Al Franken Is Toast

mccardey said:

Yeah but in what century was it okay for a 32 year old man to hit on a 14-year-old? In America? I think that was a very long time ago.

Click to expand...

Patty said:

so ...

20th Century is when it was 'OK' (<- That term is too vague)

Click to expand...

Okay was your word.

Patty said:

The culture changes and what is considered OK for people to do, or between age groups... changes too.

Click to expand...

which was why I used it. But thank you for the links to the legal requirements, which of course are a different discussion - but really shocked me.

rugcat said:

There don't seem to be a lot of accusations against women doing the same thing, however. It does seem to be primarily a male proclivity, but the targets of abuse depend on the orientation of the individual more than evidence of sexism, imo.

Click to expand...

I can't help wondering if this would be different if women were the ones in charge in most cases, or if things shift so that power is shared more equally. I suspect the current situation (men abusing women) stems from at least three things:

1. Sense of entitlement or normalization of abuse based on internalization of the imbalance of power between the genders and the dehumanization of women
2. Feeling of impunity by the assailants, who take their positions and importance for granted (especially notable with politicians, media moguls, silicon valley hotshots and so on, but it can apply to the male manager who gropes his female sales clerks too).
3. Fear on the part of the victims, who know that coming forward will (at best) be met with skepticism and (at worst) can lead to professional blacklisting.

A change in power structure, with more women in positions of importance and authority may affect the last two, but I wonder if the first issue--internalization of thousands of years of history when men were mostly the gender in charge and women are seen as not quite "real" people to many men (and sometimes to women themselves)--can be changed in just a generation or two.

There are women who grab, pinch, prod, touch, hug , and kiss men who may not appreciate it for various reasons. I can't believe that no female boss has ever pressured a male employee for sex. But as a rule the guys don't seem to be as afraid or bothered by it as are women are in that situation. Maybe it's because they know they can, even if it's their boss doing it, likely find another job with a male supervisor. Or maybe it's because men aren't as physically intimidated by women?

RC brought up the issue with men sometimes harassing or molesting other men sexually too. Obviously, there isn't a gender power imbalance there, but if the man harassing another man has a lot more power, and if the victim is gay (and knows damned well that gay men tend to be less regarded in society, much as women are), a similar dynamic could occur.

Another thing not talked about much in all this is harassment and intimidation that has a racial or cultural nature to it. Women of color often face a double whammy there, but men of color can also have supervisors or workplaces that are hostile or dismissive, even abusive, based on these factors.

Patty said:

I'm not back in on this thread.

I'm out like I said. And enjoying it! But two people asked for a reference and I'm a scientist dammit so ...

20th Century is when it was 'OK' (<- That term is too vague) for a 32 year old to hit on a 14 year old in ... some areas of the United States. See long quote at end for more details. Things were worse in the 19th century, and worse yet in the 17th century, on the other hand life expectancy was much shorter.

And, according to Wikipedia, there was no legal lower age limit for marriage in Virginia as recently as last year. I realize marriage is different than pedophilia, but we are talking about sex and children in both cases, and so I will add the link and trust you to understand the various nuances.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States




The following link has the "mother saying the Luckiest girl in the world" reference in response to the 'opportunity' to date Moore within it. The link also contextualizes within fundamentalist belief in the American South:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...istian-men-date-teens/?utm_term=.16034c0d3f3f

And the next link provided ... is to a Slate article that reviews a book written by an academic historian that has worked on the issue:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...l_syrett_s_american_child_bride_reviewed.html

And here is an excerpt from the article:



Moore was born in '47 (in Gadsden Alabama). According to Wikipedia.

Works cited:

1. Wikipedia
2. Washington Post
3. Slate
4. Wikipedia

Click to expand...

The history is interesting, but it seems like you're conflating marriage between a man in his 30s and an underage girl with a man in his 30s serially seeking sexual contact with underage girls.

My relatives are southern, and my grandmother secretly married my grandfather when she was still in high school and he was in his 20s, for exactly the reasons Slate mentions. Yet please don't tell me what Moore reportedly did is understandable because there used to be a stronger taboo against premarital sex. The details of Leigh Corfman's account, which I find credible, are that while he was a officer of the court, he offered to "watch her" (suggesting he knew her mother saw him as an adult, and saw Leigh as a child) while her parents attended a divorce hearing, and then he took Leigh into the woods and initiated sexual contact with her the second time he saw her. That has nothing to do with respectful courting.

The county that votes most Democratic in Alabama is, if I recall correctly, Shelby County. When Moore's run in his last few elections, he got few votes in Shelby County, but he got an even smaller share of the vote in one other county. Know what county voted most heavily against Moore? His home county, where he reportedly trolled the mall for girls. They know who he is, and they don't like him.

Patty said:

I'm not back in on this thread.

I'm out like I said. And enjoying it! But two people asked for a reference and I'm a scientist dammit so ...

20th Century is when it was 'OK' (<- That term is too vague) for a 32 year old to hit on a 14 year old in ... some areas of the United States. See long quote at end for more details. Things were worse in the 19th century, and worse yet in the 17th century, on the other hand life expectancy was much shorter.

And, according to Wikipedia, there was no legal lower age limit for marriage in Virginia as recently as last year. I realize marriage is different than pedophilia, but we are talking about sex and children in both cases, and so I will add the link and trust you to understand the various nuances.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States

The following link has the "mother saying the Luckiest girl in the world" reference in response to the 'opportunity' to date Moore within it. The link also contextualizes within fundamentalist belief in the American South:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...istian-men-date-teens/?utm_term=.16034c0d3f3f

And the next link provided ... is to a Slate article that reviews a book written by an academic historian that has worked on the issue:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...l_syrett_s_american_child_bride_reviewed.html

And here is an excerpt from the article:

Moore was born in '47 (in Gadsden Alabama). According to Wikipedia.

Works cited:

1. Wikipedia
2. Washington Post
3. Slate
4. Wikipedia

Click to expand...

I think you might be conflating a couple things here. One, a lot of those stats are teenage girls marrying, but only a small subset was/is to older men.

And two, exceptions do not make something a norm so perhaps the debate here is over using different definitions of acceptable.

The culture of courting that Easter and Brightbill described is one limited mostly to fundamentalist religious communities, including certain Christian groups and those of other religions, such as some Orthodox Jewish or Mormon communities. For most evangelical Christians, relationships between older men and teenage girls are viewed as wholly inappropriate.

Click to expand...

There are always going to be exceptions. Warren Jeffs' polygamous community comes to mind. That you can find polygamy doesn't make it generally acceptable.

I haven't heard any Moore supporters saying his pursuit of teenage girls was acceptable, rather they say they don't believe the women. Moore also has taken the position it didn't happen, not that it happened but there was nothing wrong with it. That suggests Moore's supporters don't think 30 yr olds dating teens was peachy keen.

Moore hinted at it being OK saying he always had their mothers' permission. That Hannity found that answer evasive was rather telling.


The WA Po article you cited also noted this:

Brad Wilcox, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who studies marriage and families in the United States, said that while people tended to date and marry younger in the 1970s and 1980s, when Moore allegedly was dating teenagers, an age gap such as that between Moore and the girls would still have been highly unusual. “In the South, in general, younger marriages would have been more common. But we’re talking here about … teenagers going steady in high school — maybe a year or two or three between him and her,” Wilcox said. “You don’t have 30-year-old guys dating a 14-year-old. It may have happened in some occasional context, but it would not have been a cultural norm.”

Click to expand...

MaeZe said:

I think you might be conflating a couple things here. One, a lot of those stats are teenage girls marrying, but only a small subset was/is to older men.

Click to expand...

Yes - I meant to note that, as well. Marriage between very young people (even unconsummated "starter marriages" between children as described in one of the articles) is not in any way the same as a 30-something targeting 14-year-olds. With or without their parents consent.

ETA: I'm aware you're not saying it is the same, Patty - it's just that the links you provided are shifting the conversation into that sort of area.

Patty said:

I'm not back in on this thread. This clearly is not true.

I'm out like I said. And enjoying it! But two people asked for a reference and I'm a scientist dammit so ...

20th Century is when it was 'OK' (<- That term is too vague) for a 32 year old to hit on a 14 year old in ... some areas of the United States. See long quote at end for more details. Things were worse in the 19th century, and worse yet in the 17th century, on the other hand life expectancy was much shorter.

And, according to Wikipedia, there was no legal lower age limit for marriage in Virginia as recently as last year. I realize marriage is different than pedophilia, but we are talking about sex and children in both cases, and so I will add the link and trust you to understand the various nuances.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States




The following link has the "mother saying the Luckiest girl in the world" reference in response to the 'opportunity' to date Moore within it. The link also contextualizes within fundamentalist belief in the American South:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...istian-men-date-teens/?utm_term=.16034c0d3f3f

And the next link provided ... is to a Slate article that reviews a book written by an academic historian that has worked on the issue:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...l_syrett_s_american_child_bride_reviewed.html

And here is an excerpt from the article:



Moore was born in '47 (in Gadsden Alabama). According to Wikipedia.

Works cited:

1. Wikipedia
2. Washington Post
3. Slate
4. Wikipedia

Click to expand...

You're cherry picking data points, as if those were indicative of the culture at large, and they aren't. I could do the same thing with snake-handling.

The Wikipedia page about snake handling lists churches in eight states.

Here's an article about young Pentecostals using snakes in worship.

And here's one that focuses specifically on snake-handling churches in Appalachia.

Going by your logic, I just proved that snake-handling is accepted by general American culture.

Anna Iguana said:

Pollsters surveyed 600 Minnesotans after the second allegation against Franken came out. About a third wanted to see the results of an ethics committee investigation, but only 22% of Minnesotans said he should remain in office.

Click to expand...

That can also be parsed another way, only 33% want him to resign and I'd bet that was predominantly Republicans.

You have 36% undecided. There is no more reason to think they would side with as against Franken resigning.

I'm opening this thread, but please talk about facts, about words, and not about each other.

Go gently. With all you can, remember that you are all people, that most people are of good will, and work with each other not against each other.

Also? I'm one handed. I'm dealing with family medical issues, and I am (honest) quite often modding with a cell phone.

Don't piss me off by behaving as any thing less that the thoughtful, caring members you are.

Let's make the world better. Let's figure out what to change and how.

I'm going to send this thread onto a slightly different track, because I think it's well worth thinking about one of the core issues here. Rebecca Traister has a piece in The Cut that gets right to the point:

But in the midst of our great national calculus, in which we are determining what punishments fit which sexual crimes, it’s possible that we’re missing the bigger picture altogether: that this is not, at its heart, about sex at all — or at least not wholly. What it’s really about is work, and women’s equality in the workplace, and more broadly, about the rot at the core of our power structures that makes it harder for women to do work because the whole thing is tipped toward men.

Click to expand...

And further on in the article...

But even those tales — the ones about rape and assault — have been told by accusers who first interacted with these men in hopes of finding professional opportunity, who were looking not for flirtation or dates, but for work. And they have reported — they have taken care to clearly lay out — the impact of the sexual violence not just on their emotional well-being, not just on their bodies, but on their careers, on their place in the public sphere.

Click to expand...

As several people have said upthread WRT the Franken situation, we don't know who didn't get an opportunity to hold this seat, or who might get an opportunity now. Franken was a strong supporter of Progressive policy, but of course, the Senate (like most of the corridors of political power) is overwhelmingly male. THAT is what needs to change. The imbalance needs to be fixed.

I'm not saying Franken should have been sacrificed to "the cause" but his actions certainly indicate a level of blithe entitlement that, because he is otherwise Progressive, and seems to be a genuinely nice guy, encouraged people to perhaps grimace but look away. I don't believe he was aggressively taking advantage of the inbuilt power structure of our society so much as being given the advantage, simply by looking the part.

He's a pretty milquetoast example of the greater problem, but he's an example nonetheless.

I agree with the statements in Elaine A's post. Sexual harassment is not always, or even usually, perpetuated by drooling perverts who can't control themselves. I think it's often done very deliberately and consciously to keep women off base and subordinate. I also think it reflects a larger culture that still sees women primarily as decorative or as not quite real people who have goals and purposes unrelated to pleasing men.

ElaineA said:

He's a pretty milquetoast example of the greater problem, but he's an example nonetheless.

Click to expand...

I agree with this too.

As an aside, I just heard some interviews with voters in Alabama, and some really depressed me, from the guy who doesn't believe the allegations to the woman who says that she has no problem with Moore's history of being removed from the bench for a gross lack of impartiality and integrity because he was "standing up for what he believed in and it's what she believes in too." Not everyone is in this camp. There was even a Republican who said he's voting for Jones, but it looks like Moore is going to win. We used to joke that a known serial killer could run as a Republican in the deep south and win. I don't think that's a joke anymore.

It's hard playing politics in a country with such double standards. Where the two parties aren't even playing on the same field anymore

Dont look at the difference between the outcome we want today and what we seem to be getting. Look at the difference between the outcome we are getting today (Moore likely winning) and what the outcome would have been even a few years ago. Moore would have won in a landslide, and the sexual allegations wouldn't even have been reported in the national press at all. We are making progress, but it's incremental and slow, and people will continue to be hurt in the meantime. But there is room for optimism, because the mainstream culture is changing in a positive direction.

Victor Douglas said:

Dont look at the difference between the outcome we want today and what we seem to be getting. Look at the difference between the outcome we are getting today (Moore likely winning) and what the outcome would have been even a few years ago. Moore would have won in a landslide, and the sexual allegations wouldn't even have been reported in the national press at all. We are making progress, but it's incremental and slow, and people will continue to be hurt in the meantime. But there is room for optimism, because the mainstream culture is changing in a positive direction.

Click to expand...

In my most optimistic moments, I wonder if the extreme pushback from the right is a response to this. When someone knows that their attitudes are no longer the norm it's not uncommon for them to lash out and fight harder to hold onto what they know they're losing.

It makes me sad, though, that so many people (especially women) are still so invested in the racist, sexist, homophobic past.

Victor Douglas said:

Dont look at the difference between the outcome we want today and what we seem to be getting. Look at the difference between the outcome we are getting today (Moore likely winning) and what the outcome would have been even a few years ago. Moore would have won in a landslide, and the sexual allegations wouldn't even have been reported in the national press at all. We are making progress, but it's incremental and slow, and people will continue to be hurt in the meantime. But there is room for optimism, because the mainstream culture is changing in a positive direction.

Click to expand...

Great post, and something that's easy to forget in the current maelstrom.

Looking back through history, we are ahead n shoulders above the past, in so many ways from a sociopolitical standpoint.

A long way to go, but still, progress IS being made.

Roxxsmom said:

In my most optimistic moments, I wonder if the extreme pushback from the right is a response to this. When someone knows that their attitudes are no longer the norm it's not uncommon for them to lash out and fight harder to hold onto what they know they're losing.

It makes me sad, though, that so many people (especially women) are still so invested in the racist, sexist, homophobic past.

Click to expand...

Yes, the dying throes of a dying Empire. But it's the more subtle, mechanical, steady, long-term, planned silent revolution funded by Koch(s) and others, that worry me most. Ultimately, it's hard to reverse Human progress, but not impossible

Davy The First said:

Yes, the dying throes of a dying Empire. But it's the more subtle, mechanical, steady, long-term, planned silent revolution funded by Koch(s) and others, that worry me most. Ultimately, it's hard to reverse Human progress, but not impossible

Click to expand...

And this is the gnawing anxiety that keeps my most pessimistic moments alive.

Sorry. As a woman, I've been waiting long enough. Easy for a man to say, "Hey, progress!" when they have ALL the legs up. We've been one step forward, four steps back since forever.

My mom's generation fought this battle tooth and nail. They got Roe v. Wade, Title IX, and Congressional support for the ERA. My generation continued to fight, but things were a little easier for us because of Title IX, the general push for women's rights, and grudging recognition by men that women could hold management jobs. We fought, but not as hard. Our daughters? They're now seeing the tenuousness of a lot of the benefits their grandmothers fought for.

So where are we? With "personhood" being written into the tax bill (wiping out Roe v. Wade), and the ERA, which was passed by congress in 1972...1972!!! still not ratified. It's not even pushed anymore. I haven't voted on it in MY state, perceived to be Blue-blue, and I've been eligible to vote since the 1980's. We're outing people for sexual harassment every woman in every workplace can tell you she's experienced at least twice, if not more.

The 15th Amendment, prohibiting discrimination based on race, was ratified in 1870. Almost 150 years later, women still don't have equality ratified into law.

Don't tell me we're making progress. We're stagnant, at best.

ElaineA said:

stagnant.

Click to expand...

Yep. Progress would have been entirely different, and would not have required, for instance, the intense re-living of trauma that #metoo has seen - powerful and (hopefully) effective though that has been.

ElaineA said:

Sorry. As a woman, I've been waiting long enough. Easy for a man to say, "Hey, progress!" when they have ALL the legs up. We've been one step forward, four steps back since forever.

My mom's generation fought this battle tooth and nail. They got Roe v. Wade, Title IX, and Congressional support for the ERA. My generation continued to fight, but things were a little easier for us because of Title IX, the general push for women's rights, and grudging recognition by men that women could hold management jobs. We fought, but not as hard. Our daughters? They're now seeing the tenuousness of a lot of the benefits their grandmothers fought for.

So where are we? With "personhood" being written into the tax bill (wiping out Roe v. Wade), and the ERA, which was passed by congress in 1972...1972!!! still not ratified. It's not even pushed anymore. I haven't voted on it in MY state, perceived to be Blue-blue, and I've been eligible to vote since the 1980's. We're outing people for sexual harassment every woman in every workplace can tell you she's experienced at least twice, if not more.

The 15th Amendment, prohibiting discrimination based on race, was ratified in 1870. Almost 150 years later, women still don't have equality ratified into law.

Don't tell me we're making progress. We're stagnant, at best.

Click to expand...

This is what is so frustrating to me. I get that progress won't always be linear and there will be fits and starts. But it really does feel like women's rights have been stagnated, even moving backwards, in recent years.

We should not be arguing about whether contraception should be included in health care coverage in the 21st century! More than thirty years after Roe, women of childbearing years should not be one supreme court justice appointment away from losing control over our own bodies. WTF?

I also deeply resent that I'm told that I (and members of many other groups) have to fight for my rights and practice constant vigilance, because we can take nothing for granted, even laws respecting our own autonomy and personhood. Why is it that white, straight guys so rarely have to deal with this kind of shit compared to everyone else? How can the ones who are fighting so hard to keep everyone else down look in the mirror in the morning and like what they see?

Roxxsmom said:

Why is it that white, straight guys so rarely have to deal with this kind of shit compared to everyone else? How can the ones who are fighting so hard to keep everyone else down look in the mirror in the morning and like what they see?

Click to expand...

Because many of them don't even see it. And the ones who do honestly, deeply believe it is the natural "heavenly order" that white (generally "Christian," or what passes for Christian in too many minds) males retain absolute powers and privilege, that any challenge to that power and privilege is as unnatural as a challenge to God's own supremacy.

There is no way to reason with this stance, because it is not based on reason, only emotion and tradition, and it is defended not with logic but with shouting and hitting - and laws, where shouting and hitting aren't allowed.

Most of the men in my day-to-day life are pretty woke, and without exception (this is not a scientific poll) all of the guys over 50 have been much more interested in making the It Was A Different Era argument than in listening to women put the Even Back Then We Were People side of things.

Patty said:

You're right, but my point is that the culture has changed.

The reason it's worth keeping in mind is because it will change again. And, i suppose more broadly, it helps think about all the gradations that are at play when any two men or victims or behaviors or events are compared.

I remember high school teachers hitting on us. (And none of them should be senator of anything.) I don't think my kids have any of that kind of stuff going on in their high school, thank goodness.

Click to expand...

rugcat said:

I don't think noting that it was a different era is in any way justifying it. It's just recognizing that the cultural ethos was different, and that back in the day there were things that were considered normal by pretty much everyone that we recognize today as inappropriate or downright creepy and misogynistic.

I do think to some extent it's a mistake to judge people in the past by the mores of the present, about all kinds of things.

Click to expand...

Except, as I ranted in another thread, that's not true. A 50-year-old was 20 in 1987. A 60-year-old was 20 in 1977. It wasn't normal and accepted to rape people, tell people they had to have sex with you to get a job, whip out your dick in the office, etc., etc., etc., then, or 10 years before then, or 20 or...

Aside from the obvious that women were not quiet creatures who wandered about without any legal power, afraid to speak, whose husbands and fathers were allowed to beat them into submission, in the '80s, '70s, '60s, etc., the point I believe they're making is that WOMEN didn't really ever think this crap was ok. There just was a period during which the only thing women could do was whisper warnings to each other.

It's not like back in the '50s women too thought it was normal for the boss to whip it out or grab her from behind and stick his hand up her skirt, or for a cop to rape her instead of arresting her on some bogus charge. They just knew the men had ALL the power. Women did report Cosby, and Weinstein and etc., etc. That's why there are records and recordings, but back when stuff wasn't really reported, it's not because women thought it wasn't inappropriate or creepy.