And how do you think protecting people who commit acts against the people you are supposedly protecting, going to help the people you are saying you are meant to be protecting?
Gleefully getting all giddy? I think you are mistaking disgust with glee.
And I am looking 2 to 5 steps ahead, because in this current climate, where women are coming out and outing their abusers and harassers, how can anyone possibly argue that protecting or leaving harassers and abusers in place is better for women overall?
To the one, it is hypocritical, because you would lose the very leg you have to stand on when confronting Trump and his accusers. You do understand why, don't you?
And this vague promise that leaving someone who gropes women in place is better for women in the long run tells women that the party has zero talent or zero abilities to field candidates who are not abusers and harassers. Do you understand how and why that is bad in the long term?
As for your issue with me, considering you are attributing your own words to me to try to have a go at me for something you said.....
So the alternative is to spread the message about being the party to protect women, but just ignore the guys in the party who are groping and sexually harassing women? How did that work out for Moore? Seeing that Republican voters basically stayed home rather than vote for the popular guy who smashed the primary, because of the allegations against him..
Ms Dupuy knows the talent pool and clearly there are talented people who can run for his seat, but she also knows that leaving a powerful man in his position after 8 women have come out and accused him of that, including herself, is not a good or winning strategy. He would have hung around the necks of Democrats for the time he remained in the Senate and given how he only just won his seat, how do you think that would have gone in the next election?
So you accept those skeletons for Trump and Moore then?
Do you think Moore's voters should have turned out for him instead of staying home?
I mean, that is what you are applying to the Democrats, then that also applies to the Republicans. We balk and rightfully so, at Republicans who were willing to look the other way for Trump and the likes of Moore. And they demanded that their voters accept it because it is all about winning. And frankly, if your party is willing to overlook sex offenses or "skeletons" of this nature and worse, accept it, just to win, then you do not deserve to win. Protect offenders of this nature.. I mean wow. That's bad and to argue that people should accept that rich powerful men who have these skeletons and that women and victims should just accept it because it's all about winning... At what cost?
Instead of praising movements like the #MeToo movement, you are essentially arguing that these victims should remain quiet, because some of these rich men will have these "skeletons" and that they should just accept it because it is more important to take back the government and win. That is frankly appalling.
Uh huh.
And the counter to that is that the Democrats purge their perverts, the Republicans endorse and elect them.
I mean, if you think protecting the likes of Franken for political expediency is more important, then that's on you. But you don't get to complain about them for who and what they protect when you are willing to do the same when the accused is a Democrat.
Fit into this little box for how she should have behaved? That because she did not suggest he resign, that somehow this lessens what he did? The fact these women spoke out and as always happens, once one comes out, the others follow, because there is that support network there, they know they are not alone. One of his victims said she spoke out because he still wasn't resigning and because she was disgusted that he was willing to drag them all through a public hearing and all that entails which is frankly abhorrent. Is Ms Dupuy acting in a way that you do not expect her to?
What is it with people and their expectation that women behave a certain way after things like this happens?
that is you flat out saying that there is no other option. that if a victim comes saying anything in favor of there attacker it must be in appeasment. it doesn't. it could be for any number of reasons
Firstly, you aren't really making that much sense.
Secondly, these victims, like Moore's victims, follow a fairly traditional pattern when it comes to accusing famous or wealthy or powerful men of sexual assault or sexual harassment. Franken's first accuser is a well known Republican with some fairly abhorrent views towards Democrats. How do you think it would have looked if she demanded he stood down or resigned? I'm asking you that seriously now, how would the progressive media have treated her if she had come out and said that? She would have been torn to shreds. Why do you think Moore's accusers were so quick to identify themselves as Republican Trump voters? It is a manner of self preservation in the face of what they know will be overwhelming anger because of what they are accusing these men of doing. At least one woman, a Democrat, whom Franken groped, did ask him to resign and in fact, made a point of stating that she was speaking out about what he did to her, in the hope that he would resign.
Thirdly, how you cannot see the dynamics at play, the expectation that these women somehow say or behave a certain way, is designed to cast even more doubts about their allegations against these men. It is insidious.
Firstly, you clearly have a reading and comprehension problem.
Secondly, I said that victims will respond as they see fit for themselves, just as it should be.
*Raise eyebrows*
I said that it was not surprising that these women were not asking him to stand down or resign, and stated why. You are the one demanding, I frankly don't even know what you are so angry about... You are accusing me of somehow expecting these women to behave a certain way, when I clearly said that victims will respond in a manner or way that benefits them and will protect themselves. That is what often happens with victims of sexual violence or sexual harassment. Especially when the onus is placed on them to determine the fate of the accused.
And you are the one who at the start of this latest response came out with:
Because you would expect her to demand he resign? That's not how it works. It's not about you and your feelings or even your opinion. It is about her and what is right and best for her.
That expectation, is telling because it is often cited by defenders of men who commit these crimes as a means of watering it down. You'd expect her to demand he resign, so the fact that she did not? You decided to make special mention of it:
You tried to imply that it was not that serious. 'I mean look, she didn't even ask him to resign' because that is what 'you would expect her'...
So you not only misinterpreted what I actually said, you also don't seem to understand your own argument in this thread..
Actually, one of the main reasons women do not report sexual assault or sexual harassment is because of this expectation of how she should have responded.
For example:
Because people who have such expectations attempt to set her narrative, and demand that she adheres to theirs.
I said that women will often act in a way that does not fit that sort of narrative and with good reason, because of self preservation against those who then start slut shaming, abusing, threatening, etc, victims of sexual violence, particularly when it comes to politicians and popular ones at that.
You had to fight for your voice, so why do you "expect her" to voice her voice a certain way and why are you using her voice to water down what he did? I think the expectation that was placed on you, is horrific and you should have and have had your voice and your perpetrator arrested and jailed. But we should not expect victims to behave a certain way or fit into a certain little box to fit our own personal ideals of how victims should react.
I said that making excuses for perpetrators is not acceptable anymore. Why are you demanding that it be acceptable, particularly as a victim, because of politics? Franken's victim was not saying what you said. She spoke out against him and outed him. She wasn't trying to water it down..
I see. Whatever gave you that idea?
I mean, it's interesting that you just make these assumptions and I can sort of see why you are doing so, perhaps to score a point and you know what? That's fine. If that made you feel better, that's fine. But I would suggest you stop now.
