creating that "universal reality" is to draft and pass the laws that install and inform that reality. Thus we return toresponsible stewardship of our own roles in the discourse, because installing and informing that universal reality through the laws requires in the first place that we stop mitigating and making excuses for violations.​

____________________

Notes:

Allen, Samantha. "Marital Rape Is Semi-Legal in 8 States". The Daily Beast. 9 June 2015. TheDailyBeast.com. 22 January 2018. http://thebea.st/2F0LxwB

Byrne, Brian Patrick. "These 13 States Still Make Exceptions For Marital Rape". Vocativ. 28 July 2015. Vocativ.com. 22 January 2018. http://bit.ly/2mXTyLq

 

[Kittamaru]

That the justice system must be fixed when dealing with sexual violence is agiven.

What I am asking you is what happens when victims are unable to get justice or they feel they have no recourse?

Honestly? I don't know.

That is a strange statement. Do you understand what is meant by "vigilante justice"?

Yes, yes, the technical definition would be, as per Cornell, Vigilante justice often describes the actions of a single person or group of people who claim to enforce the law but lack the legal authority to do so. I am using the colloquial sense of the term (which they also describe), the term can also describe a general state of disarray or lawlessness.

What "vigilante justice" have you seen in regards to Franken? Did people beat him up? Threaten him with violence? Has this resulted in his feeling unsafe in his home or out in public because people may assault him, for example?

Have people taken the law into their own hands when it comes to Franken and treated him outside of the law in suggesting that he should resign? Now, I want you to think about that quite carefully.

As far as I'm aware, no - there have been no credible threats of violence that I am aware of.

Because asking Franken to resign is not illegal, nor does that suggestion exist outside of the law. There is also the fact that Franken never faced the criminal justice system for sexually assaulting women. All that came out of it was that people thought he should resign, given the numerous accusations against him. This isn't illegal.

No one has suggested "vigilante justice", nor has anyone advocated "vigilante justice", so I don't quite understand how or why you have decided to throw that in there.

So what would you prefer to call "justice" that is performed outside the standard system of law or legal purview?

You didn't answer the question.

If your neighbour was accused of rape or sexually assaulting multiple women, would you have wanted to know about it?

Do I want to know about an accusation? Honestly, no, not really. If he or she was found guilty, or if there was credible evidence of a threat, then sure; do I want to know about every accusation levied against anyone in my general proximity, not so much.

What if your babysitter is accused or charged of sexually assaulting children. Would you want to know about those accusations or charges before or after the trial? How about before you hired the baby sitter? Would you want to know if they stand accused of such crimes? Or would you say 'meh, no trial no foul' and hire them anyway? How about your wife? Do you think she would want to know if her boss was accused of groping multiple women before she goes on a work trip with him, for example? Or has to stay back and work with him, as another example?

Understand how this works? A US Senator was accused by 8 women of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Do you think that the voters have the right to know of this? Or would you prefer this remains hush hush, because you cannot have an opinion on the matter until after a trial (given that Franken was never facing a trial to begin with, which means that people will form an opinion, just as you formed an opinion about Moore running for the Senate with multiple women accusing him of sexual molestation when they were minors). Would you have preferred that never came out because "innocent until proven guilty, or not"? Don't forget, you are on record when it comes to your opinion of Moore:



When you called him a "pedo", are you not assigning guilt to him as a matter of personal opinion? There was a reason why I asked and commented repeatedly about the hypocrisy and outraged based on politics.

And as it stands, there has, to my knowledge, been no legal action in this case, which there should be.

I'm not sure where you are finding difficulty in my stance here, Bells - there is a legal system, and a method for attaining relief therein. If that system is broken, we must endeavor to fix it. If we circumvent it, well... what's the point? We may as well go back to dueling pistols at twenty paces. Certainly, as someone who has professed to act in a legal profession, you can understand that?

So I'll ask you this. If Moore was a Democrat in your State and he was facing the same accusations, would you vote for him because "innocent until proven guilty"? Would you refer to him as a "pedo", thereby assigning guilt to him, while preaching "innocent until proven guilty" even though he was not facing the criminal justice system, but facing public opinion as to whether he was fit to be a Senator.

No, I doubt I would vote for him, regardless of what letter you put beside his name. However, I don't feel someone should be thrown out of their job (which one could argue is a violation of their liberty) without legal process. You cannot have "innocent until proven guilty" for some, and "guilty until proven innocent" for others in a civilized society.

And just so you are aware.. "diddling someone who didn't want it" is rape and sexual assault.

I'm not sure what you want me to do with this comment.

The system will not be fixed so long as people keep embracing rape culture, particularly when it is for political reasons.

Nor will it be fixed by a political party that has not only defended rape culture, but welcomed it with open arms and continues to run candidates with records to that effect.

Because if they filed charges, there would not be a media circus?

Should there be? Think on this long and hard, Bells - if someone files charges, in a normalized and rational legal system, does it make sense for the media to use their pain and suffering to enhance their own ratings? Does it make any sense for such proceedings to be put into the court of public opinion before even a cursory fact-finding investigation has occurred, wherein they will be labeled innocent or guilty in the eyes of the world before any guilt has been factually established?

Does it help the victim to have their every life situation, every movement, every action scrutinized by a media that, on one side, is looking to use their situation to further their own goals, and on the other side is looking to find some fault with them to use to discredit their claim of having been assaulted?

Because, honestly, I don't think that helps them much.

It wasn't the media affected who those victims as much as it was members of the public and some in the media as well, don't get me wrong, but it was his constituents and supporters who went out and diminished what they experienced by bringing up false allegations in response to their accusations, by diminishing what he did.

And then those very people turned on anyone who dared to suggest they believed his victims, or suggested that there should be consequences for his actions.

So, again - why do we want to put the victim under a very large, very public microscope like this?

What you are essentially doing in a round about way, is blaming the victims for making it public and you are trying to voice it in a manner that is apparently for the benefit of the victims.

I'm sorry, but wha-huh? No, seriously... how in the world do you even reach that conclusion?

I'll be blunt, their keeping it quiet only benefits one person and that is the perpetrator. And since he was not facing the criminal justice system, they are well within their rights to tell others what he did to them.

And why did said perpetrator not face the criminal justice system? I would say that the system failed...

The law hasn't failed. It is society that has failed in how it views victims and handles their coming forward.

If the laws were just, then the viewpoint of society should be irrelevant, should it not; the laws should be impartial and just, ruled on based on facts and evidence, not societal whims - do you disagree with that idea?

continued

 

[Kittamaru]

And something did happen. Men who commit these crimes are being outed and society is getting the message that this is not acceptable and that women will no longer remain silent. That is a good thing. Because it will put pressure on the criminal justice system to take these crimes seriously and most importantly, the police and employers to handle this properly because if they do not, then their inaction can be outed as well.

Society is seeing a push towards no longer protecting the perpetrators of these crimes, because women are coming forward and are speaking out and are outing them. This is a good thing from a victim's perspective and it can hopefully reduce the number of sexual harassment cases and sexual violence for the pure and simple fact that these men who do this now know that there is a groundswell of support for the victim.

Millions upon millions of women are speaking out in the US alone. Instead of responding by diminishing what they are saying, demeaning them, embracing rape culture by complaining about false accusations (which are exceptionally rare to begin with and is only used to try to silence accusers), instead of trying to cast doubt, instead of arguing that women's human rights is not that important right now because there are bigger fish to fry, then you can solve and fix these problems. But so long as society continues to respond as you did, for example, you won't fix it.

Question, Bells - if you do not want to fix the legal system, then what solution do you propose; I ask because it sounds like you are looking for relief outside an established legal precedent, that you want public opinion and pressure to be what results in punishment for the accused.

Now, that may seem like a great idea right now (much like I'm sure some feel using the Nuclear option in the Senate is a great idea to get the desires of the majority party through) but society is fickle and prone to change. What happens if we establish this precedent, and then ten, twenty years down the line, the whims of society change.

Let us take a rather extreme, but not impossible, hypothetical situation - what happens if society takes the viewpoint that homosexuality should be punished by death (as it is, by law, in several countries) - would you still feel comfortable saying that society should be able to act and enforce justice outside the purview of the legal system?

As another - look at what happened to research into Stem Cell therapy because of the public being convinced that "it was murdering babies", when in reality a lot of stem cell research was being done with somatic stem cells. As a result, a number of promising studies found their funding severely curtailed.

I guess the question is... can, and should, we establish a precedent of punishment that is outside the bounds of the law... and is it safe to do so? What unintended consequences could result down the line?

...

I'm not saying we cannot and should not do this, so don't go there; I simply want to see adequate consideration and thought put into whatever solution we implement. No more band-aids. No more knee-jerk reactions. No more partial solutions with more holes than a block of swiss cheese, allowing those with money, influence, or power to ignore the consequences of their actions or otherwise "buy" their way into a lesser sentence.