Roy moore accusations

[Bells]

As are all of Franken's actual known supporters, and Franken himself. Are you thankful for that?

What choice do they have?

The Democrats aren't moving to replace him with another progressive from his state. And that's the problem. The Democrats correctly and rightly complain about Republican men who sexually harass, sexually molest and sexually assault women. But when one of their own do it, they don't really do that much about it. Instead, they pontificate about hearings, and try to play it down.

I'll put it this way, if what Franken did came out and there were no Moore accusations, no Weinstein or Trump, would the reaction to the allegations have been the same? Would Democrats be willing to allow him to remain in place and not ask him to resign so that the Governor can appoint another progressive who has not groped women?

Not equivalently. Not even close. You do recognize what the bothsides narrative is for, right?

From the perspective of a woman who has suffered sexual assault and sexual harassment, do you recognise that as far as I am concerned, any party that allows these members to stand or remain in place makes them just as bad as the other.. You do recognise that, right?

Put simply, you either have a zero tolerance or you don't. If the Democrats advertise themselves as a zero tolerance for sexual harassment against women party, which they have done in various ways, then they need to act like it. Thus far, they aren't acting like they are. Which does not send a good message to women in particular and it sends the message that they are willing to look the other way if their side is accused. I mean, look at Conyers, they know he did it, but he's still there.

I'll put it this way, if you ran a company and you found out one of your senior executives was groping the backsides of women while out and about representing your company at functions, would you umm and ahh and say 'well, we need to have an investigation into the matter', even when your executive admitted to doing it? Put simply, how badly does it have to get before you show him the door with a pink slip in his hands?

How are you identifying "Franken's supporters"? The only bona fide Franken supporters's stuff I've seen like that is some fact-checking on the details of the accounts (for example that Franken obviously did not, as claimed, write that kissing skit on the spot to set up that first accuser - it was part of the USO show years before)

Those same "bona fide Franken supporters" have gone beyond that and have taken to slut shaming these women, claimed they are lying, claimed the photo is false and fake (despite Franken admitting to taking the photo). Do you think that is acceptable?

1) No, it isn't. And if you muddle that kind of distinction, the predators and Republicans will benefit - not the society, or women in general.

Actually, yes it is.

I'll put it this way, do you think the Democrats should have a platform that has a zero tolerance towards sexual harassment? Yes or no?

People keep going on about how if people make that kind of distinction, if people point out what is blatant hypocrisy, that the predators and Republicans will benefit and that somehow or other, society and women will lose in general. I think society and women will lose if the Democrats continue on the path they are currently on when they do not act against their members who behave badly towards women. To wit, your party is not offering up a better alternative by giving what is tantamount to a 'at least our guy isn't a paedophile' defense.

2) Nobody is saying Franken did nothing "really wrong" - despite a lack of what people normally call evidence that he did, essentially all of Franken's defenders start by saying he did wrong.

And yet, he's still there because the excuse they are coming up with to defend him is that 'he's not a paedophile like Moore'..

Meanwhile, he had been attending women's events as a Democratic senator and sexually harassing women. If you don't think that is acceptable, then why aren't Democrats demanding that he resign so that the Governor of his state can appoint another progressive?

As for the lack of evidence against him.. The evidence against him is as good as that against Moore. Would you say the same thing about Moore's accusers? No, you would not and you would be an idiot if you did. So I find it astonishing that you think there is a "lack of what people normally call evidence" when it comes to Franken.

I understand that you have lost it.

I haven't lost it, iceaura. I'm just tired of the rampant hypocrisy and excuses being made for men who sexually harass women, regardless of what party they belong to.

But I understand why that may be problematic for you.

Equally unacceptable as what Moore, Weinstein, or Trump did and how they reacted and so forth? That's not sane. And it is the Republican Party line.

Meanwhile, Republicans are citing Clinton, etc, when they make excuses for Moore.

If Moore, Weinstein or Trump had not happened, would you still be saying the same thing about Franken? And why do you think Franken should get a pass, because Moore, Weinstein and Trump happened to the US?

I don't see anybody, in any of those accounts, afraid of Franken or what he would do, how he would react, etc.

Ask any woman who feels so uncomfortable about a man's sexual harassment that she feels she has to escape to the ladies room and make her friend go with her, if she's not afraid at that particular point or afraid for her safety and wellbeing at that particular point.

As a woman who's been there and done that, I can assure you, when a man acts that way and I make a break for the bathroom to get away from him and I ask my friend to come with me, it's not because I want company as I touch up my make up or because I want someone to talk to as I pee. Understand now?

Fleeing to the ladies room to get away from sexual harassment is our fear response, it is a way to put distance between us and the man doing it, it is a way to get safe, and have at least one other woman with us as an extra point of safety. It means that it's no longer safe 'out there' and we retreat to the bathroom for safety. That's what women do. His accuser said she used the bathroom as an excuse to escape from him, he then propositioned her about joining her in there, she then made her friend go with her to the bathroom.. That was her security. Trust me, there was fear there.

Not the Dems. Just the GOP. Focus.

Tell me that when the Democrats ask Franken and Conyers to resign and replace them with other progressives who have not sexually harassed women, and then you can make that statement. Until then, as far as I am concerned, you're just making excuses for bad behaviour and your excuse falls down to 'well, the other side is worse'. That's not good enough. An in a climate where women are demanding zero tolerance for sexual harassment, that is not acceptable.

The Dems are the ones launching investigations, believing the women by assumption even when the stories don't quite add up and the women have an obvious agenda, accepting the Republican "bothsides" framing, and so forth.

Ya, that's why they are doing it.

Meanwhile, Franken has admitted to the behaviour. So the investigation will find what, exactly? And how damaging will it be to the Democrats if you have the investigation, and by his own admittance, he did it, and then what? They won't ask him to resign. Hell, they haven't now, given he's admitted to doing it. So what do you think the investigation will find? That there is a major problem with sexual harassment in Congress? Well duh!

I mean, how do you think the majority male (only one female) ethics committee will handle this, iceaura?

The Reps are the ones who want everyone to talk about Franken whenever Moore's name comes up.

And the Democrats are running with the 'well at least he's not a paedophile' in response... What a stunning defense and excuse.

As I said, you either have a zero tolerance for that behaviour, or you do not. We know the Republicans do not have zero tolerance for it. It's a shame that the Democrats do not. When one considers that the Democrats rely on women voters so much, perhaps they should actually start having a zero tolerance for such behaviour. But yeah, keep running with the excuses such as 'he's not as bad as Moore and Trump' or 'at least he's not a paedophile' types of defenses..

It's a really good look for your party.

 

[Kittamaru]

Here's a question...

Zero tolerance... To where does that extend? Eg - if someone makes an attempt to flirt, and the lady finds that to be offensive or frightening... Do you suggest throwing them out? No physical contact, no lewdness, mind you.

Where does one draw the line? Obviously, it must be drawn somewhere... But, well, how do we want to define it? Where do you cross from "normal human prerogative" to "creepy sexual harassment"? I think that needs to be clearly defined, or else we are all just shooting at a moving target... One that can, and is, being adjusted for use as a political power play.

To wit - there is a lot of commentary about how it affects "your party" and such. Shouldn't both sides be held to the same standards, and judged against those standards equally?

 

[iceaura]

What choice do they have?

The same choices the Republicans have, and the Wiener or Weinstein supporters, who chose differently.

The Democrats aren't moving to replace him with another progressive from his state.

Why would they do that? In the first place, there aren't many possible choices. In the second, Franken has proven his abilities. In the third, the Dems in Minnesota aren't all that "progressive" or competent - the progressive Dems don't trust the State Dem establishment, and aren't going to go along with that unless far worse Franken behavior is exposed.

Tell me that when the Democrats ask Franken and Conyers to resign and replace them with other progressives who have not sexually harassed women, and then you can make that statement.

Nonsense. The difference between the Dem and GOP Party behavior is striking.

Ask any woman who feels so uncomfortable about a man's sexual harassment that she feels she has to escape to the ladies room and make her friend go with her, if she's not afraid at that particular point or afraid for her safety and wellbeing at that particular point.

I'm going to believe the accounts as published by the women themselves, along with what's what my sisters, my wife, and my brothers's wives, tell me about them (it's been a hot topic - overshadowing Moore and Trump and Weinstein - in the family circles).
I'm also going to believe the accounts and tones of voice of the other women who have, over the years of my adult life, complained about the repulsive necessity of that in my hearing. Ok?

And the Democrats are running with the 'well at least he's not a paedophile' in response...

No, "the Democrats" aren't.
Why do you find it necessary to repeatedly misrepresent what people are saying?

your excuse falls down to 'well, the other side is worse'. That's not good enough.

The question is not whether it's "good enough". (Good enough for what?) The question is whether it's the fact of the matter - whether the people in control of this narrative can make the obvious distinctions involved in the reality of the situation.

Because if they can't, if this Republican bothsides narrative dominates, it will continue to kill every progressive agenda in American politics. This is how Clinton got killed on the emails, for example. It's lethal.

 

[Bells]

Zero tolerance... To where does that extend? Eg - if someone makes an attempt to flirt, and the lady finds that to be offensive or frightening... Do you suggest throwing them out? No physical contact, no lewdness, mind you.

If they persist, what do you think should happen?

If a guy is attempting to flirt and the woman looks afraid, what should the guy do? What if she says no or clearly shows no signs of interest? If the guy persists, then yeah, it's harassment. If his attempt to flirt is to comment on her boobs, or makes a sexually lewd comment, then yeah, that's harassment. If she's walking down an alleyway at night, for example, and he uses that particular time as an attempt to flirt and she looks afraid, then really, he needs to learn what is appropriate and when.

Where does one draw the line? Obviously, it must be drawn somewhere... But, well, how do we want to define it? Where do you cross from "normal human prerogative" to "creepy sexual harassment"? I think that needs to be clearly defined, or else we are all just shooting at a moving target... One that can, and is, being adjusted for use as a political power play.

I'll put it this way..

Say you are single and you meet a woman for the first time. What is your first inclination? Grab her backside, stare at her boobs, proposition her by suggesting you both retire to the bathroom? Or do you say 'hi, how's it going' and other pleasantries that normal people engage in?

People keep saying that a line has to be drawn somewhere..

But really, it comes down to pure common sense and frankly, viewing her as a human being and respecting her as such. It's really not that hard.

And if people can't understand that 'line' when it comes to women's bodies, then frankly, they should stay away from women. If a guy cannot grasp that he should not grope a woman when out and about or at a work function, etc, then really, he should not be anywhere near women.

To wit - there is a lot of commentary about how it affects "your party" and such. Shouldn't both sides be held to the same standards, and judged against those standards equally?

Well at present both are being held to the same standard. And that seems to be a problem. Republicans point to Clinton, Weiner, etc in response to Moore and why he should not resign, Democrats point to Moore, Trump, etc, as to why Franken and Conyers should not stand down, and of course, that tried and failed defense of 'well, at least he's not a paedophile' line, which really, is just pure desperation.

The issue that many women are having at present (and many men for that matter) is that Democrats are making a ridiculous amount of excuses for Franken's behaviour. And this is the same party that is apparently touting itself as the party that defends women and women's rights. But when sexual assault and sexual harassment allegations come their way, they umm and ahh, declare that they are really great because they are asking for an ethics investigation (despite having admitted to doing it) from a mostly male committee, or in Conyer's case, remaining silent when the victim is given a payout from what is basically a slush/hush fund in Congress.. They are losing any moral standpoint by pontificating and hand wringing and looking the other way.

They either declare such behaviour to be unacceptable and hold their moral ground, or they just wallow in the muck with the rest of them and hope that the 'well, it's not as bad as Moore' and the 'he'll resign when Trump and Moore stand down' goes down well. Meanwhile, women are explaining just how prevalent and problematic sexual harassment is, Democrats are nodding their heads in agreement, while ignoring the giant pink elephants in the room and Republicans are voting in sex offenders because it's better to vote for the pedophile than to vote for a progressive.

 

[iceaura]

It's a really good look for your party.

It's not "my" Party. It's where I usually end up, most times, because the Republican Party is malignant in my State, but there's no love lost in my house for the asshats of the Minnesota DFL.

It's just that: Weinstein is pilloried, Spitzer was fired and prosecuted, Weiner's in jail, there's even a formal investigation of Franken for Chrissake. All as should be. And meanwhile, Trump is in the White House after a campaign year of media bothsiding everything, and Roy Moore has a chance of bothsiding his way to victory on the media handling of Franken's behavior, and there's no hint on the horizon even of a Republican white male power center - such as Wall Street, or the boardrooms of the Fortune 500 - even coming into play.

If a guy is attempting to flirt and the woman looks afraid, what should the guy do? What if she says no or clearly shows no signs of interest?

We know what Franken did immediately upon being braced, according to the accounts so far - he backed off. According to the accounts so far. No threats, no coercions, no bribes or "settlements" yet made public.

They either declare such behaviour to be unacceptable and hold their moral ground,

And so they have, with Franken. That's not good enough for you, is the problem.

The issue that many women are having at present (and many men for that matter) is that Democrats are making a ridiculous amount of excuses for Franken's behaviour.

"Democrats" (in general) are not actually doing that, in this case. You are misrepresenting the situation.

Republicans point to Clinton, Weiner, etc in response to Moore and why he should not resign, Democrats point to Moore, Trump, etc, as to why Franken and Conyers should not stand down,

Clinton was impeached, Weiner was prosecuted and removed and eventually jailed, and "Democrats" do not point to Moore and Trump "as to why" Franken - or even Conyers, an apparently more legitimately comparable case, at least somewhat - should not resign (the opposite, in fact - some point to Moore, in particular, as a reason Franken should resign). You are bullshitting, here.

You are posting Newt Gingrich's Both Sides Party Line. Why?

 

[birch]

Nothing will stop men except zero access and opportunity which is unrealistic but society can make an example by how it handles it's leaders so as to give the message it's not acceptable. zero tolerance no matter what political party. some punishment administered is more important to show the public in general that it's not acceptable. but it will never completely stop it or deter it to any significant extent unless the punishments become very harsh and society is not going to do that. part of the reason is because it's too common. people are sinful creatures.

besides men, the problem is there are still women who are lax about such incidents against women too and that can't be changed either.

literally, if the accused perpetrator did not directly victimize them, they don't usually care. same with most men, while they don't want that to happen to their own mother, wives/girlfriend, sister, daughter, or friend, they may want to victimize someone else they don't care about.

so, this is the core problem with garnering support or a consensus on an issue that affects many but where the individuals involved vary in each situation.

add to this another issue is that there are women who unjustly accuse or even fabricate lies against men so that makes it harder for women who really have been victimized to be believed. unfortunately, this can be used as a ruse against women that they are being vengeful or have an ulterior motive in their accusations.

then to add further problems, much of these incidents are hard to prove with concrete evidence and which is one of the reasons why it's prevalent because perpetrators know it's often a he said/she said scenario when they commit the offense in the first place. some do it in front of others but usually not or they will in company that they know does not care or will not be taken seriously.

the problem has always been because people are immoral. its a shame there is almost nothing to change it. so you can see this shit will never stop.

humans may deserve to go extinct as a species and all organic life as it's so lacking in real integrity. the whole basis of organic life is predation. it will never stop. these incidents will continue and even if you deter some, there are others that won't be caught and even if they are, there is little consequence anyways and so on the next generation.

robots and computers should replace us. organic life is faulty as hell.

 

[Kittamaru]

If they persist, what do you think should happen?

If a guy is attempting to flirt and the woman looks afraid, what should the guy do? What if she says no or clearly shows no signs of interest? If the guy persists, then yeah, it's harassment. If his attempt to flirt is to comment on her boobs, or makes a sexually lewd comment, then yeah, that's harassment. If she's walking down an alleyway at night, for example, and he uses that particular time as an attempt to flirt and she looks afraid, then really, he needs to learn what is appropriate and when.


I'll put it this way..

Say you are single and you meet a woman for the first time. What is your first inclination? Grab her backside, stare at her boobs, proposition her by suggesting you both retire to the bathroom? Or do you say 'hi, how's it going' and other pleasantries that normal people engage in?

People keep saying that a line has to be drawn somewhere..

But really, it comes down to pure common sense and frankly, viewing her as a human being and respecting her as such. It's really not that hard.

And if people can't understand that 'line' when it comes to women's bodies, then frankly, they should stay away from women. If a guy cannot grasp that he should not grope a woman when out and about or at a work function, etc, then really, he should not be anywhere near women.


Well at present both are being held to the same standard. And that seems to be a problem. Republicans point to Clinton, Weiner, etc in response to Moore and why he should not resign, Democrats point to Moore, Trump, etc, as to why Franken and Conyers should not stand down, and of course, that tried and failed defense of 'well, at least he's not a paedophile' line, which really, is just pure desperation.

The issue that many women are having at present (and many men for that matter) is that Democrats are making a ridiculous amount of excuses for Franken's behaviour. And this is the same party that is apparently touting itself as the party that defends women and women's rights. But when sexual assault and sexual harassment allegations come their way, they umm and ahh, declare that they are really great because they are asking for an ethics investigation (despite having admitted to doing it) from a mostly male committee, or in Conyer's case, remaining silent when the victim is given a payout from what is basically a slush/hush fund in Congress.. They are losing any moral standpoint by pontificating and hand wringing and looking the other way.

They either declare such behaviour to be unacceptable and hold their moral ground, or they just wallow in the muck with the rest of them and hope that the 'well, it's not as bad as Moore' and the 'he'll resign when Trump and Moore stand down' goes down well. Meanwhile, women are explaining just how prevalent and problematic sexual harassment is, Democrats are nodding their heads in agreement, while ignoring the giant pink elephants in the room and Republicans are voting in sex offenders because it's better to vote for the pedophile than to vote for a progressive.

I will elaborate more once I'm at my computer (it's a pain in the ass to break up quotes on my phones touchscreen due to lack of brackets) - my point was that it can be difficult for the flirt-er (guy or girl) to tell if the flirt-ee is uncomfortable, especially if said person doesn't make it apparent. Case in point - I'm a tactile person, always have been, and with close friends I'm very much a hugger and several if us have a "poke war" of sorts going on (inside joke spanning a dozen people and as many years).

All that said - one of my best friends (and I consider him like a brother), it took me several years to discover that it made him somewhat uncomfortable, because he simply never said anything about it, and I (nor our other friends) picked up any outward signs. I only found out due to a new years eve party that involved trivial pursuit and alcohol. He is a rather jumpy but giggly drunk, and at one point I commented how he was a bit jumpy whenever people got real close. He let me know that he wasn't a fan of close contact, and that anything more than a handshake was sometimes disquieting for him.

All that to say - when is a mistake simply a mistake, and what roll/responsibility does the person claiming foul have to let the other know they are uncomfortable?

Me, I'm pretty outspoken about it. If someone is making me uncomfortable, I take a step back, lock eyes, and tell them as such. It's who I am. Many people simply aren't like that, and suffer in silence. That isn't an excuse or an attempt to shift blame - it's simply what happens.

So, again, how and where do we draw the line, because common sense, as we've seen this election cycle, is seemingly so rare it could be an X-men style superpower at this point.

Anyway, I don't know how well if at all, I'm getting my internet turned across. If there were a clearly defined line (No is No, for example), then there would be no question regarding people like Franken, Moore, Trump, et al. As it stands now, it seems to be a shades of gray style "Well what" x" did isn't that bad, and besides "y" did this and it's worse" kind of bullshit that never accomplishes anything productive.

Is what Franken did wrong? IMHO, hell yes. Is it as bad as what Moore reportedly did, or perhaps the guy that was just outed as having impregnated a minor? I don't think it's on the same level, but neither are acceptable.

 

[Bells]

The same choices the Republicans have, and the Wiener or Weinstein supporters, who chose differently.

Yep. In other words, your party is just as bad, because they aren't making a stand against this sort of behaviour and leaving voters with little to no choice.

Democrats in Minnesota are now left with a man who likes to grope women and his own constituents when they take a photo with him.

If a senator thinks it’s okay to grab a female constituent’s body during a photo op, he is not representing her fairly. This is true even if he supports reproductive rights and equal pay. By failing to respect the bodily autonomy of a voter, he is failing to act in her interests as her elected representative. Simply put, he is not doing his job.​

So much for that moral high ground.

And that constant response of 'we're not as bad as the Republicans'... It's frankly laughable. I mean, if the line in regards to women is now at the Moore and Trump and Weinstein point, in that the party won't act unless it's as bad as them, then really, that's kind of pathetic. And if people keep going on about how he isn't as bad as them or cannot or should not be compared to them, then really, that's all kinds of pathetic for a response or defense.

Put simply, where do you think the line should be, iceaura?

Why would they do that?

Well gee, I don't know, iceaura. Four women have accused him of sexual harassment and groping. And you ask why would they do that?

In the first place, there aren't many possible choices. In the second, Franken has proven his abilities.

Really? He's proven his ability to grope and sexually harass women? So because he's a good senator, he should get a pass for groping women and making one have to flee to the bathroom with a friend to get away from him? And is he being a good senator when he gropes the women in Minnesota?

In the third, the Dems in Minnesota aren't all that "progressive" or competent - the progressive Dems don't trust the State Dem establishment, and aren't going to go along with that unless far worse Franken behavior is exposed.

Okay, going with a defense that amounts to 'they are not competent' to pick another progressive is not really that good. To the one, you are basically saying that they should be stuck with a creep who gropes women because their lack of competence means they cannot do any better and to the other, you are saying that even groping women without their consent is not bad in the eyes of Democrats.

If four women accusing him of groping and sexual harassment is not deemed bad enough... Yeah, the party that cares about women and their rights, just so long as they don't care that their bodies are there for entertainment of Democratic senators and for groping.... Really, it's laughable. And it is pure hypocrisy.

Nonsense. The difference between the Dem and GOP Party behavior is striking

Not really.

I get that you keep repeating that like it's a mantra, but when sexual harassment and groping is not deemed an offense that is serious enough to show them the door, then there's no difference. Hell, when it comes to sex with a kid, the Democrats did the exact same thing that the Republicans are doing now.

In August 1994, Reynolds was indicted for sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse for engaging in a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer that began during the 1992 campaign.[1] Despite the charges, he continued his campaign and was re-elected that November; he had no opposition.[1] Reynolds initially denied the charges, which he claimed were racially motivated. On August 22, 1995, he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1 of that year.[2]

Reynolds was sentenced to five years in prison, thus he expected to be released in 1998. However, in April 1997 he was convicted on 16 unrelated counts of bank fraud, misusing campaign funds for personal use and lying to FEC investigators. Specifically, one count of bank fraud, two counts of wire fraud, eight counts of making false statements on loan applications, one count of conspiracy to defraud the Federal Election Commission, and four counts of making false statements to the FEC. These charges resulted in an additional sentence of 78 months in federal prison. Reynolds served all of his first sentence, and served 42 months in prison for the later charges. At that point, President Bill Clinton commuted the sentence for bank fraud. As a result, Reynolds was released from prison and served the remaining time in a halfway house.[5]​

Do you know what he did when he got out of prison? He was hired by fellow Democrat Jesse Jackson, to work as a youth counselor (after having sex with a minor and being jailed for it).

Do you want to know how that reads?

He then ran again, in 2004 and 2013, as a Democrat...

So no, the difference between the GOP and the Democrats is not that striking at all.

You'll excuse me if I don't buy the 'we are not like them' line.

I'm going to believe the accounts as published by the women themselves, along with what's what my sisters, my wife, and my brothers's wives, tell me about them (it's been a hot topic - overshadowing Moore and Trump and Weinstein - in the family circles).
I'm also going to believe the accounts and tones of voice of the other women who have, over the years of my adult life, complained about the repulsive necessity of that in my hearing. Ok?

Good way of kind of avoiding the question. Tell me, were they afraid or concerned for their safety in such situations? Because every single woman I know, when faced with such harassment, have been afraid, and with good reason.

No, "the Democrats" aren't.
Why do you find it necessary to repeatedly misrepresent what people are saying?

Oh so people who keep saying that aren't Democrat voters?

Okay then, means you're all good! It also means that the Republicans supporting and voting for Moore aren't Republicans after all.. Right?

Or are we splitting hairs in this us vs them scenario?

The question is not whether it's "good enough". (Good enough for what?) The question is whether it's the fact of the matter - whether the people in control of this narrative can make the obvious distinctions involved in the reality of the situation.

I don't know iceaura..

You tell me..

Do you think sexual harassment and groping women should get a pass? If your employee did that to women while representing your company, what would you do? Would you make them 'say sorry' and carry on? Or would you terminate their employment for doing it repeatedly?

I mean, you avoided that question. Which is interesting in light of that ridiculous statement.

Because if they can't, if this Republican bothsides narrative dominates, it will continue to kill every progressive agenda in American politics. This is how Clinton got killed on the emails, for example. It's lethal.

Well, there goes that moral high ground.

You keep avoiding answering the obvious question.

Do you think sexual harassment and groping women is acceptable behaviour and if you do not, why do you think Franken should get a pass for doing it to multiple women, some of whom were his constituents?

What else are you willing to overlook to protect the progressive agenda in American politics. If sexual harassment gets a pass because apparently the guy doing it is a good guy (when in reality, a guy who does this to women is not a good guy, just for your information), if groping women gets a pass because 'oi, he's a good progressive guy (again, irony), what doesn't get a pass?

And how can the party put on the face of 'we care about women's rights' when its own Senators have shown zero respect for women and their bodies and aren't even made to resign?

 

[Bells]

It's not "my" Party. It's where I usually end up, most times, because the Republican Party is malignant in my State, but there's no love lost in my house for the asshats of the Minnesota DFL.

Ah, hysterical!

It's just that: Weinstein is pilloried, Spitzer was fired and prosecuted, Weiner's in jail, there's even a formal investigation of Franken for Chrissake. All as should be. And meanwhile, Trump is in the White House after a campaign year of media bothsiding everything, and Roy Moore has a chance of bothsiding his way to victory on Franken's behavior.

You think that's what is going to get Moore elected? Republicans in Alabama don't care that he molested little girls. They were going to vote for him regardless, even before the Franken allegations came out. So stop using that as an excuse.

And you don't really get to complain about Trump's sexual harassment of women anymore. People who keep pointing to Trump in defending Franken, have lost all moral high ground they may have had.

We know what Franken did - he backed off. According to the accounts.

Well, how wonderful! We'll just ignore what he did beforehand and he did say 'sorry', so it's all good, right? That's all it takes? Sorry? Except, he didn't even apologise for the behaviour. He put it down to how he likes to hug. But hey, he didn't keep pushing, so it means he's a good man.. But again, we'll just ignore that he did it in the first place, multiple times.

And so they have, with Franken. That's not good enough for you, is the problem.

No, it's not good enough for me. That question about your employee can apply here, once more.

If your employee admits to sexually harassing women while representing your company, do you fire him or not?

They are not actually doing that, in this case. You are misrepresenting the situation.

Uh huh..

 

[Kittamaru]

I would also ask - if it had been just the groping picture, as an example, what is the appropriate response /retaliation? Franken has dozens of female staff standing by him, saying he's been professional and courteous et al, even after he took responsibility for wrongdoing. Does owning up to a mistake change things, compared to slandering and verbally abusing the accuser as Moore and Co are doing? Is personal responsibility after the fact worth anything anymore? Because... Well, if not... Then what reason is there for said responsibility in an age where he who has the most money/power can do what they want and, apparently, get away with it unscathed?

 

[Kittamaru]

No, it's not good enough for me. That question about your employee can apply here, once more.

If your employee admits to sexually harassing women while representing your company, do you fire him or not?

I would guess that depends on what happened. If said sexual harassment was, for instance, a joke too far, then I'd ask the victim what they felt was appropriate punishment.

If it were, say, someone attempting to coerce another employee into sexual actions, threatening to damage their career if they refused, then immediate termination and filing of charges would seem appropriate to me.

What would you consider due process, in this instance?

 

[birch]

or in the future if women are genetically altered to be as physically strong and aggressive as men, then men wouldn't see them as such easy victims. real equality.

ironicly, is that often the victim is subdued by the law too. while it is very easy to harass someone which for a man is unthreatened by a woman even in terms of backlash in the immediate sense (physically), which is why they do it. a victim's only recourse is the law after the fact or actual physical injury to stop the perpetrator and that is going to put the blame and accusation on the defense. oh poor perpetrator.

 

[Kittamaru]

or in the future if women are genetically altered to be as physically strong and aggressive as men, then men wouldn't see them as such easy victims. real equality.

ironicly, is that often the victim is subdued by the law too. while it is very easy to harass someone which for a man is unthreatened by a woman even in terms of backlash in the immediate sense (physically), which is why they do it. a victim's only recourse is the law after the fact or actual physical injury to stop the perpetrator and that is going to put the blame and accusation on the defense. oh poor perpetrator.

Which it should not be. If a woman is being sexually assaulted or raped, and pulls out a handgun and splatters the would be rapists brains across the wall, I personally feel she acted in self defense of a real and present threat. The fact that, as it stands, we have people serving life on prison for just such a scenario is insane to me.

 

[Kittamaru]

OK, at my computer for a few minutes:

If they persist, what do you think should happen?

Addresed here

If a guy is attempting to flirt and the woman looks afraid, what should the guy do?

Obviously, he should knock it off.

What if she says no or clearly shows no signs of interest?

Again, obviously he should stop.

If the guy persists, then yeah, it's harassment. If his attempt to flirt is to comment on her boobs, or makes a sexually lewd comment, then yeah, that's harassment. If she's walking down an alleyway at night, for example, and he uses that particular time as an attempt to flirt and she looks afraid, then really, he needs to learn what is appropriate and when.

Agreed. My point was more along the lines of someone who is making an attempt to flirt whilst still being courteous and conscientious, yet is not getting any sign from the other party that they are uncomfortable or otherwise afraid.

I'll put it this way..

Say you are single and you meet a woman for the first time. What is your first inclination? Grab her backside, stare at her boobs, proposition her by suggesting you both retire to the bathroom? Or do you say 'hi, how's it going' and other pleasantries that normal people engage in?

I think we both know the answer to this, Bells.

People keep saying that a line has to be drawn somewhere..

But really, it comes down to pure common sense and frankly, viewing her as a human being and respecting her as such. It's really not that hard.

And yet, it can be. What is normal for you or I may be abnormal for someone else. Between cultural differences, differences in lifestyle, social norms, etc... it isn't so black and white. Attempting to make it that cut and dry just seems like it is asking for trouble.

And if people can't understand that 'line' when it comes to women's bodies, then frankly, they should stay away from women. If a guy cannot grasp that he should not grope a woman when out and about or at a work function, etc, then really, he should not be anywhere near women.

So, then, do you propose there is no difference between a lewd comment, touching the rear, and attempting to rip someones clothes off and forcibly take them? If that's how you want to define it, fine - but we need to make sure everyone is on the same page, and held to the same standard.

Well at present both are being held to the same standard. And that seems to be a problem. Republicans point to Clinton, Weiner, etc in response to Moore and why he should not resign, Democrats point to Moore, Trump, etc, as to why Franken and Conyers should not stand down, and of course, that tried and failed defense of 'well, at least he's not a paedophile' line, which really, is just pure desperation.

The issue that many women are having at present (and many men for that matter) is that Democrats are making a ridiculous amount of excuses for Franken's behaviour. And this is the same party that is apparently touting itself as the party that defends women and women's rights. But when sexual assault and sexual harassment allegations come their way, they umm and ahh, declare that they are really great because they are asking for an ethics investigation (despite having admitted to doing it) from a mostly male committee, or in Conyer's case, remaining silent when the victim is given a payout from what is basically a slush/hush fund in Congress.. They are losing any moral standpoint by pontificating and hand wringing and looking the other way.

They either declare such behaviour to be unacceptable and hold their moral ground, or they just wallow in the muck with the rest of them and hope that the 'well, it's not as bad as Moore' and the 'he'll resign when Trump and Moore stand down' goes down well. Meanwhile, women are explaining just how prevalent and problematic sexual harassment is, Democrats are nodding their heads in agreement, while ignoring the giant pink elephants in the room and Republicans are voting in sex offenders because it's better to vote for the pedophile than to vote for a progressive.

If I'm not mistaken, Franken has admitted wrongdoing and stated he would be open to an investigation. Are you suggesting he should be punished before said investigation, ergo "guilty until proven innocent"? If so, again, that's fine - I just want to make sure we're all playing by the same rulebook.

 

[birch]

All that to say - when is a mistake simply a mistake, and what roll/responsibility does the person claiming foul have to let the other know they are uncomfortable?

obviously, as an 'adult', they have a responsibility to make it clearly known certain actions or words are unacceptable to them. but as with with sexual harassers, they will just try something else. so literally, you have to say and be very literal, 'don't talk to me at all'. which is ridiculous to have to be that explicit but often that is the only way to stop them (usually) because they will just try something else.

the problem is it's not that they don't know it's unwanted, it's that they don't respect any boundaries unless it's absolutely enforced. the verbal boundary is only respected because they know they can't deny or feign they don't know where you stand when you made it clear to them. but even that only applies to some people. there are those who will do anything and you literally have to physically get away.

 

[Kittamaru]

obviously, as an 'adult', they have a responsibility to make it clearly known certain actions or words are unacceptable to them. but as with with sexual harassers, they will just try something else. so literally, you have to say and be very literal, 'don't talk to me at all'. which is ridiculous to have to be that explicit but often that is the only way to stop them (usually) because they will just try something else.

Yet as I already explained above, complete with an example from my own life with one of my own very close friends, that is not always the case.

the problem is it's not that they don't know it's unwanted, it's that they don't respect any boundaries unless it's absolutely enforced

. the verbal boundary is only respected because they know they can't deny or feign they don't know where you stand when you made it clear to them. but even that only applies to some people. there are those who will do anything and you literally have to physically get away.

So, you are making the claim, then, that all men are swine and will take advantage of women at every opportunity unless the Sword of Damocles hangs o're their head...

Quite the interesting idea, and one that I personally take offense to. I'm certain, of course, that you can prove this is the case, with requisite supporting evidence, that it's impossible for this to ever be a misunderstanding or miscommunication?

 

[birch]

Quite the interesting idea, and one that I personally take offense to. I'm certain, of course, that you can prove this is the case, with requisite supporting evidence, that it's impossible for this to ever be a misunderstanding or miscommunication?

you can be offended all the fuk you want. of course, not all men are like that. i was clearly referring to sexual harassers because to have to get to the point of having to say 'don't talk to me at all' indicates repeatedly coming onto you in various ways, even after you've made it known you are not interested. politeness doesn't work.

since you are a man, obviously you are unaware that men who are sexual harassers take even conversation or any attention their way as an opportunity to continue to try you.

as an example, at this house i was renting a room, the guy immediately banged on my door insisting on meeting me. the guy downstairs told me that he asked 'what does she look like' even before he met me when he was told that a female lived upstairs, which he thought was inappropriate. then when i did meet him, he immediately was telling me about how he is not getting along with his girlfriend and immediately started asking me invasive questions. i told him i am relocating elsewhere. then he asked me out on a date. i said no politely. then since i had to use the same facilities, i could not really avoid him and had to still be civil, i was downstairs making my meal and he was there and out of nowhere in the conversation, he asks me for a hug. what? that is actually not appropriate at all and is not innocent. then a few days later, he sees me outside and props the door open again and mentions he broke up with his girlfriend and he's buying a car soon as if i give a shit. then he asks me again if i would go out to a dinner and a movie which i said no again and this time he plaintively says 'i don't know why we just can't be friends!' to which i said i'm not interested and don't talk to me again.

yeah, i consider that harassment. i felt harassed, bothered, annoyed and irritated. people can feign they don't know but they do know, they just don't care to read the signs all along because they will keep trying you until there is no opening at all. that is not innocent and that is not ignorance, that is harassment and disrespectful.

evidently i do know not all men are like that, because the other two males there were not like that and they did not bother me and i interacted with them fine without any issues.

 

[birch]

heh. i even told him that i was not interested in dating or a relationship at all. this was to let the person know where my head was. if you are conversating with someone and they say that and you ignore it, then that's on you.

sexual harassers try to 'evade' what you say or what you mean and what your wants/wishes are if they don't coincide with theirs in relation to their agenda or motive with you. that's the 'objectification' of what sociopaths do. they literally try to bypass you as if they can coerce you into submission which is pretty sick actually.

 

[birch]

are the men on this forum really going to pretend they don't know what sexual harassment is, like kittamaru, using a very reaching example of a friend he's known for years?

sexual harassment can happen from the getgo with one action such as sexually explicit remark, joke, or comment about body etc. that is in the context of a stranger or just an associate such as a coworker you don't have such a rapport with. if one thinks that is just a 'misunderstanding', it's like pretending ignorance of the law. that's no misunderstanding. you are a fuking asshole.

the other cases of sexual harassment is when someone is clearly not interested and one keeps ignoring that until the other literally has to tell them to not interact with them at all and vice versa.

so no, there is no 'misunderstanding or miscommunication' in sexual harassment. ever. that's why it's harassment and has all the hallmarks of either rude objectification/sexually or being, well, fuking harassed!

 

[Kittamaru]

so no, there is no 'misunderstanding or miscommunication' in sexual harassment. ever. that's why it's harassment and has all the hallmarks of either rude objectification/sexually or being, well, fuking harassed!

Of course there is never any miscommunication in sexual harassment ever. Of course.

So glad, birch, that you can so confidently speak in absolutes.

As for the example with my friend - you can believe me or not all you want. It doesn't change a thing, much like most of your off the wall ideas. That's the great thing about the truth - it is true regardless of what unknowing fools opine.