women's march

Well, I don't give a shit about a stupid photo on a comedy tour. For all you know she was in on it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, I'm just going to come over tonight and take a selfie with my balls on your face while you sleep. It's going to be so funny when I post it here tomorrow.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not the same. Take a photo with your hands by my genitals, while I'm wearing flack pants. Then we are in the same ballpark.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

why the ridiculous analogies? tweeden's photo is not rape but that does not mean that's acceptable behavior and especially repeatedly. sure, someone can make the wrong call but when you treat women like that repeatedly, that indicates a true problem.

 

Well, see, that's the problem. Nobody whose arguments require such outcomes wish to acknowledge those outcomes.

See, that's the thing. With Capracus, for instance, this is a question of who gets to decide how severe↗ an act of sexual violence is.

And that, actually can lead us right back to your question about rape culture

As I've said before↗, and it's a pretty simple, starting-point kind of definition: Rape culture is a term to describe collectively beliefs and behaviors within a societal culture contributing to rape.

And, in truth, I'm never quite certain where to start with people who approach the question like you do:

So, yeah: This is one of the simple things we do to contribute to rape culture. To wit, if that is a serious question, you make the point; if it is a joke, you make the point. In either case, diminishing the circumstance helps empower the attitudes that make sexual harassment and violence.

Meanwhile, depending on how your wife describes the incident, it could be enough to convict you of some manner of sex crime.

How many examples would you like? A doctor who would only help a woman avoid pregnancy if he was satisfied that she was satisfactorily raped? That's rape culture. It's also a Republican presidential candidate. How about a celebrity geologist who argues that being raped into pregnancy is a gift from God? At the point anyone would be asking a woman to be thankful for her rape, what would you call it? Hey, how about if it's one of the biggest churches in the world, and the largest individual sect in the United States? Nor is that the only example in American Christendom; just ask the GOP. (Consider the Willke Lie, that a woman cannot conceive from rape, and remember that Dr. Willke was an OB/GYN and president of National Right to Life Committee; the geologist was crashing as a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in part because an engineer turned theologian running for U.S. Senate on the Republican ticket a couple states away had fired off the Willke lie two months before; that is, there was a reason the question kept coming up.)

Depending on your age, you might remember comedic cinema in the 1980s. Try the period between Porky's (1981) and American Pie (1999), which paid homage to a range of T&A comedies which are themselves icons to our American rape culture zeitgeist: Police Academy, Hamburger: The Motion Picture, even Ghostbusters offered up the merits of creepy obsession the twenty-first century might find a bit stalkerish. When we consider that deceiving an intoxicated woman into having sex is part of the glorious Revenge of the Nerds—I mean, come on.

American men have all done our part. Our dominance of matters intimate is woven into our culture; if we consider 1993, when all states could finally agree that yes, it was possible to rape your wife, what does that say about our entire society in the years before? And what does it say that fifteen states still think it's less wrong to rape your wife than some other woman?

Oh, hey: So, a prosecutor in Weld County, Colorado, decides a confessed rape isn't legitimate, and therefore doesn't charge the confessed rapist, explaining to the press that he does not believe the good people of Weld County, Colorado, are capable of convicting a confessed rape. What part of that isn't exemplary of rape culture?

But the good people of Weld County did send the prosecutor to the United States House of Representatives.

Beliefs and behaviors within a societal culture contributing to rape, indeed.

No, really, it's hard to know where to start.

 

Proven actions?

He didn't grab her breasts while she was asleep, as far as anyone has said (who took the picture, and why haven't we heard from them?). And the repetition of that carefully inculcated meme - inculcated by Tweeden or whoever wrote her allegation, in rhetoric as calculated as it was anything else - is one of the marks of this entire misplaced discussion.

It has somehow become a moral failing - a sign of one's support of rapists and participation in rape culture - to suggest that 1) he's not touching even the flak jacket and 2) it looks like he's making fun of himself, not her, in complete agreement with his USO schtick generally. Both of those are kind of ordinary observations, one would think. They certainly don't exonerate Franken, or render acceptable anything he did including take that photo. They might be off base, or not, depending on what happened we can't see. So why are the reactions to them so wildly over the top, here?

And Tweeden is not a completely reliable authority. Isn't that kind of obvious? In what other situation would you overlook the import of the various innuendos and suggestive errors of implication so carefully not quite claimed in that professionally written national media release? (e.g. Franken did not write that skit for Tweeden, as she implied, as a ploy to kiss her or for any other reason. It was a repertoire skit more than three years old). That does not mean Franken is innocent, or exonerate him of anything. It means that Republican talk radio personalities are dishonest people, they deal in slander by innuendo as a profession, and it's foolish to believe them without question in any matter of political significance.

Women's march supporters are in solidarity with Tweeden, as any liberal must be, simply by reason. But she is not in solidarity with them.

 

It is not "a sign of support of rapists" to suggest that he is not touching the flak jacket, or that he is making fun of himself. That's fine.

It is, however, a sign of support of sexual assault when one believes the claims of the assaulter over the claims of the woman he assaulted.

Yeah, I'm sure she was 'asking for it.'

 

Why would you suggest that it does? I certainly didn’t.

You don’t think Tweeden or the industry she promoted has given any though to the fantasies they feed in the minds of their consumers? In FANTASY, Tweeden offers herself up to be the plaything of everyone consuming her consensually disseminated imagery. NOBODY here is arguing that this condition grants anyone license to assault her.

You mean the kiss she consensually agreed to? I see your going to play Bells game and exaggerate some incidental contact in the staging of a prank into a grab for sexual gratification.

Tweeden is no more an authority as to what Franken did in the photo than you or I, as she was asleep at the time of the incident. She only found out about it after examining the photo, just like we did. A rational analysis of the photo and associated circumstances supports the argument for a relatively innocuous prank on Franken’s part, and an over reaction to it on hers, and yours.

 

Or the claims of the accused over the claims of the accuser - if you want to avoid begging the question.
Not that it matters - the more significant:
And once again, the bizarrely transformed is presented as what - fact? Innuendo?
You are responding to me. Nowhere - not one single post - have I ever suggested or believed Franken "over" Tweeden. That is completely irrelevant to any of my posts.

Where in hell did that come from?
What in the name of glory is wrong with you folks?

 

Yep. Doesn't really have any connection to the outcome, but agreed.

Definitely agreed there.

The victim of the assault is not an authority on whether she has been assaulted because she was ASLEEP? So unconsciousness protects men from accusations of assault? Roofie dealers are going to be very happy to hear you say that.

There are two possibilities here:

1) Tweeden consented to be groped by Franken. If so, no problem; he can grope her.
2) Tweeden did not consent to being groped. If that's the case, then he is assaulting her.

There is exactly one authority on whether she gave consent - and that's Tweeden. Not Franken, not the cameraman, and certainly not some dude on the Internet who has never even met either one of them. No matter what her state of consciousness was when it happened.

 

It's almost as though you're imagining Franken as a sort of classic schlemiel, with a preternatural tendency to accidentally grope people. Doesn't the serial nature--barring this most unusual preternatural inclination--at least suggest intent?

 

#rapeculture | #reality​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Roller Disco has nothing to do with anything, and thus makes a fine distraction.​

In a certain way, I can.

We can't always put the names to it, but in the end these people will come through. That is to say, certain patterns seem nearly inevitable about their manifestation and the only real question is who will get around to playing which part when.

Over two months ago, I traded words↗ with someone else about the ways sexual conduct discussions go, about a back and forth that terrifies certain political circles, and dropped the line about #TheWomenAreSpeaking. And it's one thing to say I expected the line would meet at least some opposition in the world; to the other, it's all this time later, and I could go back to that post and start this discussion all over again, because for all the enraged howling retort we've encountered since, we wouldn't lose much, aside from a heap of demonstrative indignity and the knowledge that these would actually behave that way, to pile all that wasted rage on the rubbish tip.

(Well, okay, but there is a cesspool irony here: There are decent and even good posts going on in all this noise, but they wouldn't necessarily be coming about except for necessity; that is to say, there are people trying, but part of what is moving them is the state of things. I can think of a couple people I would at least be splitting hairs with, although about what remains a mystery for the sake of an impressively futile distraction. I might wonder where a particular spur of discussion might have gone but for the distraction itself. Mysterious potentials remain mysterious beyond their shelf life, but, still, there is the spectacle that is happening, so we'll get around to the other when and if we get to it, or something like that.)​

It took about a day to be told I should "focus on the men"↗, and, as I summarized, I find inappropriate↗ such propositions that would set criteria for what women are allowed to say, what it needs to answer, and who they need to satisfy when they say it.

And that's the thing. We're right back where we were two months ago, attacking↑ the accusers↑.

And all that fucking rage they brought? Nothing.

It was for nothing.

Two months later, we're right where they were back then, because they have precisely nothing to say.

And, you know, difficult discussions are as difficult discussions will, but the thought that this is what people choose to waste their time on?

Because that's the thing: What a waste.

But we're right back to where we were a couple months ago, because we never really left that part behind.

Maybe I'm wrong; maybe it's not for nothing. The Franken advocacy wanted to start talking about his comeback before he was even gone. His supporters do him no favors by refusing to trust him. Especially if they believe him innocent, they ought to trust him to know what he's doing; even guilty, he's still pretty damn smart. Maybe the whole point of this months-long temper tantrum is to discredit Franken and his supporters. Because, really, if there is any sort of "comeback" in his political or celebrity future, any significant idea that his supporters have spent the intervening time attacking sexual harassment and assault victims will just be another thing for him to answer for.

And for some of the people wailing these last months, well, what have they accomplished? They've depicted Franken supporters as insane, and spent weeks shitmouthing women in this community; there are days when that might count as a pretty good run. To the other, we might wonder at the priorities, and, well, that these advocates should put such effort into saying nothing is actually the less damning possibility.

Two months ago? How about two and a half years later↗?

Something goes here about flaccidity, impotence, television stereotypes about serial killers, and juxtaposition in metaphor. The attempted erasure of women's voices over the last two months is both striking and not. It can be breathtaking in realtime, but looking back, for some reason I'm not at all surprised we're back to questions of what counts as legitimate, doubting the accusers, and deciding how they should feel or, at the very least, how they should not.

Indeed, two months of nothing is the easier judgment compared to the idea that these people deliberately went out of their way to be worse than useless. But in the question of what feels striking or breathtaking or not, that's the thing; looking back, I'm not at all surprised. I mean, sure, maybe that this or that person dove quite so deep, but the record looks rather quite normal.

Of course we're back to delegitimization and what's wrong with the accusers.

Honestly, if we just accept that What Al Did doesn't count and neither does What Leann Said because she can't be legitimate, then of course the last two months of flaming misogyny makes perfect sense. When actual rape culture↗ is the justification for one's argument, quite clearly they're on about different priorities.

So we might as well just lay it out: You're spoiling the fun. All these damn bitches are spoiling the fun, and their cuck snowflake male-traitor friends are helping them.

You're spoiling the fun. That is why they are so pissed off. It's just that nobody knows how to make the demand, because, for obvious reasons, it's a really, really stupid demand. It's kind of like the Tea & Crumpets Party, and kind of like looking over one's shoulder. It's not so much that they have or might someday need to hold some woman down and (ahem!) legitimately rape her, but, rather, maybe they did or might in the future (cough!) accidentally harass someone, and, damn it, you women need to compromise and stop being so absolutist, and recognize that a guy getting drunk and trying to forcibly kiss or grope her is just ... I mean ... what? Part of nature? No, lest we be back to questions of #NotAllMen, and despite functionally inventing a discipline to justify antisocial sexual behavior, that's just not cool with the people who need it to be true in order to have a point.

But, yeah, it seems to have something to do with women getting all uppity and forgetting her place.

Because that really fucks up the fun.

†​

¿Heads or Tails? There is always a question of that disclaimer about how, y'know, not that I need to tell you, or anything like that, but sometimes it just needs to be said; it feels there is also an aspect of futility about even that. To the other, kind of like the old LACP bargain wasn't really one I should have been proposing for various reasons, neither am I the one to invoke questions and thresholds of compromise. Similarly, I don't get to make the rules about when racism is over and we can have certain words back; it seems fretting about the question is perpetuating the problem. There is something about the discourse of sexes that needs to happen, and it's not mine to tell "men" what it is, because it's not mine to define. I do, however, know, that this voice of masculinity we hear in these arguments is beyond terrified of that transition, because it also represents a transfer of power and a range unknown; if we do our part and achieve this abstract threshold, I can't actually describe how the discussion goes afterward.

We need to find this one for ourselves, and if one of the reasons it's not mine to sketch the thresholds has to do with obvious considerations of vested interest, the other has just as much to do with the danger of perpetuating the problem by mapping a ritual by which, yeah, yeah, whatever, are you happy, now, okay, good, now #WhatAboutTheMen.

Something about totems goes here.

 

Where have I been "imagining" Franken at all? Defending Franken? Excusing Franken? Suggesting "accident"? Suggesting innocence? Nowhere. I never even found the guy particularly funny, as a comedian - he had his moments, but nothing to look forward to.
So where does that response come from?

Sure. All but guarantees it.
So considering: he doesn't seem to have organized any part of his life around this stuff, or even the incidents themselves individually. So what kinds, degrees, whatever, of intent are possible here? Likely?

nb: all the following based on public info as of today - there's no count on the shoes:
There's no visible advance planning - no organized setup, ritual MO, ugly little theatrical scene, etc. And there has been nothing - not a hint, unusual in these situations - about any "open secret" issue around the guy. Apparently nobody's been covering up for him, warning others about him, carefully not seeing what's in front of them, running interference, setc. Apparently, he's managed to hide whatever this intent was from not only his family and friends but successive sets of co-workers in radically different workplaces over many years - the man hasn't been a recluse, a backgrounder, a bodyguarded distant figure. The predator's famous description "quiet, polite, kept to himself" does not apply. And notice how carefully Tweeden attempted to suggest otherwise or perhaps draw somebody out with that information, without being able to claim it herself - that issue is where her factual errors and speculations clustered (she paired Franken with Weinstein on air and in interviews verbally, but only after the wave built enough to camouflage the invidiousness).

And I'm not unusual in thinking that significant, in deciding what to do about Franken - almost everybody does, apparently. Significant enough to spin, and mislead, and spread falsehoods about, significant enough to object to these observations quite stridently. Significant enough to project an agenda of "defending/excusing/accepting Franken", "believing Franken over Tweeden", defending rape culture, demanding his victims take one for the team, Partisanship and petty politicking, attacking women and telling them what to say, and so forth, unto my posting, more or less in a reactionary spew, at the mere suggestion that the incompetence of the way Franken was handled was visible to anyone who acknowledged these circumstances, and such visible incompetence itself (even before being doubled down in a baroque barrage of slanders and pejoratives and outright lies about reasonable people making sense) was alienating and politically dangerous.

What nerve, exactly, did I hit?

Look at this:

That's a lie. You were never told to "focus on the men" in that sense, or anything similar, or anything interpretable in good faith as that. You invented that interpretation of my posting to justify your responses, which were ugly and dishonest and intemperate and slanderous and so forth - basically strawmen, one after the other, backstopping a corner you had painted yourself into long ago.

That was you, summarizing in weasel language your strawmen and your prior postings - your claims, which were deceptions and lies and bullshit in the first place. You project what you need to present your posts as reasonable, or even honest, and summarize those projections as if they had appeared in front of you, the work of other people.

And the question becomes why. Why trash this thread? Why throw reason and ordinary good faith out with the bathwater? What has gone wrong with these people? We know where the EFs are coming from, we know how the Trump voters came to eat the monkeybrains - but these folks?

 

Why are you trying to twist my post into an assertion about Tweeden's authority over her body?
That's dishonest. You do that continually. It's bad to do that. It's even a bit crazy - these are completely obvious lies, my posts are right there, what are you trying to accomplish?

And "everyone" is back. Hi folks! Missed you.
That would be a consideration if you had ever managed an honest response to my posting. When my posting and your responses are right there for comparison, it's clear that you cannot be in the right - lies, slanders, and misrepresentations are never in the right. When you lump my arguments with EF's, for example, you're clearly having some kind of brain glitch.

Granted that does not save me from being wrong on my own, independent of your lies, slanders, and misrepresentations - but it does improve the odds.

There is a third possibility. Try to imagine what it might be. You can reread former posts, look at the sole piece of evidence in witness, take your time - it's open book.

But that's not the question. Nobody (here) is claiming, implying, or hinting, that Tweeden consented to anything she says she didn't. Why are you changing the subject?

 

Do you not get that this whole issue is over consent? If she consented it's not assault. It's really pretty simple.

 

You know you've lost the argument when you start parsing thickness of clothing and which private parts were touched.

 

Hence the "as though." But I suppose insofar as you acknowledge intent, that possibility is precluded.

He was a better writer than performer, I think--meaning his writing for SNL; his books are ok, but not exactly spectacular.

I think most people agree that Franken's incidents suggest little malice aforethought, but still some sort of intent nonetheless. What's that term from legal theory? Scienter? I think that is somewhat more pertinent here: Franken was undoubtedly aware of the wrongness of his actions, even if we can't suss the precise nature of his intentions. (And when I say "here," I'm referring to the context of the discussion--not within a court of criminal law.)

 

The faction that called for his immediate resignation does not stipulate to that - not so but far otherwise, as they say.
Bells here regards such excuse-mongering in obviously Partisan defense of Franken as a sign of moral depravity and unconcern for the victims.
Tiassa regards it as an assertion of illegitimate male privilege and a defense of rape culture to make any such assessment and choose one's response accordingly.

No, it's not. The basic situation, as stipulated to by everyone involved except those who think Tweeden and all the rest are simply lying about all of it, is that none of Franken's victims consented to anything he did. Aside from those conspiracy folks, consent is not at issue.

 

Apparently the term reasonable confuses you. The theme of Franken’s prank is fairly obvious to a reasonable person. You have a busty professional erotic model who has made a career of feeding men’s erotic fantasies with her imagery. A likely common fantasy would be grasping her large breasts. Franken having the opportunity to simulate such a fantasy with the sleeping model in front of him, strikes up the pose and mugs for the camera. Just like this guy below.



Living in a dense ultra-feminist fog, I imagine the humor of such imagery is lost on you, but believe it or not, many reasonable people do see it.

Her story, not his.

The photo shows he pranked her by simulating a boob grab. It was a prank of opportunity, he probably didn’t have a whoopee cushion at the time.

The victim of the PRANK did not witness the act in her sleep. Like the rest of us she had to rely on the elements of the photo to determine nature of the act. The collective elements of the photo paint a picture of prank, not assault.

Or instead the act is characterized as a prank involving a simulated grab. Pranks by definition do not involve consent, and need not be considered assault.

Being merely a dude on the Internet, how did you conclude that an assault occurred in this instance?