Next Up In The Sexual Assault Allegations List

In my only case of professional harassment, I punched him in the stomach. Not intentionally. Just absolute reflexive action.

But I'm glad I did.

Speaking of girly instincts, the Girl Scouts are leading a charge to stop forced embraces:

http://www.girlscouts.org/en/raising-girls/happy-and-healthy/happy/what-is-consent.html

And now it's affable good ol' boy Charlie Rose, just fired by CBS for . . . you know.

caw

Although he's been dead for years, how long until someone digs something up on Walter Cronkite. Then what do we do? Posthumously yank his honorary title "Most Trusted Man in America".

BoF said:

Although he's been dead for years, how long until someone digs something up on Walter Cronkite. Then what do we do? Posthumously yank his honorary title "Most Trusted Man in America".

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this is a "OMG, my world has been turned upside-down" post, or a "how far will these accusations go, and is that too far?" post, but let's say, hypothetically, that Cronkite did, indeed, turn out to be a serial sexual harasser/assaulter.

I'd say yes, yank the title. If a title-holder in sports is shown, after the fact, to have cheated or acted dishonorably in some manner related to the earning of that achievement, they lose their title. Their ability to play the sport was not what they represented it to be. Why should a "title" of trustworthiness be any different? The alternative would be to let him retain the title even though he wasn't worthy of it.

(FWIW, my "please let this one person. at least, be as truly kind and good as his image appeared, because I think my worldview would shatter otherwise" is Mr. Rogers).

BoF said:

Although he's been dead for years, how long until someone digs something up on Walter Cronkite. Then what do we do? Posthumously yank his honorary title "Most Trusted Man in America".

Click to expand...

I'm sure you don't mean that as it reads, BoF. Sexual harassment and predatory behavior is not a problem for the dead, but very much so for the living.

Weinstein, Rose, Spacey, Franken, Moore, Trump and all the others exposed and yet to be exposed are not the ones being victimized here. What is happening now should have happened long ago. Maybe if it had we could have avoided some of this bullshit.

SWest said:

Speaking of girly instincts, the Girl Scouts are leading a charge to stop forced embraces:

http://www.girlscouts.org/en/raising-girls/happy-and-healthy/happy/what-is-consent.html

Click to expand...

This is also something that is long overdue, and I think it does send a problematic message to kids of all genders: those who are more powerful have the right to dictate the physical boundaries of those who are less so.

I can't get past the feeling that this is what these sexual assaults and harassment of women (and sometimes less powerful men too) is really about in most cases: establishing and reinforcing the power hierarchy by reminding women of who is really in charge. We still haven't gotten over the notion that women don't really belong in some places and that they should be grateful for whatever bones (or boners--ugh) are tossed in their direction.

As for Walter Cronkite, or any other deceased but respected figure: if there's evidence they did things like this, we do need to know about it. Even if it hurts.

When we look at historical figures, reconciling the good things about their legacies with bad things they have done can be hard, even painful. We still need to do this, imo, because ignoring history dooms us to repeating it. We can't change the past, but we can decide what is acceptable behavior moving forward.

BoF said:

Although he's been dead for years, how long until someone digs something up on Walter Cronkite. Then what do we do? Posthumously yank his honorary title "Most Trusted Man in America".

Click to expand...

Would there be some reason not to, if his living victims preferred that small measure of justice to the vicious inherent message shoved in their faces that they are simply not people who matter?

On the "girly instincts" thing, once when I was 11 or 12, a group of us girls were hanging out by the street when some man stopped and asked for directions. When we approached the car, we saw that he was, er, getting happy. We gleefully surrounded the car, beat on it, and shrieked names at him, like "inch worm" and "dinky dick." He soon zoomed away and in a deranged way it's funny to me now that we ran off a perv. But looking back, it seems strange that we apparently weren't all that shocked and didn't bother to tell.

Anyway, I think there is no shortage of predatory males out there and they do what they think they can get away with. When they get the message that they can no longer get away with it, that's when it stops.

If anyone thinks it's going too far to call them out or punish them for sexual harassment or abuse, well, they have probably never been a young girl (or other unempowered person). Goodness, if I started counting up incidents of grossly inappropriate advances or worse incidents that I or my friends experienced when we were young... I've noticed men often seem surprised at the prevalence of it when they start listening to the experiences from the other side but other women usually do not seem surprised.

nighttimer said:

I'm sure you don't mean that as it reads, BoF. Sexual harassment and predatory behavior is not a problem for the dead, but very much so for the livinggoe.

Weinstein, Rose, Spacey, Franken, Moore, Trump and all the others exposed and yet to be exposed are not the ones being victimized
here. What is happening now should have happened long agoheh. Maybe if it had we could have avoided some of this bullshit.

Click to expand...

The post was meant to convey shock that Charlie Rose was named. Cronkite was an absurd example of the next shoe to fall, and there will be many more shoes to fall.

Fruitbat said:

On the "girly instincts" thing, once when I was 11 or 12, a group of us girls were hanging out by the street when some man stopped and asked for directions. When we approached the car, we saw that he was, er, getting happy. We gleefully surrounded the car, beat on it, and shrieked names at him, like "inch worm" and "dinky dick." He soon zoomed away and in a deranged way it's funny to me now that we ran off a perv. But looking back, it seems strange that we apparently weren't all that shocked and didn't bother to tell.

Anyway, I think there is no shortage of predatory males out there and they do what they think they can get away with. When they get the message that they can no longer get away with it, that's when it stops.

If anyone thinks it's going too far to call them out or punish them for sexual harassment or abuse, well, they have probably never been a young girl (or other unempowered person). Goodness, if I started counting up incidents of grossly inappropriate advances or worse incidents that I or my friends experienced when we were young... I've noticed men often seem surprised at the prevalence of it when they start listening to the experiences of it from the other side but other women usually do not seem surprised.

Click to expand...

Men legitimately don't see it happen. When I walk down the street with my boyfriend, we give everyone we pass a polite greeting. You know, a friendly nod and a "good morning." People generally respond in kind.

When I walk down the street alone, it's an entirely different experience. I deal with everything from standard catcalls to downright weird shit (like the time some dude pulled over his car to ask my height).

The last time I gave a polite greeting to a group of strangers by myself was a few days ago. Now, when I'm with my boyfriend, the exchanges typically go something like this:

"Good morning."
"Good morning to you."

When I was alone, on the other hand, I got:

"Good morning."
(lacivious stare) "What's up, thick bitch?"

Boyfriend's lived experience is so utterly different from my own, that it's no wonder if he doesn't see the severity of the problem. The sad part is that I can share his experience and see how the world treats him, but he can't share mine. His mere presence changes people's behavior.

I tell him about these things,* and he listens, and he believes me (he's a feminist himself) but, like so many things in life, good and bad, no amount of description can truly convey the actual lived experience of being in that situation.

*When I think to. It's such an everyday thing that I don't usually bother.

Tazlima said:

Men legitimately don't see it happen. When I walk down the street with my boyfriend, we give everyone we pass a polite greeting. You know, a friendly nod and a "good morning." People generally respond in kind.

When I walk down the street alone, it's an entirely different experience. I deal with everything from standard catcalls to downright weird shit (like the time some dude pulled over his car to ask my height).

The last time I gave a polite greeting to a group of strangers by myself was a few days ago. Now, when I'm with my boyfriend, the exchanges typically go something like this:

"Good morning."
"Good morning to you."

When I'm alone, on the other hand, it's:

"Good morning."
(lacivious stare) "What's up, thick bitch?"

His lived experience is so utterly different from my own, that it's no wonder if he doesn't see the severity of the problem. The sad part is that I can share his experience and see how the world treats him, but he can't share mine. His mere presence changes people's behavior.

I tell him about these things, and he listens, and he believes me (he's a feminist himself) but, like so many things in life, good and bad, no amount of description can truly convey the actual lived experience of being in that situation.

Click to expand...

This. I can count on one finger the number of times my wife has been harassed in DC when I was with her, and in that case it was non-sexual, aimed at both of us and racially aimed by someone who was clearly unstable. Aside of the normal panhandling, I have only been harassed a couple times in two years here, and it was because some acting-crazy guy thought I was filming him with my phone (I wasn't) or when I took a bike shortcut down a road people were camped out on. Again no sexual focus.

However, I have seen dozens of catcalls, hey-baby-c'meres and other things aimed at women on their own. The non-violent bystander intervention training I've taken says to engage the target, not the aggressor, but as a guy I'm really reluctant to approach someone who's feeling threatened already.

The post was meant to convey shock that Charlie Rose was named.

Click to expand...

I cannot get all the surprise about Rose (not meant to be personal, but I'm hearing it in my own circle, on social media, etc)

@BoF- Sorry if I misunderstood your post.

It's getting complicated.

Not a fan of double standards; you can't complain about harassment then turn around and engage in the same kind of behavior.

And I'm not happey about #metoo becoming a political sledgehammer.

AW Admin said:

It's getting complicated.

Not a fan of double standards; you can't complain about harassment then turn around and engage in the same kind of behavior.

And I'm not happey about #metoo becoming a political sledgehammer.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Things, and people, are usually more complicated than simple black and white dichotomies.

I saw Ms. Tweeden giving an interview, in which she stated one of the things that bothered her was that when she and Al Franken were signing photos during the tour, he made sure that she saw a photo of her on which he had drawn devil horns and a tail. So clearly, they were not getting along.

Perhaps he was miffed about her rejecting his use of a kiss in that skit. Perhaps he thought she was being a pain. Perhaps he took the opportunity to try to stick his tongue in her mouth, to be crude about it. In any case, there was clearly bad blood, which is why I think he staged that photo of him trying to grope her while she was sleeping – a juvenile high school type prank that deserves the condemnation it got. But I don't think it was a sexual assault or sexual in nature – it was Franken trying to embarrass her because he thought she was obnoxious. Obviously I don't know what was in anybody's mind, but that's my take on it.

I do find it interesting that both the women on the writing stuff of SNL and the women staffers from his office have been universally supportive and have stated that Franken has never been anything but supportive and respectful of them without a single incident any kind of inappropriate behavior over the years. What he did was stupid and obnoxious, but I can't see how it justifies destroying his career.

I'm sure many of the women on this board will disagree, and I understand that.

As far as a double standard goes, I'm not sure I see that as a valid point. With different cultural expectations and experiences between men and women, the exact same actions are not in reality the same at all.

I was recently at an event where I met a writer whose writing I quite admire, and who is an an Internet acquaintance. I was quite excited for the chance to meet her in RL, and as it happened we immediately hit it off. We talked probably for 45 minutes about everything under the sun and had an instant connection. During that talk, she reached out and touched me on the arm several times, sometimes leaving her hand on my arm for a few seconds.

That, in my experience, it's something women sometimes do – if they're comfortable. I didn't feel my space had been invaded and certainly didn't take it as any kind of sexual advance. For one thing, the woman is gay and her partner was sitting next to us. Plus, if you have any social sense whatsoever the difference between comfortable and friendly and flirty and suggestive are obvious. I also talked to her partner for quite a long time, and she was open, warm, and friendly, but never touched me – people are different in how they choose to interact, simple as that.

However, I would never touch a woman in those circumstances in that fashion because it really is different for a man to touch a woman than a woman to touch a man. Women can be vulnerable in a situation like that in a way a man is not. Of course, once you know someone well, that's a different thing – but apparently many men are not as adept at reading social signals as others are.

So is this a double standard? Should I have been offended that this woman touched me? Is that kind of behavior not OK? If she could do that, why shouldn't I be able to? Should I take it as permission to touch others? If not, are we talking about a double standard, which would be wrong?

I don't see it that way at all.

I've thought basically the same about Franken -- that she may have misinterpreted him. I don't know what happened, I'm not defending sexual assault just because I like the guy. The comment about the devil horns on the photo bothered me too, from the beginning; she said that as if it was some humiliating gesture. I don't doubt he did it because he didn't like her, but it's devil horns on a photo, from a comedian sitting next to you. It sounds like there was animosity on both sides, that she took it that way.

Also, no, a bunch of people who know someone in a different context testifying to how great the guy is doesn't mean he didn't do stuff. However, SNL's writing room is notoriously not female-friendly, and it's a workplace at which inappropriate behaviour could have been brushed off by a lot of people -- and that's a fuckload of women, who worked with him for a very long time, in an arena he could have easily done stuff and passed it off as 'just a joke,' and apparently did not.

However, up next in the litany of what SNL's Colin Jost mentioned on Update the other week was a reason to just stay inside -- "everyone you've ever heard of is a sex monster," -- head of fucking Pixar, John Lassiter.

Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose and all that. However, I've learned to be wary of false equivalencies re sexual assault and harassment (or when they're invoked in matters related to racism). Sexual harassment of women by men is used as a way of reminding women that they're unwelcome, or it's a way of asserting that women are only allowed to be in that setting by the sufferance of men, or because the men have been socialized to think of women as non people, or because the men think they are invincible (in a way few women do).

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/20/3-psychologists-explain-why-men-harass-women-in-the-workplace.html

Sexual harassment of men by women is inappropriate, but it's not generally reinforcing an imbalance of power in workplaces, or society in general. I also suspect that it's not generally done (I'd be receptive to evidence to the contrary, but I haven't found many articles on female sexual harassment) to remind men of what their "real" purpose and value are or because there's an epidemic of women who think of men as objects or who think of themselves as invincible.

Men don't tend to be as physically intimidated by women as women are by men either. Most men aren't afraid of being assaulted by women in the same way women are afraid of being assaulted by men. A common enough defense that men employ when they are called out for crude behavior, like catcalling or groping, is that they wouldn't mind if women did it to them. That says a lot right there.

Not that it's okay for women to go around grabbing men's butts without permission. But when the power differential favors men, there is a different dynamic in play. Most men don't live in fear of being raped by women, and most men don't struggle to fit into a female-dominated culture in their workplaces. Also, most men don't grow up and live in a culture where their value is almost always determined by how women see them.

I know not everyone agrees with me. I imagine there are going to be some situations where a woman does have power over a man and she uses similar tactics to intimidate and control her male subordinate(s). I just don't think it's nearly as common.

My reaction to the assertions that Frankin did what he did as a consequence of personal friction between himself and Tweeden is to ask if he would have done the same thing to a male co-worker with whom he didn't get along. This wasn't just a prank. It had definite sexual overtones.

Roxxsmom said:

I know not everyone agrees with me. I imagine there are going to be some situations where a woman does have power over a man and she uses similar tactics to intimidate and control her male subordinate(s). I just don't think it's nearly as common.

Click to expand...

Well, I agree.

That's why I think using the idea of the wrongness of having a "double standard" is not a useful concept.

Guess we're veering off-topic but I agree that it's usually not the same when a woman puts her hands on a man.

However, I still think it's overly familiar, a personal space violation, and unclear as to if it includes sexual overtones or not. As such, it's also disrespectful to his partner, if any.

The same goes for women touching other women they don't know, etc., imo. Offhand, I recall a waitress doing the patting the shoulder thing to me and also a nurse-type person rubbing my shoulders when I was in a wheel chair, leaving the hospital. It's also been done by strange women to my husband in front of me, usually by someone who is waiting on us in some way. In either case, I usually say "excuse me" and stare at their hands until they are removed.

I'm sure there are personal and cultural differences of opinion but to me, uninvited touching of strangers is just weird.

rugcat said:

Perhaps he was miffed about her rejecting his use of a kiss in that skit. Perhaps he thought she was being a pain. Perhaps he took the opportunity to try to stick his tongue in her mouth, to be crude about it. In any case, there was clearly bad blood, which is why I think he staged that photo of him trying to grope her while she was sleeping – a juvenile high school type prank that deserves the condemnation it got. But I don't think it was a sexual assault or sexual in nature – it was Franken trying to embarrass her because he thought she was obnoxious. Obviously I don't know what was in anybody's mind, but that's my take on it.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure Franken needs to step down, either, but I don't agree with this. I had a coworker who used to follow me around and ask me out in front of customers, and when I would get angry and tell him to leave me alone, he would laugh at me and say, "You thought I was serious?" No, no, I did not. But why is it any better that he was doing it to make fun of me, and not because he had a crush on me? Men who harass women on the street are not trying to get a date with us. They're trying to make us feel like shit. It's what gives them power over us. If Franken was using the suggested groping to insult her, and not because he thought she was pretty, it makes no difference.

rugcat said:

I do find it interesting that both the women on the writing stuff of SNL and the women staffers from his office have been universally supportive and have stated that Franken has never been anything but supportive and respectful of them without a single incident any kind of inappropriate behavior over the years.

Click to expand...

This is actually very significant. SNL has had a reputation for being a difficult place for women. Not necessarily because they were harassed, but because there have been men working there who were not supportive of women. Jane Curtain, one of the original Not Ready For Prime Time Players, described it as "a very dark, male place." So if he was supportive and respectful of women there, it was in a space where they didn't always get that from everyone.

I don't have any data to back this up, so I'm merely speculating. Children tend to be given a certain amount of license when it comes to initiating contact with adults. If a kid runs up to me and hugs me or climbs into my lap, I tend to be more indulgent than if a fellow adult were to do such a thing. It's a bit how well-socialized dogs tend to put up with a certain amount of chewing and jumping on them by puppies, but there's a point where the pup reaches adolescence and adult dogs will "correct" the behavior.

Is the license women are given to be somewhat "touchy" similar to the license given to children? Are men more likely to smile indulgently when a woman puts a hand on his arm or gives him an unsolicited kiss or hug because women are "small and harmless" (and socially subordinate) like children?

Socialization does play a huge role. I've never been as touchy or huggy as some women, but I've still had to retrain myself from those shoulder pats and restrained hugs in recent years. I came of age when it was considered kind or a way of showing concern to put a hand on someone's shoulder when they were upset, for instance. I've learned that some people really hate it, though, so if I don't know for sure the gesture will be welcome (most especially when there's a power differential, as with a student), I don't do it anymore. I hate feeling awkward, and I hate it when I think I might have made someone else feel awkward when they don't know me well enough to tell me for sure.

I imagine caregivers and health care providers might learn to do those shoulder pats as a way of putting someone at ease or trying to comfort them. It probably makes some people uncomfortable, though, because it's not mutual (there is a power differential there). The patient can't spontaneously massage the nurse's shoulders or put their hand on their doctor's arm, for instance. Of course, the caregiver tends to be cast in the role of counselor or comforter. I had a (male) dentist for years who would always pat me on the shoulder in greeting, and I never thought much about it up until now, to be honest.

There is also a huge difference between putting a hand on someone's arm or shoulder and placing a hand on their breast or butt. And there's a difference between a quick hug and a prolonged, full-frontal contact "rib crusher." Now, I've had friends where a certain amount of mutual non-sexual, jokey butt slapping kind of contact was part of our dynamic. But imo, it's not someone one should do with someone they don't know very well (and it's also inappropriate in some settings, even so).

I imagine trouble can happen sometimes if someone thinks they have that kind of relationship with someone by extension (because they do with a mutual friend).

Personally, I've had male advisors and co-workers sometimes say things that could be deemed inappropriate, or they would be if they were part of a pattern, but it didn't bother me because of the context. My advisor was a good guy, and he tried really hard to make his lab a welcoming place for female grad students, and he treated us women the same way he did his male students. However, once or twice he made a comment that made me and the other women in the lab whip our heads around (once he commented that a female sales rep who had just come by the lab had "thick" legs). In those cases, though, we felt comfortable enough to call him on it, and he was decent enough to be chagrined and to apologize and to not do the same kind of thing again. We never worried that letting him know if something made us uncomfortable would result in punishment of some kind.

Decent people can make stupid comments in passing (or do other stupid things) when their mental censor is napping. But if someone does it frequently, and if others are afraid to call them on it, that probably means something.

That makes a huge difference to me. Trust in someone's good intentions, which is earned over time via a series of positive interactions. This trust seemed to be markedly lacking in most of these sexual harassment cases that are coming out.

Roxx makes good points.

I think it is just more acceptable for women to touch people, likely because women are less threatening, and likely a women/children connection. They seem to have license, which I think is partly justified (the number of female sex offenders is quite low), and partly ridiculous social construct, but given the past few weeks...

A friend of mine has been coaching kids' hockey for ages. Hockey gear is complicated.

Years ago he stopped helping kids put it on -- he'll point and show and talk but in the locker room, he decided touching a kid who was getting dressed wasn't a great idea, because it might be misconstrued and he's a grown man with a room full of half-dressed seven- and eight-year-olds. He told me this after watching a female teacher kneel down to hug a crying first-grader. He said he felt bad, because there were situations he's wanted to hug an upset kid, but didn't. He's a nice guy, with kids of his own, and didn't mean it like 'political correctness!' but that he was sad it wasn't construed the same way because of his gender.

Celia Cyanide said:

I'm not sure Franken needs to step down, either, but I don't agree with this. I had a coworker who used to follow me around and ask me out in front of customers, and when I would get angry and tell him to leave me alone, he would laugh at me and say, "You thought I was serious?" No, no, I did not. But why is it any better that he was doing it to make fun of me, and not because he had a crush on me? Men who harass women on the street are not trying to get a date with us. They're trying to make us feel like shit. It's what gives them power over us. If Franken was using the suggested groping to insult her, and not because he thought she was pretty, it makes no difference.

Click to expand...

I get your point. The reason someone does something is irrelevant. It's the action that counts.

But I do think that intent matters. If somebody runs you down in a car on purpose or somebody runs you down by accident, you're just as dead either way. But in the first case, the perpetrator deserves severe punishment and condemnation, where as in the second you might will feel sorry for them

I think the difference here is that apparently Franken was not involved in an ongoing campaign to demean her. There was bad blood between them – she didn't like him and he didn't like her. Maybe he was trying to "get even" in some weird juvenile way.
It might as well have been something like putting fake dog poop in her bed.

It's not like I'm saying he should get a pass on this – it was incredibly stupid and obnoxious. But he has already suffered a great blow to his reputation, his career, and his future effectiveness as a senator. I just think it's a different sort of thing than we've been have been seeing lately, for instance with Charlie Rose, a man I also liked, but who was clearly a serial harasser and a total creep when it came to women.

Heh.

As a person who was born in an era before women were “people,” harassment is completely unacceptable — especially when people find out about it. At the time I believed that my sociopathic manipulation of the 22-year-old in my office was consensual, and of course now I realize my behavior was wrong. In conclusion, I will delete my Twitter account because I hate to see people who are mad at me.

Click to expand...

etc.

cornflake said:

Roxx makes good points.

I think it is just more acceptable for women to touch people, likely because women are less threatening, and likely a women/children connection. They seem to have license, which I think is partly justified (the number of female sex offenders is quite low), and partly ridiculous social construct, but given the past few weeks...

A friend of mine has been coaching kids' hockey for ages. Hockey gear is complicated.

Years ago he stopped helping kids put it on -- he'll point and show and talk but in the locker room, he decided touching a kid who was getting dressed wasn't a great idea, because it might be misconstrued and he's a grown man with a room full of half-dressed seven- and eight-year-olds. He told me this after watching a female teacher kneel down to hug a crying first-grader. He said he felt bad, because there were situations he's wanted to hug an upset kid, but didn't. He's a nice guy, with kids of his own, and didn't mean it like 'political correctness!' but that he was sad it wasn't construed the same way because of his gender.

Click to expand...

I have relatives who have been K-12 teachers for quite some time, and as long ago as the mid to late 80s (in the LA public schools, at least) there was a "no touching of the kids except in life-threatening emergencies" policy. This applied to female teachers as well as male. Hugs to comfort crying kids were not allowed, nor (presumably) was helping them with difficult clothing or gear.

That was the time when a lot of well-publicized child sexual abuse cases were in the news. It was also adopted, I believe, so that there would be a clearer line for when teachers manhandled or abused kids in non-sexual ways. One of the problems with allowing teachers to grab a recalcitrant kid by the arm or to shove them down in their seat is that the point when such handling becomes abusive can be pretty blurry.

This was a derail, though. I checked back with this thread to see if anyone had mentioned one of the latest: John Lasseter from Pixar is taking a six month leave of absence. He's been accused of unwanted grabbing and kissing by several women.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...leave-of-absence-after-harassment-allegations

I've enjoyed many of Pixar's movies, so this makes me sad and disappointed.

Isn't it cute that Disney is calling this self-appointed exile a sabbatical?