Roy moore accusations

[billvon]

Rape culture is as rape culture does.

Yep. And as rape culture posts.

Now go post more pictures of scantily clad Japanese anime women while moaning over how prevalent the rape culture is.

 

[Neddy Bate]

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet in this thread, but a woman approached the Washington Post with false accusations against Moore as part of an undercover sting operation intended to make the Post look bad, and thereby discredit the earlier stories about Moore. It backfired:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...cbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.d351601f32f0

So it would appear that much fact-checking research is appropriate in these cases, and that the Post does do its research before publishing.

 

[Tiassa]

Or maybe I'm pissed off that Bells is, yet again, intent on debating me rather than the issue at hand.

No, you don't get to do that.

In the first place, there is more going on here than just you.

More directly, observe that you called out the zero tolerance question↑ in order to start parsing meanings. You got a straightforward response↑. And, what, hey, you know, here's the thing, how about if women do to you what you did to Bells↑? Look, I get the need for personal examples to help find context, but you're also changing the subject. Part of the zero tolerance point had to do with the focus on Republicans Republicans Republicans. Rape culture is not a partisan issue, and while it's true, Republicans Republicans Repbulicans, it is not an exclusive truth. If I say, "Men men men", how many are about to object that it's not an exclusive truth?

Oh, sorry, you already appealed to #WhatAboutTheMen↑, so, right.

But then there is also the part where you want in on her discussion with Iceaura↑ in order to demand she answer your particular context,

And again↑.

The point being, sir, that maybe you shouldn't be so pissed off because a woman is debating you when that is what you wanted.

And once more, we just have to make it about gender, rather than the problem... fucking pathetic.

I'm sorry, ¿#WhatAboutTheMen↑?

Think of it this way, if we don't put off specific consideration of the overwhelming statitical corpus of the phenomenon for the sake of a particular gender observation, then we are making it about gender instead of the phenomenon.

Try this:

• If we address rape culture, then—(¡#WhatAboutTheMen!)—yes, men benefit, too.​

Now consider this: When we account for men as rape and harassment victims, just how deeply into #WhatAboutTheMen are you going to tolerate? Hey, Men, why are we raping each other so much? Or are we going to skip that question in order to keep complaining about women?

What's that? Harassment? Yeah, that's a problem. Harassment is wrong, m'kay?

But do you know the word "golddigger" as used to refer to a woman? I would simply point out that it is ironic that in my lifetime, marrying well was still an intended career path for women according to traditional empowerment, and that fact is not exclusive of the same men complaining about golddigging floozies. Yet, the whole time, the one thing about avoiding golddigging floozies that never seemed an acceptable solution was to not get 'em drunk and take 'em home to fuck. It's like the later acknowledgment that "sluts are good", because, let's face it, what a lot of these men wanted was a floozy who was just the perfect fuck and then left them alone until they decided they wanted more.

In any case, regardless of where your social circles or mine are at in such questions, it's true I'm not listening to men complain about golddiggers until the traditionalist assertion of marrying well as a career path for women is utterly severed, dismembered, and ground to dust. And here's the thing, even then, golddigging will be an equal-opportunity genderism, as it always has been. It's not like male golddiggers are a new phenomenon, so, yeah, you need to understand that since men are the traditional empowerment majority, virtually all of this comes back to us no matter how much some of our brothers might want to find new ways to blame women for everything.

And common sense, were it reliable, would advise we stay the hell out of that particular minefield of the brotherhood; the shrapnel wounds aren't worth it, even for those who think themselves well-intended.

Because harassment is wrong, m'kay? And while it doesn't excuse anything—(see how we must preface everything so the "men" can be less uncomfortable? #WhatAboutTheMen, indeed ...)—anyone who has ever expected anyone experiencing harassment, and, yes, especially expecting of women, that they should learn to take a joke, needs to be extraordinarily careful about trying to make any manner of typal example out of the conduct.

Ceteris paribus, all things being equal: All things are not equal.

• • •​

Yep. And as rape culture posts.

Now go post more pictures of scantily clad Japanese anime women while moaning over how prevalent the rape culture is.

I would tell you to keep doing your part, but no, doing your part to help rape culture is problematic, so please stop.

Honestly, if you ever want to talk about ideas, try it.

If this is just about you feeling bitter, maybe you can go back to moaning about how life itself is a tort.

 

[spidergoat]

Yep. And as rape culture posts.

Now go post more pictures of scantily clad Japanese anime women while moaning over how prevalent the rape culture is.

I don't see the connection.

 

[Kittamaru]

No, you don't get to do that.

In the first place, there is more going on here than just you.

Ah, my apologies - I wasn't aware that I wasn't permitted to defend myself from unfounded accusations. I bow to your judgment, oh wise Tiassa... (do I need a sarcasm tag, or is it evident enough to you)

I agree - so what is with the weird fascination with talking about me, hm? Why is it that a single, simple recollection of how a person can miss a nonverbal queue has been used as a foundation for a whole lot of not talking about the issue?

I guess I do have a confession to make, though - I find it amusing how frothy this has gotten. Amused in the same bemused way Hancock was as everyone cussed him out after saving the guy about to be hit by a train.

 

[iceaura]

And common sense, were it reliable, would advise we stay the hell out of that particular minefield of the brotherhood; the shrapnel wounds aren't worth it, even for those who think themselves well-intended.

And concede the media field to Breitbart, James O'Keefe, Donald Trump, Steve Mnuchin, Charles Koch, Frank Lunz, Arnold Schwarzenegger (Das Gröpenfuhrer - remember the last but one go-round?) and the tender mercies of the charity toward women and children that the chivalry of the Republican Party invokes as the benevolence of powerful men.

Because that worked so well, in the past.

 

[Kittamaru]

I don't see the connection.

Tiassa is rather fond of tying provocative pictures to his posts, linking to things with some shock value in this case.

 

[Kittamaru]

And concede the field to Breitbart, James O'Keefe, Donald Trump, Steve Mnuchin, Charles Koch, Frank Lunz, Arnold Schwarzenegger (Das Gröpenfuhrer - remember the last but one go-round?) and the tender mercies of the charity toward women and children that the chivalry of the Republican Party invokes as the benevolence of powerful men.

Because that worked so well, in the past.

Fights over Iceaura - they are seemingly only interested in fighting for the sake of fighting, rather than any kind of rational debate.

It's why I don't see myself bothering to read their posturing any longer, and exiting this thread that Bells has made so perfectly about herself.

 

[spidergoat]

Tiassa is rather fond of tying provocative pictures to his posts, linking to things with some shock value in this case.

Yeah, I don't see the connection.

 

[Tiassa]

And concede the media field to Breitbart, James O'Keefe, Donald Trump, Steve Mnuchin, Charles Koch, Frank Lunz, Arnold Schwarzenegger (Das Gröpenfuhrer - remember the last but one go-round?) and the tender mercies of the charity toward women and children that the chivalry of the Republican Party invokes as the benevolence of powerful men.

I don't know, Iceaura, for whatever reason you seem unable to think of this discussion, or the "media field", in any other way.

Or maybe it's just that you don't want any other discussion.

After all, once more in the gutter is right back where some people want it.

 

[birch]

I don't know, Iceaura, for whatever reason you seem unable to think of this discussion, or the "media field", in any other way.

Or maybe it's just that you don't want any other discussion.

After all, once more in the gutter is right back where some people want it.

looking back on these pages, it's pretty simple to surmise at this point. iceaura will not separate political affiliation from sexual harassment in this case, for what he/she thinks is greater political consequences, right or wrong. kittamaru doesn't or pretending to not understand what sexual harassment is period.

 

[iceaura]

iceaura will not separate political affiliation from sexual harassment in this case, for what he/she thinks is greater political consequences, right or wrong.

Very nearly the opposite is the case. I am insisting on 1) the recognition of that separation, as established and employed by Republican Party media operations and 2) the political consequences of failing to recognize it.

Example: a discussion of Roy Moore's behavior has become a discussion of "everybody's" behavior, and then especially that of Democratic Party members, thereby embedding and diffusing Moore's predation in an undifferentiated and unranked muddle of bad behaviors of all political affiliations ("both sides") - from which those in control of the major media can then select their choice of focus and emphasis. That selection is then subject to the influence of power and money. That is a successful media exploit, benefitting the exploiters.

They aren't "greater" political consequences. They are intended to be the political consequences. They have a good chance now of supplanting the greater political consequences, and quite possibly the larger societal discussion entire. That has happened before - as a strategy, it has a long record of successes in far less promising circumstances; Mathew Dowd, for example, under the influence of power and money, issued a memo to the news department of ABC (with a public announcement via Twitter and email) mandating that any mention of Trump's bad behavior in the later days of the 2016 campaigns be paired with a simultaneous mention of Clinton's emails. https://www.salon.com/2016/11/01/bu...evating-the-false-equivalence-to-an-art-form/

After all, once more in the gutter is right back where some people want it.

Back in the closet, more like. Or behind a lot of smoke.

And the strategy being employed to put it there is pretty obvious by now. Or is the fact that it involves Republican men and Republican male media influence directed against women make it off limits to commentary by other men?

 

[Bells]

So it seems.

What's the matter? Your male privilege senses are tingling? What? We women aren't giving your non-sexual harassment scenario the attention you thought it demanded?

The fact that you even suggest that I am defending her from a "perceived threat", really says a lot about your insecurities, Kitta.

Birch is a strong woman. She doesn't need me to defend her or speak for her. What she does have is me, understanding where she is coming from.

Where the flying fuck did I say either of you forgot I was a man? Seriously Bells, are you capable of debating honestly, or do years in the court systems suck that ability out of you? Every bit of information you don't like is suddenly "mansplaining"... again, you seem to be the one having issues with sexism here Bells, not me.

The English language and its intricacies pass you by, don't they?

I said that you have reminded us just how you are male, in this thread, because perhaps you feel that we have forgotten..

For example:

Ah, right, I forgot - all us men are scum, and predators that just want in your pants.
Misandry 101, right there. The moment a guy gives an example of just how easy it is to blunder into an uncomfortable situation, BAM, we men are just avoiding the point.

Do you know what that was in response to?

are the men on this forum really going to pretend they don't know what sexual harassment is,

Does this surprise you?

You took that, and decided to make some ridiculous remark about getting into "our pants". And you did so by reminding us that you are a man.

Despite being told repeatedly that no, your "blundering" into an "uncomfortable situation" with your friend who did not like to be touched, so your handshakes, hugs, whatnot, made him uncomfortable, was not sexual harassment and had nothing to do with sexual harassment, you still kept demanding we took you seriously and did so by trying to argue that it's easy for "men" (ie you, in this instance) to blunder into an "uncomfortable situation", which has absolutely nothing to do with sexual harassment.

And then we have you pitching a fit because she used the words "men" in the very same post that I linked and quoted above. And again, in that same post:

My example was quite succinct, and the fact that you missed the point entirely is rather funny. Try again, Bells - read my example and see if you can fathom the point I was making. I'll give you a rather large hint - it has little to do with sexual harassment and more to deal with the fact that, sometimes, people miss things. In this case, the fact that I had made one of my best friends (to the point that, he was the Best Man at my wedding) uncomfortable without knowing it.

He's a guy. I'm a guy. We've known each other for... close to a decade and a half. There is (or should be) exactly zero power disparity between us, so that claim is off the table. We've been exceedingly open and honest with each other about facets of our lives that we just don't share with others because we trust one another.

Again, no, men don't miss that they just sexually harassed a woman. When a man stares at a woman's boobs, licks his lips, comments on her boobs or her vagina, her arse, her mouth, etc, when a man catcalls her, when a man deliberately gropes her, when a man rubs his dick on her shoulder as she's trying to work just so that she can feel how hard she's making him, when a man tells sexually explicit jokes to a group of friends, while staring and grinning at the woman in the group, just to let her know, when a man tells his female employee that unless she has sex with him, she will lose her job or not advance in her job, when a man keeps sexually propositioning a woman despite being told no, when a man makes his employee feel that unless she becomes sexually involved with him, then she won't advance or her job is on the line, when a man asks a woman out on a "date" and then tries to sexually assault her.... You getting my drift? When these sorts of things happen, it's not because the man has simply "missed things", or has "stumbled into it".

So your attempts to tell us just how easy it is to "miss things", and then reminding us how "you're a guy", and just how you have "missed" his personal issues with the human touch, not only attempt to diminish what women experience, but you are also reinforcing your position in this discussion by suggesting that sexual harassment that women endure could simply just be a missed cue, or a mistake. It was that not so subtle reminder that a) you're a guy and b) that you think sexual harassment is so incidental, that the man doing it can easily "miss" realising that he's done it. Which frankly, is bullshit.

Now do you understand the context of what I noted about your reminding us you were a man?

So you are going to continue to pretend you don't understand its relevance. Fine.

Because it has no relevance. Repeat after me, sexual harassment is not accidental, it's not something the guy or man just "missed". It's a deliberate act, with full knowledge of what he is doing.

So no, your description of your friend's frankly sad feelings about the human touch, has zero relevance to sexual harassment.

Right. So, back to the "I am scum" argument. Got it.

Because that was what I said?
I am trying to address a particular issue with you, and you respond by whining like you are the victim. And people wonder why women are so reticent to come forward to report sexual harassment? I mean, imagine having to report it to you and having to watch how we describe it, in case our using words like "men" or "man" triggers this sort of response in you? Or worse, if we report it to you and are then subjected to your diminishing it by comparing it to your issues with your friend that had nothing to do with sexual harassment...

Where did I say that Bells. Quote me, or are you lying once again?

Read what I said again. I noted that the manner in which you approached Birch when she was discussing sexual harassment was to demand she discuss something else entirely and then you pitched a fit because she refused to discuss or frame sexual harassment to fit your narrative.

 

[Bells]

What a shame you can't argue facts and in good faith, instead of slandering everyone you perceive is against you.

I am trying to argue the facts of sexual harassment. You are too busy being aggrieved because we used words like "men" or "man" to do so and responded by whining about how we apparently think "all men are scum", etc.
This is your issue Kitta. Not mine. If you want to discuss your friend's psychological condition that makes him not like to be touched by anyone, even a handshake, then perhaps you should take it to the right forum. It is not an appropriate response to try to demand that sexual harassment can apparently sometimes be something a guy just misses. Sexual harassment is a deliberate act. Stalking girls in shopping malls, for example, is a deliberate act.

So you are firmly claiming that it can never be a mistake. Thank you for clarifying.

A mistake is say, accidentally brushing a woman's boobs with your hand as you are trying to pass something across and you say 'sorry'. It's an accident. Deliberately groping a woman, for example, is not a "mistake". Deliberately catcalling a woman, is not a "mistake". Understand now?

The only thing I'm confused about is why you are playing the fool.

I am playing "the fool" to you, because I am not taking your demands about sexual harassment seriously. Again, your attempts to minimise and diminish sexual harassment by claiming how it can sometimes be a mistake, is on you.
Women are under no obligation to discuss sexual harassment by your narrative, certainly not when you bring up an example that has nothing to do with the subject anyway. So stop trying to change the subject to something that is not related to sexual harassment.

No, it is an honest question - Answer it Bells. Are you capable of debating with someone without resorting to insults?

Considering the manner in which you have attempted to dismiss sexual harassment that the women participating in this thread have tried to discuss, considering your language of turning the women who are attempting to discuss this - such as comments about how we are foolish, hysterical, that we apparently don't know what we are talking about, the condescending 'you should know' type comments, the patronising diatribe you have spouted, my response was to ask whether you really get to make that call, because frankly, you are the last person to complain about it.

Let me be as blunt as possible, Bells:

I don't give a fuck about my "male ego".

Yeah.

We can tell....

What I care about is the fact that, right now, we have a system of laws in place, and a judicial system, that is failing its citizens so supremely that we are elevating to positions of power people who abuse their influence for sexual gratification, and then drag those who have the guts to stand up to them through the dirt and potentially ruin their lives forever.

Then perhaps you can explain why you have gone out of your way, for pages, to distract women who have been trying to discuss it, because you wanted to talk about something that even you commented had nothing to do with sexual harassment?

So, tell me Bells - why are you so intent on making this about me?

Because you won't shut up about you.

That isn't what your picture said, Bells. Thank you for demonstrating why defining anything in absolutes is a terrible idea.

And I honestly do not think you even understand sexual harassment and the context of the discussions about sexual harassment.

Indeed, intent is everything... or is it? If someone is trying to be friendly to another, and the person takes it as harassment (not necessarily sexual harassment), does the persons intent protect them?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, Bells...

Trying to be friendly with another does not entail sexual harassment, Kitta. If the person feels that it't sexual harassment, it's because "the friendly" crossed the line and and kept going even after they are made aware that it isn't appropriate or wanted.

For example, one does not unintentionally comment, stare at a woman's boobs and lick their lips, or yell out 'baby, you so fine' as she's walking down the street. These are not unintentional behaviours. Understand now? Nor is a guy at a bar, trying to chat up a woman and staring at her boobs the whole time and blurting out just 'how great she looks', still staring at her boobs, do so unintentionally.

I'm not ignoring the fact at all, Bells - indeed, I would say having a secure and non-invasive channel to report such things should be mandatory. Currently, though, a lot of employers HR offices are there to protect the company, not the employees. Case in point - a few places I've worked had "anonymous reporting hotlines" where, after someone called in to it to report an offense, said person was brought into the managers office with the person they were reporting and outed; more than once, they were forced out of the company altogether.

This needs to stop. I think we can all agree on that. The question is, how do we stop it? I know I can't stop it on my own - I'm not a CEO, or any other high ranking officer in the company... what power do I have to stop it? I can (and do) write my legislators - I can't ensure they will take action. I can (and do) vote, but I can't ensure the person I'm voting for is going to do what they say any more than I can guess the next Lottery drawing.

So, how do we handle it Bells? You seem to want anyone accused to immediately roll over and resign/quit/give up everything in their life. That would seem to be the definition of "guilty until proven innocent".

You want Franken to resign? Fine, I can agree to that. I don't know that it would actually resolve the issue(s) at hand, but sure. Then what? What do you want after your pound of flesh? Can we work on an actual solution to stop these kinds of things from happening?

You do realise you keep contradicting yourself?

Firstly, if you want to stop it, you can start by demanding the women trying to discuss it change the subject.
Secondly, you can stop it by not diminishing or dismissing it by comparing it to something completely and utterly unrelevant to the subject matter.
Thirdly, you can stop it by not demanding "due process" (sigh), when the abuser has already admitted guilt and wrong doing. He's admitted to doing it. So what now? "Due process"? For what, exactly? I'll put it this way. If someone pleads guilty to a crime, he or she does not go to trial to try to establish whether he or she is guilty of said crime. Due process enters the fray to ensure that their rights are protected, that they get a fair sentence hearing, for example. Now, remember, Franken, for example, has admitted guilt. Do you think it is acceptable to now drag his victims out to a public hearing for "due process" to try to determine if he is guilty of what he has already said he is guilty of? Or is it an attempt to again diminish what these women have accused him of, of what he has admitted to doing, just for Congress to declare that 'well, it wasn't really bad', thereby putting sexual harassment victims back in their little box, because hey, congress just said that groping a woman without her consent is bad, but it's not bad enough to warrant much more than a little slap on the back of the hand.

And finally, if you want to stop it, stop with the sexist tropes, such as I apparently want my pound of flesh, as though the sexual harasser is the real victim here.

You know what, Bells, nobody can be in your corner when you keep forcing them out of it.

I have a lot of people in my corner, Kitta, if one can call it a corner. Men and women. I just don't particularly want you, for many many obvious reasons. For example, your attempts to use my rape to score a frankly sexist point in this discussion, shows just what kind of person you are. So why would I want you "in my corner"?

 

[birch]

That isn't what your picture said, Bells. Thank you for demonstrating why defining anything in absolutes is a terrible idea.

Interesting, in the fringe subforum, absolutes are a must to you about topics which are not entirely explainable but here where real, live, flesh people interact with other real, live, flesh people, absolutes are a terrible idea. what absolutes are you referring to? you do realize absolutes are relative to a subject, don't you?

as in, no one said people know everyone's intentions at all times but people can interpret 'absolutely' based on certain critieria within any given situation. for instance, when someone tells you no, that's what it fuking means. that is absolute. dig? when someone says they are not interested in a relationship or dating, that is what they mean. it's not for you or another to decode whether they mean that or not unless they come to you and tell you otherwise. what is it you are not getting? or more like pretending to not see or recognize those absolutes?

even the examples i gave are not grounds for calling the police or a lawsuit, especially outside of a work environment. it is rude and still harassment but it goes to show people can harass and still get away with it. people can commit many types of rude offenses as well as harassment outside of more rule-oriented environments and do so regularly. that is up to them and their conscience.

but when harassment is blatantly offensive as in groping, literally sexual touching, it is considered absolute grounds to consider it sexual assault. grabbing or touching another's private parts are absolute. more abstract infringements (but don't involve touching) when made clear it's unwelcome is also harassment but it's not easily proven but it's still harassment.

harassment usually occurs over a period of time, but can be a single event depending on the context. for instance, an inappropriate sexual remark or comment that is random and out of place because there is no precedent set between you and the other for such behavior or comments in the first place, so is insulting.

but most sexual harassment is usually a continuous lack of respect of another's boundaries that results in a crescendo.

 

[Bells]

And once more, we just have to make it about gender, rather than the problem... fucking pathetic.

This would be funny, if the subject matter were not so dangerous to people's health and wellbeing.

Or maybe I'm pissed off that Bells is, yet again, intent on debating me rather than the issue at hand.

I am more than happy discussing sexual harassment, Kitta. I just object to having to discuss your hang-up's with women discussing it.

What the actual hell are you even talking about? MRA handbook?

Really, it's a bad thing now to want to avoid false accusations that both ruin innocent peoples lives and weaken the argument for why protections against these kinds of crimes are important?
Maybe you just haven't been paying attention, Bells, but the United States is, currently, unable to get its head out of its collective ass about a number of things for various reasons. Shall we throw crimes against women on that same pile and let it rot, or shall we do something logical about it?

The MRA playbook, is the men's rights activist playbook. These individuals do what they can to dismiss and diminish sexual harassment by trying to change the subject, by playing the victim because #whataboutmen, who attempt to infest discussions where women are discussing sexual harassment and sexual assault with questions about false accusations, as though this is something women lie about often, thereby again changing the subject to be about women's behaviour and women's motives.

In short, pretty much what you have kept doing throughout this thread.

Coupled with the fact that you are going on about false accusations, in the current climate where Moore is on the cusp of being elected to the US Senate, despite the very real accusations against him, when you have a President who boasted about "grabbing them by the pussy" and how when he sees a beautiful woman he just kisses them, and then went on to deny having said or done any of it, when you have another Senator who has forced his victim into a non-disclosure agreement after he paid her off when she leveled accusations against him, and another who admitted to sexually harassing women and people are still demanding he be given "due process" to determine his guilt.. Do you not understand why this is wrong?

Why didn’t these women speak up sooner? This was asked time and time again during the recent public furore around sexual harassment, violence and abuse. Underlying the question is a persistent uncertainty about the credibility of victims – a concern with identifying what is true and what is false.

As women speak out, some have been met with explicit counter accusations that their descriptions are untrue. Others have been served with a defamation case, which has resulted in the Solidarity Not Silence campaign to raise funds to fight the ensuing legal battle.

What’s clear is that the spectre of false allegation continues to dog the reporting of sexual violence. There remains a public impression that false allegations are common and that innocent people suffer as the result of being wrongfully accused.

The evidence on false allegations fails to support public anxiety that untrue reporting is common. While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4 per cent of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2 per cent and 6 per cent.

It’s important to recognise that even official statistics on false reporting can and have been inflated by other factors. Sometimes police record cases as “no crime” or “unfounded”. This can happen when it’s difficult to attain sufficient corroborating evidence. There is, however, a big difference between the inability to demonstrate in court that an offence has happened and claiming that these cases are false. These sorts of cases have nevertheless been conflated with false allegations.

[...]

The importance given to the issue of false allegations diverts attention away from questions that are ultimately more instructive for preventing sexual violence. And in fact, asking why reports of sexual harassment and violence are treated with suspicion may bring us closer to understanding what we can do to lift the barriers to reporting and seeking successful redress. It will also ultimately bring us closer to understanding the conditions in which sexual harassment and violence are enabled.​

Understand now?

Then why did you just say, and I quote "It's not that the system is flawed." Bells? You are being duplicitous now.

Why are you taking what I said so completely out of context? What did the rest of that statement say?

It's not that the system is flawed. It's that he submitted to the system because he knows the system will protect him regardless. Do you understand now?

And applying that out of context, really, kind of pathetic really.

Content. Happy. Pleased. Relieved. Satisfied. Take your pick. For fucks sake Bells, you are making it ever more obvious that you aren't actually concerned about the topic at hand, and only want to "win" this petty little grievance you have with me.

You really don't understand the context of the issue surrounding sexual harassment, do you? Your very language..

Most women would be content to not be sexually harassed - you seem to demand a "guilty until proven innocent" approach.

I mean, no shit Sherlock! Because I didn't know that women would be "happy" to not be sexually harassed?

That I need you to point this out to me? Not to mention the fact that you then use that and go on and make men who are accused as being the victims here, because big bad Bells demands they are "guilty until proven innocent", even for a man who has admitted guilt.

 

[Bells]

Inane? Ah, so it's inane now to want to ensure everyone is protected against sexual harassment, and not just women. Fair enough Bells - my apologies for forgetting this was all about you as an individual.

What do you think will happen if society changes and sexual harassment is treated as it should be treated, Kitta?

I dunno, you keep making everything out to be "mansplaining" and throwing out personal attacks left right and center - you seem pretty damn intent on attacking me on any angle you can.

Ya, because you haven't spent the last few pages trying to redefine sexual harassment to suit your narrative and diminishing and abusing victims for not taking you seriously, not to mention being sexist by being condescending, patronising, offensive, by attempting to use my rape, as one example, to change the subject.

No no, you're right. It's all me! And you are the real victim here, because you found it offensive that a woman used the word "man" and "men" in a discussion about men sexually harassing women and girls.

What "what about the men" spiel? You mean the fact that I've mentioned sexual harassment can happen to both genders? I wasn't aware that acknowledging facts was offensive to you Bells. =

We've been over this, numerous times, Kitta. You can go back and read just where you went wrong. Start from around here. Although the wheels really came off your cart much earlier than that.

Oh wow, Bells. I'm sorry you are so delusional as to think this is true. Truly, I am.

Refer to above. Go back and read just what you wrote and how you wrote it and the context in which it was written.

But you probably won't, since you are too intent on saving your male ego at this point to actually listen or pay attention to women telling you that your behaviour when it comes to the subject of sexual harassment is really not acceptable.

Oh, I understand you. You have a victim complex the size of Jupiter and won't be satisfied until you have your pound of flesh.

*Sigh*

It would be almost comical, if it weren't so tragic... you keep coming back to physical sexual harassment for your defense that it's impossible to miss something. Apparently women cannot be sexually harassed without physical conduct now?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No, really, you whine about MR pulling this kind of stunt, but you are abjectly worse than he is. What? You didn't understand that it was an example that is pertinent to what is currently happening? Would you have preferred if I also included things like cat calling examples, staring at her body like she's a piece of meat, licking his lips and going 'mmmm mmm mmmmm', as other examples? I mean, I had assumed that when I said "sexual harassment" and cited an example, that it was agiven you would understand what I actually meant. But you are too intent on trying to change the subject. This is ridiculous, even for you.

Again, back to the physical contact, and again, you are intentionally missing the point.

I'm sorry Bells, but you've lost the plot a long time ago.

Wow..

No, please, try and change the subject some more because you want to discuss how it's easy to miss having sexually harassed a woman because you didn't realise that your friend did not like to have his hand shaken by people.

 

[iceaura]

Here's a guy with a somewhat more hopeful take on what's being set up here: http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-art-of-deal.html

What neither the Right nor the Beltway media seem to understand is that we here on the Left are not exactly quaking in our boots at the thought of re-litigating the Clinton Era.

In fact, quite the opposite. We would be delighted to both revisit the Clinton Era in it's entirely, and apply the exactly the same standards to President Stupid that the GOP insisted be applied to President Clinton. Namely, that any crackpot rumor from any source no matter how clearly partisan and sketchy is grounds to trigger a fully Congressional investigation, complete with subpoena power and public hearings. That a Special Prosecutor be appointed and if that Special Prosecutor comes back with a conclusion that we don't like, then we can invoke the Fiske Rule and appoint an openly partisan hit-man who will just keep trawling for wrongdoing until he finds something or provokes something.

I don't share his optimism, in part because of this thread. If the framing is turned over to the Republican Party and its media efforts - as the self-appointed spokesmen for the anti-harassment faction recommend here, and as seems to be coalescing among the "liberal" media - re-litigating the Clinton era is not going to go well for anyone except the Republican Congress and its financial backers. We even have Newt Gingrich back on the TV, notice.

In that line, it's been a while since the OP topic came up for consideration. Of course it has to wait until Franken's apparently more serious and higher priority offenses have been appropriately handled, so that the Dems can claim what they believe to be the high moral ground in their own estimation before beginning negotiations with the Reps about Trump and Moore and the rest of the boys - although about that time the CHIP program, Medicaid cuts, and other deprivations of services benefitting women will be badly affected by any more delay, so again the matter of priorities will rear its ugly, non-zero-sum head.

Maybe the Clinton technique of, like, compromising in advance - accepting the lies and slanders and Fox-framing provisionally, y'know, "bipartisan" style, before beginning the conversation - will work this time. It's gotta work sooner or later, after all, or this "zero-tolerance within the Rep framing" schtick would look like fatuous disingenuity at best, and another betrayal of the Dem constituency more likely.

as in, no one said people know everyone's intentions at all times but people can interpret 'absolutely' based on certain critieria within any given situation. for instance, when someone tells you no, that's what it fuking means. that is absolute. dig?

So how does Franken's apparent willingness to take "no" for an answer - as described in all the accounts - fit into that? Is it a serious matter, this willingness to take "no", or not?

 

[birch]

So how does Franken's apparent willingness to take "no" for an answer - as described in all the accounts - fit into that? Is it a serious matter, this willingness to take "no", or not?

He made a choice to commit those actions. Forcibly kissing and groping is not excusable. Sexual harassment and/or assault should not be used as political fodder. That credits or discredits either party in how they handle it and if even lesser offenses are still tolerated, that sends a worse message to the general public. Admitting or apologizing after the fact is not a real solution with issues this dangerous to the safety of people. If that is acceptable, then it sends a message that it's okay as long as one gives 'genuine or not' lip service. He should resign. IF you commit an offense, you should pay the consequences. If someone does not want to pay the consequences, they shouldn't do it then.

 

[Bells]

In that line, it's been a while since the OP topic came up for consideration. Of course it has to wait until Franken's apparently more serious and higher priority offenses have been appropriately handled, so that the Dems can claim what they believe to be the high moral ground in their own estimation before beginning negotiations with the Reps about Trump and Moore and the rest of the boys - although about that time the CHIP program, Medicaid cuts, and other deprivations of services benefitting women will be badly affected by any more delay, so again the matter of priorities will rear its ugly, non-zero-sum head.

Let's discuss just Moore.

Accused by numerous women of sexual harassment, stalking, groping, sexual assault, attempted rape, while these women were still young teenage girls. He has the GOP in Alabama out defending him by declaring that there is nothing wrong with a man in his 30's "dating" a teenage girl, that 'it was just a kiss', that the women were lying, one victim was dragged over hot coals because she is a sign language interpreter who was also tasked with working for the Democrats and Clinton when she came to the State, others questioned why girls that young were going out with him if they thought it was so wrong, others declared that even if he did what 'they' say he did, they would still vote for him, other GOP declared that they would vote for him because he was accused of it, the GOP Governor has openly come out and said that she believes the women, but will vote for him because she rather the GOP wins that seat than a 'librul', and so on and so forth.

Last week one Alabama pastor came out and declared that Roy Moore was more than correct to "date" children, because it's a good way to make sure that those girls are "pure".

Your pussy grabber in chief has endorsed Roy Moore, because what's yet another sex offender in Congress and because GOP and 'librul' could win it.

Now, what do you think will happen when Roy Moore does win the election? He was winning the election before Franken and after Franken. So the Democrats umming over Franken and Conyers has frankly nothing to do with his winning.

But let's just say that Moore wins (and he will because the GOP in Alabama rather vote for a perverted paedophile than for anyone else, and because he's a Christian, he's speaking their speak and apparently adult men preying on little girls is a done thing in 'labama!), what happens then? McConnell for his own reasons does not want Moore to win. The GOP in Washington have indicated that this perhaps might (will) tarnish them because the pervert did sexually assault little girls, have ummed and ahhed about expelling him from the Senate. The Democrats, meanwhile, correctly let this play out, because well, there is a shit tonne of political capital to come out of Moore winning that seat. The GOP knowingly voting in a paedophile will hang on them for many many election cycles as it damn well should. So what do the Republicans do? Kick it to the Ethics Committee? They won't kick him out of the Senate, despite their threats to do so, because that's just posturing in the face of the bleeding obvious, and they know if they kick him, then their 'base' will rise up, and all those Trump voters will be baying for their blood.

So, Moore gets elected, and what? No expulsion.. Soooo.. Yay! Bring on the ethics committee.. And the victims are then dragged out, and the political footballing begins. What they endured will be questioned. They will be abused in the right wing media (as they are already being abused, shamed, dismissed, called liars, etc), it will be declared a left wing conspiracy (as it already has been, hey, imagine that, same cycle keeps repeating itself!), and sexual harassment and a pervert's abuse of young girls, will get a pass. Yet again.

Meanwhile, when the Democrats will rightly display their disgust at just how this is coming to pass, the Republicans will point to Pelosi's comments about Conyers, the Democrats will point that Franken went through the same process. and the Democrats will in all of their self righteous indignation, declare that he volunteered, admitted he was wrong, and they supported the investigation so that really means he's different, and yes, Clinton, Weiner, and co. And the whole cycle begins again and plays out until it dies down in the media, until another victim outs another pervert in Congress and it all begins all over again.

So yeah, lets discuss Roy Moore and what he has done and just how the GOP are handling it. Because it's like nothing we've ever seen before or even expected from them.. I mean, this is a first for the GOP isn't it? Oh yeah, no, they voted in the Pussy Grabber who once commented that if his daughter wasn't from his loins, he'd be dating her.. So really, how the GOP is responding to Roy Moore and his sexual perversion of preying on young girls is really not that surprising. Because as with all other of these cases, we've been there, done that.

While all of this plays out in the media, victims will be watching. They will be watching just how far the establishment is willing to go to protect its own when it is in their interest to do so and they will watch just how the political parties are willing to exploit their harassment for political gain. Now, I know, you are going to come back and say that my using words like "the establishment", I am playing the right wing media game, etc.. You will complain just how Franken and Conyers is not even in the same league or realm as a paedophile in Alabama and the pussy grabber in the White House. And you will do this while ignoring just how Franken and Conyers and the response to those two, will play into the hands of Republicans. Because the left's attempt to distinguish those two, to literally play down their offenses in the face of the horror from Alabama and Trump, the demand that it cannot be compared and the complaints that discussing sexual harassment and including Franken and Conyers is playing into the Republican media outrage, is also an attempt to play down those types of sexual harassment.

So yeah, Moore and the accusations against him. Let's just make it about the GOP if that brings you comfort. But don't pretend that your moral outrage (for example) against him and Trump is anything but political.

Sexual harassment is sexual harassment. And I would bet my houses that if Franken and Conyers were Republicans, we would not be having this conversation. Because you would be just as outraged about what they did as I am. For you, it would be because of political ideology. For me it is because this is yet another example of just how women and victims of sexual violence and harassment, are used as tools for political gain.

I hope that clears up all the confusion you have about my views on this. And if you think that my feelings about this are right wing and political, then you clearly have not been paying attention.