Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Canada => The World => Topic started by: Goddess on January 26, 2018, 05:14:32 pm
-
I think this started as a good movement, but as it progresses I'm getting more and more disappointed in the dragnet that its producing. Some of the accusations, in my opinion, are barely newsworthy - nothing more than clumsy, drunken attempts at persuading women to sleep with men.
It started off exposing powerful men who used their positions to force women into doing things they didn't want to do, which needed exposing. But now its turned into a bit of a gong show.
We're all mammals, we're all trying to get laid. I don't think destroying a career is the answer or shaming someone because of a bumbling attempt at getting some back in college.
I'm starting to worry a bit about possible blowback for women now. I'm seeing a lot of angry men all over the internet and the comments are sometimes scary. Too many are expressing a desire for women to STFU, get back in the kitchen and make them a sammich.
I'm starting to think this could turn out very bad for women in the end. :-\
-
I'm not too worried about what a bunch of losers have to say. If they feel women need to get in the kitchen, it's a sentiment they've likely had long before this issue.
But I agree with the rest. Women show unwanted attention toward men as well and I don't see them crying a river and trying to destroy careers.
It's definitely gotten out of hand.
-
The Weinsteins of the world need to be stopped. Clearly the normal legal system was not working.
Excesses are expected but if moderate women speak out about the excesses it is possible to get to scope back to where it should be.
Judith Curry - a woman in science since the 70s has some thoughts which I think capture where the scope should be:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/12/10/girls-rules/#more-23660
This really is a tremendous opportunity for rapid and essential cultural change. To seize this moment, we need to:
Provide an unambiguous definition of sexual harassment that clearly distinguishes **** and quid pro quo from minor social transgressions. Codes of conduct are needed. Due process should be followed for addressing any accusations. Avoid turning this situation into a land mine for males.
Provide institutional support and train females to become more resilient and anti-fragile in the face of career challenges and in avoiding potential harassment situations. Your behavior and dress matters.
Resist playing the victim card — instead, focus on changing policies and weeding out the serial harassers.
Recognize that there are also female predators: I know of examples in my field of serial ‘power ****’, and a female who cried **** when a consensual relationship didn’t go the way she wanted and also attempted to destroy the career of a young female scientist of whom she was jealous. Females shouldn’t get a free pass for sexual or other types of harassment.
-
Yes, that's what I'm talking about, TimG.
This issue has become a runaway train, barely on the tracks and it needs to get under better control.
-
The #metoo movement I think has been, on the whole, wonderful for women & society in general. The thing that needs to be kept in mind is that people are innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take every harrassment complaint very seriously. But unless it's a Bill Cosby-type situation where dozens of women have come forward and the guilt looks pretty overwhelming, we need to reserve judgement until the evidence is laid bare and the process does its job. Otherwise it's chaos, and people can ruin careers & lives based on completely made-up claims.
-
I wonder if Trump's comments that were aired about how "you can greb 'em by the **** and they love it if you're a star" was a bit of a tipping point where women got pissed off and decided to fight back, and then perhaps the pendulum swung a bit too far the other way.
-
The thing that needs to be kept in mind is that people are innocent until proven guilty.
That is a good idea in theory, but institutions have eroded under the digital era and replaced by collective (mob) rule. You're pretty smart - suggest something else.
One thing that is emerging is the meme of "multiple accusers", which effectively brands the suspected one as 'guilty'.
But unless it's a Bill Cosby-type situation where dozens of women have come forward and the guilt looks pretty overwhelming, we need to reserve judgement until the evidence is laid bare and the process does its job. Otherwise it's chaos, and people can ruin careers & lives based on completely made-up claims.
Right, you got there. Except that number is now down to two. The solution to careers being ruined is for people to forgive. That's a concept that has been lost to us ie. collective forgiveness. But if we complain about all infractions, even simple impropriety, then we have to also have a range of responses and paths to forgiveness.
-
That is a good idea in theory, but institutions have eroded under the digital era and replaced by collective (mob) rule. You're pretty smart - suggest something else.
One thing that is emerging is the meme of "multiple accusers", which effectively brands the suspected one as 'guilty'.
Right, you got there. Except that number is now down to two. The solution to careers being ruined is for people to forgive. That's a concept that has been lost to us ie. collective forgiveness. But if we complain about all infractions, even simple impropriety, then we have to also have a range of responses and paths to forgiveness.
So true. The internet has made mob rule and piling on much easier and less likely to have consequences for the mobsters.
-
So true. The internet has made mob rule and piling on much easier and less likely to have consequences for the mobsters.
Challenge and response... we are at the point of leadership failure so a new order will ascend...
-
That is a good idea in theory, but institutions have eroded under the digital era and replaced by collective (mob) rule. You're pretty smart - suggest something else.
There is nothing else. Mob rule has existed for as long as a mob were possible, given the numbers. It's wrong, it's awful, it's whatever you want to call it, but it's not going away. It's probably a good thing in one regard that the smartphone has replaced the pitchfork, but bad in another in that the mob got a lot bigger.
I don't know the particulars in this case other than the headlines, but he didn't have to resign. He could have announced his version of the facts and said he'd see them in court.
-
Judith Curry -
become more resilient and anti-fragile
Fragile is a good word to describe what is going on. It's starting to seem as if people are viewing every negative or unpleasant experience as a traumatic event and rushing to find ways of shielding people from everything. People don't need to be shielded from everything. People need to become better at dealing with adversity, because adversity is an unavoidable part of life.
-k
-
So true. The internet has made mob rule and piling on much easier and less likely to have consequences for the mobsters.
I'm uncomfortable with the way everything is basically taking a very female perspective which fails to acknowledge that male and female motivations are often entirely different when it comes to sex, and basically moralizing that male behavior is sleazy and nasty while female behavior is sainted and timid and helpless and pure. And yes, for the simpletons, that is called generalizing and not meant to apply in 100% of cases.
Sure, Weinstein is a douche. We can all agree on that, presuming half the stuff being said about him is true. All Brown seems to have been was an awkward young man who perhaps isn't all that good at seduction. Nevertheless, nobody, other than a few female columnists (and Kimmy), seems to even question why these women went to his home and went to his bedroom and sat on his bed with him. Because, apparently, women are sainted, helpless, timid souls.
The new Tory leader was quick to say "I believe these women." Really? Who are they? You don't know? You've never seen them. You've never heard them speak. You know nothing whatsoever about them which would lead you to be able to judge the veracity of their words. You have no idea whether they might have embellished, exaggerated, altered things a bit to make themselves look good, or misremembered. One was 'plied with alcohol'. I guess that's a better way for her to say it than "Yeah, I drank too much and got stinking drunk" because it removes any hint she might be in any way responsible. Yet this seems to be what society is saying. We have to "believe" whatever women say without question. Sorry, but I've known too many women. And they're as capable of lying, altering their memories to make themselves look good, and exaggerating as men are.
Ontario's idiot of an NDP leader, when asked about whether there ought to be due process, angrily brought up the Jian Gomesh trial and said the justice system was failing women. But it didn't. That trial revealed that the women had lied, had colluded, and had left out information which might make them look bad. The trial judge rightly found Gomesh not guilty. But to the SJWs like Andrea Horvath that was just an example of an evil man acting like, well, a heterosexual man, getting off without being properly punished!
Or, as NDP Leader Andrea Horwath snapped Thursday, when a reporter almost apologetically raised, you know, that presumption of innocence thing: “I really have two words — Jian Ghomeshi.”
Here’s two other words: “Not guilty.”
And if Horwath followed the trial, which I presume she did, she would know why the prosecution of the creepy CBC star fell apart: the complainants were not credible; at least two of them seemingly colluded before testifying; all three withheld from police crucial information about their relationships with the defendant. The case should never have come to court.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/patrick-browns-downfall-an-affront-to-fairness/ar-AAvbm8O?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartanntp
It is not brave to speak from the shadows. It is not courageous to vilify anybody from within bubble-wrapped camouflage.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/patrick-browns-downfall-an-affront-to-fairness/ar-AAvbm8O?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartanntp
-
There is nothing else. Mob rule has existed for as long as a mob were possible, given the numbers. It's wrong, it's awful, it's whatever you want to call it, but it's not going away. It's probably a good thing in one regard that the smartphone has replaced the pitchfork, but bad in another in that the mob got a lot bigger.
Meh. This is the "nothing changes" or "there is nothing new under the sun" comment, which I find to be smug, trite and - more importantly - dull. Things are different, things do change. Before the enlightenment they would drown women to prove they weren't witches... a few centuries later capital punishment was banned, then brought back, then it started to go away again.
Why ?
It's the great human experiment. Something changes, there's an adjustment, then eventually a tectonic shift and it all starts again...
I don't know the particulars in this case other than the headlines, but he didn't have to resign. He could have announced his version of the facts and said he'd see them in court.
Is this Brown ? There is no court. This is just gentlemanly behaviour, circa 2018, that is being examined. These leaders are all younger now, they should know about this stuff.
-
It's starting to seem as if people are viewing every negative or unpleasant experience as a traumatic event and rushing to find ways of shielding people from everything. People don't need to be shielded from everything.
I don't get the 'shielding' part, but I do see people calling out negative experiences and bringing down the entire idea of the 'public' persona.
-
Is this Brown ? There is no court. This is just gentlemanly behaviour, circa 2018, that is being examined. These leaders are all younger now, they should know about this stuff.
What is gentlemanly about sex with people you aren't involved in a relationship with? Given how often alcohol is involved how many young men are 'gentlemanly' about such things today? The whole concept of 'gentleman' seems old fashioned and quaint in an era decades after the idea of holding the door for a woman began to be sneered at as sexist and paternalistic.
-
Meh. This is the "nothing changes" or "there is nothing new under the sun" comment, which I find to be smug, trite and - more importantly - dull. Things are different, things do change. Before the enlightenment they would drown women to prove they weren't witches... a few centuries later capital punishment was banned, then brought back, then it started to go away again.
Do you think the primary driver for social change is how dull you find things?
Go ahead, fix mobs!
-
I don't get the 'shielding' part, but I do see people calling out negative experiences and bringing down the entire idea of the 'public' persona.
I was thinking of some of the other things going on-- the idea that students in Lindsay Shepherd's seminar had to be protected from hearing the Jordan Peterson debate clip, the idea that we need trigger warnings to protect people from subjects that are part of everyday reality, the idea that clapping is frightening for some people so we should use "jazz hands" or snap our fingers when we applaud. There seems to be a movement to protect people from stuff they don't need to be protected from.
And to me the women who've complained about Aziz Ansari and Patrick Brown fit the theme. These are legal adults who made their own decisions and later felt unhappy and want to blame somebody other than themselves for their disappointment. They seem to feel that they should have been protected from their own actions. "I was given drinks." "I was taken to his home." It's as if they don't have any agency... they don't do things, things just happen to them.
-k
-
What is gentlemanly about sex with people you aren't involved in a relationship with?
In today's protocol, I would answer "how you conduct yourself" to that question.
Given how often alcohol is involved how many young men are 'gentlemanly' about such things today?
Pretty impossible to answer that question.
The whole concept of 'gentleman' seems old fashioned and quaint in an era decades after the idea of holding the door for a woman began to be sneered at as sexist and paternalistic.
Which is why I use it purposefully and only partially ironically. Protocols signal virtue in times of low virtue, right ?
-
Do you think the primary driver for social change is how dull you find things?
Wow, that is a weird twist ! I was commenting on the quality of your 'meh' comment. How did you stretch that into a comment about social change ?
Go ahead, fix mobs!
Well... we both have come up with the 'several women' adjustment which seems to provide some kind of validation. How about the source ? Maybe I can ask YOU - what watermarks on a report of inappropriate/abusive/related behavior do you pay attention to?
-
Wow, that is a weird twist ! I was commenting on the quality of your 'meh' comment. How did you stretch that into a comment about social change ?
Well... we both have come up with the 'several women' adjustment which seems to provide some kind of validation. How about the source ? Maybe I can ask YOU - what watermarks on a report of inappropriate/abusive/related behavior do you pay attention to?
You suggested "something else" other than innocent until proven guilty as a response to mob rule. If that's not social change what is? You then seemed to suggest that mob rule was something we can change is only we have a little imagination. Deal with that. Make a suggestion. Let's see what you can come up with to replace due process and take power out of the hands of the mob at the same time.
Should be fascinating.
As to your second question, I'm old fashioned. I would still go with due process. If I was innocent, and it were at all possible, I would sue.
As to the mob, no suggestions.
-
Excesses are expected but if moderate women speak out about the excesses it is possible to get to scope back to where it should be.
Judith Curry - a woman in science since the 70s has some thoughts which I think capture where the scope should be:
Resist playing the victim card — instead, focus on changing policies and weeding out the serial harassers.
it's a fitting attempt there TimG; however... it's lost in missing credibility; the fact Curry feeds on her own need to feel "attacked" by legitimate scientists so she can play the victim - it appears to validate her and offer the rationalization for why she went 'off the reservation' and became the darling of "skeptics" and Republican's clamoring for her presence before U.S. House/Senate committees (ala her CrazyAuntJudy persona)!
certainly #MeToo isn't about fake/false victimhood, right?
-
You suggested "something else" other than innocent until proven guilty as a response to mob rule. If that's not social change what is?
Yeah but... "primary driver" ? What ?
You then seemed to suggest that mob rule was something we can change is only we have a little imagination. Deal with that. Make a suggestion. Let's see what you can come up with to replace due process and take power out of the hands of the mob at the same time.
Yes, I asked you the same thing. I'm working on it.
Should be fascinating.
Maybe these stories will poop out people who can be seen as 'objective' ? Like Lindsay Shepherd. She maybe had the potential to be somebody who could stand astride the cultural gap and say "yes, THIS but THAT". The article cyber put up painted her as impartial, though...
-
Yeah but... "primary driver" ? What ?
Yes, I asked you the same thing. I'm working on it.
Maybe these stories will poop out people who can be seen as 'objective' ? Like Lindsay Shepherd. She maybe had the potential to be somebody who could stand astride the cultural gap and say "yes, THIS but THAT". The article cyber put up painted her as impartial, though...
Ooh, goalpost change? You seemed to take umbrage with my "social change" comment but it's actually my "primary driver" comment? Your problem with my comment was not that it was wrong, but that it was smug, trite and most importantly, dull. I chose dull because you said it was the most important negative with regard to it. You seemed to suggest that, if only I had an interesting plan, all would be well.
I agree it's not possible to be objective given the current tsunami. Who has the time? It's headlines only.
-
Ooh, goalpost change? You seemed to take umbrage with my "social change" comment but it's actually my "primary driver" comment?
Umbrage ? Not exactly. It was more like the sound of head scratching you heard.
-
I'm uncomfortable with the way everything is basically taking a very female perspective
I agree, at least somewhat. Especially for those women who are deliberately vindictive, who make things up to get back at some guy. If a woman tells lies about a man, he can be investigated - lose access to his kids, lose his job, have his entire life severely curtailed. If nothing is turned up, if the allegations are completely false, the woman faces no consequences whatsoever. That, to me, is wrong.
But then of course, there are the cases where the woman's complaints are not taken seriously enough and people die as a result. Or women who end up in court facing their attacker, having to defend their own behavior and then watching their attacker walk out, scot-free, because the decision of the court was basically that her essentially normal behavior means his violence is acceptable.
There just doesn't seem to be any simple answer, no clear villain, nobody to "blame" really.
-
Umbrage ? Not exactly. It was more like the sound of head scratching you heard.
Well, head scratching is the order of the day, certainly.
Not to worry. Who ever said full comprehension was an absolute necessity on an internet forum?
-
Who ever said full comprehension was an absolute necessity on an internet forum?
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/wikiality/images/e/e2/BLARGH.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20070113062846)
-
I agree, at least somewhat. Especially for those women who are deliberately vindictive, who make things up to get back at some guy. If a woman tells lies about a man, he can be investigated - lose access to his kids, lose his job, have his entire life severely curtailed. If nothing is turned up, if the allegations are completely false, the woman faces no consequences whatsoever. That, to me, is wrong.
Given the Brown case I'm reminded of the Canadian **** law around alcohol. It states that being inebriated makes you incapable of rationality, and thus incapable of giving consent, even if you do. It also states just as clearly that inebriation is no excuse for you having sex with someone else who is inebriated. It's intellectually absurd. And while they strive to pretend this is even handed, we all know that men don't wake up after a night of sex with such regrets they're going to go to police to complain that he was too drunk when he agreed. So it works out it's men who get arrested, and when they protest "but I was drunk too" well, that's irrelevant.
It seems like the proper way for sexual relationships to be conducted now is the way women think they should be. If you don't, then like Brown, even if what you did was legal, you're a creep and a louse and a loser. A man in his thirties trying to seduce an 18 year old!? Disgusting! Revolting! Seriously? Much is made of these womens ages as if Brown was some kind of child molester, but all he was doing was demonstrating the normal male interest in attractive young women. Now most of us look for more age appropriate women - when we're seeking relationships. But for just sex ... ah, but you're not supposed to just want sex! Besides, most of us figure by the time we're in our mid thirties that we'd just as soon not risk making asses of ourselves by trying to get a woman who thinks you're an "old man" as one of them described him, interested. Well, unless we're rich.
But then of course, there are the cases where the woman's complaints are not taken seriously enough and people die as a result.
Rare. I think most of those cases you're referring to involved women complaining a man was a danger to them. The problem with that is there's no law against someone perceiving you as dangerous. Until you actually DO something there isn't much police can do. And even after they make an arrest, the courts almost always let people out on bail for anything short of murder.
-
Given the Brown case I'm reminded of the Canadian **** law around alcohol. It states that being inebriated makes you incapable of rationality, and thus incapable of giving consent, even if you do. It also states just as clearly that inebriation is no excuse for you having sex with someone else who is inebriated. It's intellectually absurd.
It does sound like most of us have been **** at one time or another. I wonder how real **** victims feel about it.
Short of actual unconsciousness, I think people have to take responsibility for their behaviour while drunk.
-
It’s fascinating that there’s such a strong inclination to feel bad for accused men and not the accusers.
-
Society is going backwards. I want to live in a world where I can grab boobies at whim. Kidding!...
-
Rare. I think most of those cases you're referring to involved women complaining a man was a danger to them. The problem with that is there's no law against someone perceiving you as dangerous.
Rare? I don't think so; women are killed by an intimate partner approximately every six days across Canada. Many of those are after multiple complaints to police. How is that 'rare' exactly?
Until you actually DO something there isn't much police can do. And even after they make an arrest, the courts almost always let people out on bail for anything short of murder.
Certainly, that is the case and part of the problem of not taking women's safety and male violence seriously enough. Even the thread on domestic violence demonstrates the underlying societal attitude: "Well of course men are more violent; they are made that way so women are going to die at the hands of men"; is it any wonder that men can target and kill women without significant impediment?
-
Society is going backwards. I want to live in a world where I can grab boobies at whim. Kidding!...
If you do get serious about that the phone number at the White House is 1-202-456-1111. I would suggest not leaving it until after the mid terms though. :D
-
Rare? I don't think so; women are killed by an intimate partner approximately every six days across Canada. Many of those are after multiple complaints to police. How is that 'rare' exactly?
How many of those were separated from their partners and reported them to the police for threatening behavior?
Certainly, that is the case and part of the problem of not taking women's safety and male violence seriously enough.
You yourself pointed out that all she has to do is make an allegation and he's booted out of the house, even if he paid for it, and not allowed to go anywhere near her. What do you want us to do, shoot him?
Even the thread on domestic violence demonstrates the underlying societal attitude: "Well of course men are more violent; they are made that way so women are going to die at the hands of men"; is it any wonder that men can target and kill women without significant impediment?
Introducing reality does not imply a lack of concern. Pointing out that women start violence, hit their partners, as often as or moreso than men is merely reality. The fact men are bigger, tougher and able to both handle more damage and dish it out harder is a simple physical fact of life. I think one of the cites I posted at the time suggested that one of the biggest factors in a woman being seriously harmed by her domestic partner was her willingness to physically attack him first. What it said, and this was not some kind of mens forum, was that if a woman doesn't physically attack her partner she's WAY less likely to be harmed.
And no, that does not mean I don't acknowledge there are some scummy, crazy, violent men out there who attack/kill their partners or ex-partners without provocation.
-
How many of those were separated from their partners and reported them to the police for threatening behavior?
I'm sure you read the headlines; five women in Ontario in less than a month.
You yourself pointed out that all she has to do is make an allegation and he's booted out of the house, even if he paid for it, and not allowed to go anywhere near her. What do you want us to do, shoot him?
Making the point that there are abuses on both sides does not mean that I can't focus on one side or the other at different times. If women make false allegations, they should face consequences. AND our legal system should be expected to protect women from men who are truly dangerous.
Introducing reality does not imply a lack of concern. Pointing out that women start violence, hit their partners, as often as or moreso than men is merely reality. The fact men are bigger, tougher and able to both handle more damage and dish it out harder is a simple physical fact of life. I think one of the cites I posted at the time suggested that one of the biggest factors in a woman being seriously harmed by her domestic partner was her willingness to physically attack him first. What it said, and this was not some kind of mens forum, was that if a woman doesn't physically attack her partner she's WAY less likely to be harmed.
Hmmm .... it's odd how you seem to have no problem with wholesale condemnation of men who (you assume) make women wear a niqab/hijab, but when it comes to the much bigger problem of Canadian men beating/killing the women in their life, you dismiss it with "It doesn't happen that often, men are stronger/bigger/hornier/more violent by nature, so we have to expect it and anyway, if women didn't start it, they wouldn't be hurt."
And no, that does not mean I don't acknowledge there are some scummy, crazy, violent men out there who attack/kill their partners or ex-partners without provocation.
Well, that's something at least. I guess.
-
There is nothing else. Mob rule has existed for as long as a mob were possible, given the numbers. It's wrong, it's awful, it's whatever you want to call it, but it's not going away. It's probably a good thing in one regard that the smartphone has replaced the pitchfork, but bad in another in that the mob got a lot bigger.
I don't know the particulars in this case other than the headlines, but he didn't have to resign. He could have announced his version of the facts and said he'd see them in court.
Yes but in the past you had to actually go out on the street and form a mob. Now you can do it anonymously on your phone. One takes a lot more commitment than the other. Cyber bullying is a prime example.
-
I'm sure you read the headlines; five women in Ontario in less than a month.
Yeah, cuz that happens all the time. Three of them were one guy and none had sought police protection.
Making the point that there are abuses on both sides does not mean that I can't focus on one side or the other at different times. If women make false allegations, they should face consequences. AND our legal system should be expected to protect women from men who are truly dangerous.
How?
Hmmm .... it's odd how you seem to have no problem with wholesale condemnation of men who (you assume) make women wear a niqab/hijab, but when it comes to the much bigger problem of Canadian men beating/killing the women in their life, you dismiss it with "It doesn't happen that often, men are stronger/bigger/hornier/more violent by nature, so we have to expect it and anyway, if women didn't start it, they wouldn't be hurt."
A man who requires his woman to wear a niquab self-identifies as an ****. I'm willing to similarly condemn all men who beat their wives too. Just not all men, period.
-
It’s fascinating that there’s such a strong inclination to feel bad for accused men and not the accusers.
I feel bad for Elizabeth May too...
-
I feel bad for Elizabeth May too...
I like how her party is protesting that she's not being judged the same way as a man would - actually suggesting a male leader who insulted and yelled at his underlings would be 'admired'.
-
It’s fascinating that there’s such a strong inclination to feel bad for accused men and not the accusers.
In cases where people have made accusations of actual wrongdoing, I do feel bad for the accusers.
But in cases like Aziz Ansari and now Patrick Brown? No, I don't feel sorry for the accusers. What am I supposed to feel bad about? They had a disappointing date? Boo hoo. They were bought alcohol? Boo hoo. A man tried to initiate a sexual encounter when they were sitting on his bed? Boo hoo! Holy shitsnacks. If you don't want an intimate encounter with a man, don't go home with him and sit down on his bed! ****! It's not complicated!
No, I absolutely don't feel sorry for these women. And I do feel sorry for Ansari and Brown who have suffered grave harm from what is essentially nothing more than gossip. Even if every word from these "accusers" is absolutely true, Brown and Ansari have done nothing wrong.
I absolutely do support real victims, like the women Jian Ghomeshi serially harassed at CBC, and the numerous victims of Harvey Weinstein and men like him.
And that's why these new stories-- Brown or Ansari-- have annoyed me so much. Because unlike the other cases, the "accusations" against Ansari and Brown are just gossip. They have no merit. They're a sign that the movement is indeed turning into what Catherine Deneuve warned against, which is a puritan pogrom. This movement is too important to let it shoot itself in the knee by embracing utterly trivial crap that belongs on the gossip page and not the front page news.
-k
-
Why are we giving those women more attention than we are the actual problem? Don’t your find that a bit strange and frankly unsettling? It creates a narrative that makes it easier for people to be dismissive of those who were actually abused. People like Ansari’s accuser should be the ones we’re ignoring and dismissing. Instead we continue to talk about them as if they relate to #metoo at all. They don’t.
-
But in cases like Aziz Ansari and now Patrick Brown? No, I don't feel sorry for the accusers. What am I supposed to feel bad about? They had a disappointing date? Boo hoo. They were bought alcohol? Boo hoo. A man tried to initiate a sexual encounter when they were sitting on his bed? Boo hoo! Holy shitsnacks. If you don't want an intimate encounter with a man, don't go home with him and sit down on his bed! ****! It's not complicated!
I'm not sure how to feel about this. While I agree that the whole #MeToo thing is getting out of control, I certainly don't see getting drunk and sitting on someone's bed as any kind implied consent.
-
I'm not sure how to feel about this. While I agree that the whole #MeToo thing is getting out of control, I certainly don't see getting drunk and sitting on someone's bed as any kind implied consent.
That's the problem with consent. If it's implied, its existence or lack thereof is up to the one doing the inferring. Consent can be said to exist until it is removed, or it can be said to not exist until it is expressly given. I challenge anyone to say they have never had a sexual encounter where the former was the condition.
It appears that, in this case, the removal of consent was successful in curtailing the activity. That really should do it.
(Generally speaking. That would be except for the flashing that MH mentions in another thread. I think that's against the law)
-
That's the problem with consent. If it's implied, its existence or lack thereof is up to the one doing the inferring. Consent can be said to exist until it is removed, or it can be said to not exist until it is expressely given. I challenge anyone to say they have never had a sexual encounter where the former was the condition.
It appears that, in this case, the removal of consent was successful in curtailing the activity. That really should do it.
(Generally speaking. That would be except for the flashing that MH mentions in another thread. I think that's against the law)
As a general rule, flashing penises is a bad idea, I don't know why men think this is a good thing but I'm guessing it's the same mindset spurring on the dick pic phenomenon these days.
As I said on the other thread, I don't think what Brown did warrants his resignation, but it was his own party's doing (see below).
My guess is that there is more where that came from and they didn't want to risk it four months before an election.
The Globe has learned from multiple party sources that caucus members held two conference calls just before midnight Wednesday and demanded that Mr. Brown resign. He agreed to the request on the call. At 1:30 am he released a statement.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/patrick-brown-ontario-pc/article37727765/
-
That's the problem with consent. If it's implied, its existence or lack thereof is up to the one doing the inferring. Consent can be said to exist until it is removed, or it can be said to not exist until it is expressely given. I challenge anyone to say they have never had a sexual encounter where the former was the condition.
It appears that, in this case, the removal of consent was successful in curtailing the activity. That really should do it.
(Generally speaking. That would be except for the flashing that MH mentions in another thread. I think that's against the law)
You're simply flailing words around to attempt to appear erudite. Consent either exists, or it doesn't. It is established through communication, which can happen verbally or otherwise, but you ought not to be just doing a Trump and grabbing someone by the **** because you think you're a star, or whatever.
-
I think this started as a good movement, but as it progresses I'm getting more and more disappointed in the dragnet that its producing. Some of the accusations, in my opinion, are barely newsworthy - nothing more than clumsy, drunken attempts at persuading women to sleep with men.
It started off exposing powerful men who used their positions to force women into doing things they didn't want to do, which needed exposing. But now its turned into a bit of a gong show.
We're all mammals, we're all trying to get laid. I don't think destroying a career is the answer or shaming someone because of a bumbling attempt at getting some back in college.
I'm starting to worry a bit about possible blowback for women now. I'm seeing a lot of angry men all over the internet and the comments are sometimes scary. Too many are expressing a desire for women to STFU, get back in the kitchen and make them a sammich.
I'm starting to think this could turn out very bad for women in the end. :-\
I posted on this before, Sex crimes victims' powerful testimony at Nassar sentencing - Is It That Much Worse Than Other Viole (http://Sex crimes victims' powerful testimony at Nassar sentencing - Is It That Much Worse Than Other Viole) . The "blowback" I see is that women may have more trouble integrating. I don't even like to be alone in the office with a woman for fear that a disagreement may turn into an accusation of untoward conduct.
-
You're simply flailing words around to attempt to appear erudite. Consent either exists, or it doesn't. It is established through communication, which can happen verbally or otherwise, but you ought not to be just doing a Trump and grabbing someone by the **** because you think you're a star, or whatever.
Consent can, unfortunately, be a grey area rather than black or white.
-
(Generally speaking. That would be except for the flashing that MH mentions in another thread. I think that's against the law)
I'm pretty sure his memory would show that it wasn't as bald as she walked in and he closed the door and dropped his pants. And in the reports I saw she agreed to blow him, so... is that seriously all it takes? Because if so I've been going about it the wrong way.
-
You're simply flailing words around to attempt to appear erudite.
Why would he think flailing words would make him appear erudite. We've all seen you try and fail at that for a long time.
-
You're simply flailing words around to attempt to appear erudite. Consent either exists, or it doesn't. It is established through communication, which can happen verbally or otherwise, but you ought not to be just doing a Trump and grabbing someone by the **** because you think you're a star, or whatever.
That's absolute bollocks, and seems to indicate you think it could never be rescinded. You also believe everyone communicates in exactly the same way.
Why on earth would you bring up Trump? I think it's an unhealthy obsession.
-
Why would he think flailing words would make him appear erudite. We've all seen you try and fail at that for a long time.
What, no insults? It's your usual go to when refuted.
-
That's absolute bollocks, and seems to indicate you think it could never be rescinded. You also believe everyone communicates in exactly the same way.
Why on earth would you bring up Trump? I think it's an unhealthy obsession.
We're getting off topic but I am happy to hear you understand how bad Trump is.
-
We're getting off topic but I am happy to hear you understand how bad Trump is.
I've always thought Trump was a tw@t, and would have voted for Hillary if I had been American.
I am one of those who find the current US political situation entertaining, though.
-
I've always thought Trump was a tw@t, and would have voted for Hillary if I had been American.
I am one of those who find the current US political situation entertaining, though.
It seems whenever I hear the name Donald Trump spoken I can't help but recollect the recording of him talking about how you can "grab women by the **** if you're a star". He shouldn't be potus, he should be in jail.
-
I'm not sure how to feel about this. While I agree that the whole #MeToo thing is getting out of control, I certainly don't see getting drunk and sitting on someone's bed as any kind implied consent.
When she told him to stop, he stopped.
Given the situation I don't see how one can blame Patrick Brown for "making a move". I suspect that many people would take this as a signal that they're ready to go farther. Are we at the point where we require express verbal encouragement? Signed written documents? I reiterate: holy shitsnacks.
-k
-
Why are we giving those women more attention than we are the actual problem? Don’t your find that a bit strange and frankly unsettling?
Before I answer that I need to know which women and what actual problem you're referring to.
If by "those women" you're referring to victims of predators like Harvey Weinstein and Jian Ghomeshi and their ilk, then yes, the focus needs to be on the predators and putting an end to their behavior.
If by "those women" you're referring to the nitwits who came forward to complain that they had a bad date with Aziz Ansari or that Patrick Brown bought them drinks and tried to kiss them when they went to his home after a night out, then I don't think we should be talking about any of it at all. It's pathetic that we're talking about it.
And if "the actual problem" refers to coercive environments like those fostered by Weinstein and Ghomeshi and by creepy bosses around the world, then I am 100% in favor of fighting that.
But if by "the actual problem" you're referring to a guy in his mid-30s trying to hook up with 18-19 year old women at a bar, then I really couldn't care less. I think it's utterly pathetic. From your earlier comments on the matter I get the impression that your big objection to Brown's conduct is that he's 15+ years older than the young women ye tried to pick up. Is that the case? Is that "the actual problem"? Is that what women need to be protected from?
If that's "the actual problem", what kind of solution should we be looking at? Raise the drinking age to 25? Raise the age of consent to 30? Make a law that you can't date anybody who's not within 5 years of your own age? Issue chastity belts or burqas?
It creates a narrative that makes it easier for people to be dismissive of those who were actually abused.
I completely agree. This is what I'm saying. These trivial non-accusations against public figures are undermining the stories of people who actually deserve to be heard.
People like Ansari’s accuser should be the ones we’re ignoring and dismissing. Instead we continue to talk about them as if they relate to #metoo at all. They don’t.
I completely agree. The Aziz Ansari smear article was written by a nobody website for the express purpose of cashing in on #MeToo and the current furor over celebrity misconduct, even though nobody actually ever explained where the supposed misconduct actually was. The anonymous girl and the article writer both tried to establish a link to #MeToo, in their ham-handed and completely inaccurate manner. I feel that the accusations against Patrick Brown are equally nonsensical, and yet they're being treated as a major scandal and called "deeply disturbing" by all and sundry, though again nobody can seem to explain what actual misconduct occurred. It's a fake scandal trying to sell papers and/or score political points by riding the coattails of #MeToo, even though there's no real connection.
Occupy Wall Street started off with a point, and fizzled out because it became a soapbox for every angry millennial with a poor-paying job.
Black Lives Matter started off having a clear focus and important message, and has jumped the shark as it becomes a catch-all for every racially-inspired grievance under the sun.
I fear that #MeToo is on its way toward a similar fate, and I think that when people look back on it, they will look at the Aziz Ansari smear-job as the point where it started to go off the rails.
Which is why I am glad that women like Rosie diManno at the Toronto Star, and Ashleigh Banfield, and Margret Atwood, have been speaking out on the problem of lumping this trivial bullshit in with real actual victims. I am glad that women are speaking out, because if men speak out at this point in time they might find a mob with pitchforks and torches marching to their door.
-k
-
When she told him to stop, he stopped.
Given the situation I don't see how one can blame Patrick Brown for "making a move". I suspect that many people would take this as a signal that they're ready to go farther. Are we at the point where we require express verbal encouragement? Signed written documents? I reiterate: holy shitsnacks.
-k
With written contracts and a safeword, the BDSM community is on the forefront of sexual negotiations.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/65251-bdsm-contracts-really-exist-im-a-sexual-submissive-and-heres-how-fifty-shades-got-them
-
With written contracts and a safeword, the BDSM community is on the forefront of sexual negotiations.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/65251-bdsm-contracts-really-exist-im-a-sexual-submissive-and-heres-how-fifty-shades-got-them
Gawd, I never thought I would be glad to be old.
-
numerous references to Jian Giomeshi's {supposed} actions throughout these #MeToo related threads... as a reminder, Giomeshi was acquitted based on the, as the trial judge stated: "inconsistencies, questionable behaviour and the outright deception of the court by the three witnesses tainted their evidence". “At the end of this trial, a reasonable doubt exists because it is impossible to determine, with any acceptable degree of certainty or comfort, what is true and is false.”
and this focus on Giomeshi within these related threads is all after-the-fact, after legal processing. Causes the waldo to think just where Giomeshi would stand today if newly accused for the first time... just how would he be treated/viewed by all those highlighting a "worrisome" shifting imbalance in the #MeToo movement.
-
numerous references to Jian Giomeshi's {supposed} actions throughout these #MeToo related threads... as a reminder, Giomeshi was acquitted based on the, as the trial judge stated: "inconsistencies, questionable behaviour and the outright deception of the court by the three witnesses tainted their evidence". “At the end of this trial, a reasonable doubt exists because it is impossible to determine, with any acceptable degree of certainty or comfort, what is true and is false.”
Ghomeshi was acquitted of sexual assault. He was never tried or acquitted for his conduct towards his female subordinates at the CBC.
Indeed, not only was Ghomeshi the subject of employee complaints, but an independent investigator found that CBC management acted as his enablers and fired two senior managers for mishandling complaints about Ghomeshi's behavior.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/cbc-inquiry-concludes-management-mishandled-jian-ghomeshi-1.3035574
-k
-
Meh.
I only have conjugal relations with the wife after the blockchain has fully encrypted the contract (aka “the sexcoin”) and it has been verified with enough electricity to power a small country for a decade.
The value of “the sexcoin” turns up in a turgid parabolic arc but then, just as quickly, falls, limp and flaccid like a popping bubble.
Depression then looms until the next Initial Coin Offering can be raised.
-
Ghomeshi was acquitted of sexual assault. He was never tried or acquitted for his conduct towards his female subordinates at the CBC.
point in fact: Ghomeshi was acquitted of one charge of choking to overcome resistance and four charges of sexual assault related to three women... three of the original sexual assault charges were not accepted by Crown prosecutors. It was this criminal attachment that drove attention toward the workplace and claims/statements that Ghomeshi's workplace behaviour was, "widely known for some period of time". Oh wait, isn't that what's being stated about former Ontario Conservative leader Patrick Brown - "widely known for some period of time"?... that some here seem to want to challenge.
per that, as you highlight, independent investigator report, findings stated there were 3 instances where {CBC} management, "failed to investigate allegations and concerns about Ghomeshi's behaviour while he was working for the corporation"... as I recall/believe, one of those three workplace allegations reflects on one of the same accusations that appeared within the criminal trial - that Giomeshi was acquitted of. In any case, the die was cast and Ghomeshi/CBC, from the onset, became the favoured attack point for rightees who absolutely detest the CBC, to the point events/accusers became almost a secondary focus.
given the concern over 'false/exaggerated/suspect accusations' within #MeToo, in the Gomeshi case, it was the raised profile on criminal {unproven} accusations that ultimately resulted in forcing the workplace employers investigative hand. The workplace investigation report {public version redacted} included a summary statement: "There was conduct and behaviour on the part of Mr. Ghomeshi that was contrary to the Behavioural Standard of the CBC. Most prevalent was behaviour that was disrespectful including behaviour that is "considered to create an intimidating, humiliating, hostile, or offensive work environment"."
ultimately a private workplace situation that should have been handled by an employer was raised to public consciousness as a result of criminal accusations where, per the trial judge, "reasonable doubt exists because it is impossible to determine, with any acceptable degree of certainty or comfort, what is true and is false.” #MeToo???
-
When she told him to stop, he stopped.
Given the situation I don't see how one can blame Patrick Brown for "making a move". I suspect that many people would take this as a signal that they're ready to go farther. Are we at the point where we require express verbal encouragement? Signed written documents? I reiterate: holy shitsnacks.
-k
I never said he didn't stop otherwise he'd definitely be facing criminal charges right now.
My use of the word 'implied consent' is about her presence in his room having any place in the conversation. With the first woman he was offering her a tour of his place, took her to his room and whipped down his pants and asked for a blowjob. With the second he brought her and a male friend of his to the room and then the friend left. He then climbed on her. Sure, he may not have broken the law but both instances were sleazy and 'what was she doing there' is no excuse.
I don't blame his caucus for not wanting to have him lead them in an election. Politicians go out of their way to hold babies and kiss their wives, the dude flashing drunk 18 year olds isn't going to be winning hearts and minds in an election.
Blaming it on the #MeToo movement is stupid, this kind of behaviour would've killed many other political careers before as well.
Legal or not.
-
I never said he didn't stop otherwise he'd definitely be facing criminal charges right now.
My use of the word 'implied consent' is about her presence in his room having any place in the conversation.
Of course they didn't give Brown consent to sex. But I don't think Brown was unreasonable in taking this as a signal. Certainly the part where things move from talk to physical intimacy is often awkward and signals aren't always clear. I am sure that many of us have been in a situation where one person wanted to go for the first kiss and the other wasn't into it, and that sort of thing.
As far as I can tell, the worst that Brown is guilty of is being overly optimistic.
I don't blame his caucus for not wanting to have him lead them in an election. Politicians go out of their way to hold babies and kiss their wives, the dude flashing drunk 18 year olds isn't going to be winning hearts and minds in an election.
Blaming it on the #MeToo movement is stupid, this kind of behaviour would've killed many other political careers before as well.
I think the current climate plays into this in two ways. First off, it created this environment where these allegations are considered a major scandal. And secondly it created an environment where immediately turfing Brown was the only viable option.
And the Ontario PCs may be better off for it, politically. They're certainly lucky that this became public now rather than during the election (which is one reason to suspect it was an "inside job" rather than a scheme by their opponents.) I don't follow Ontario politics at all, but from what I gather they can simply pick a new leader-- Christine Elliot is the name I keep hearing-- and still be heavily favored to win the next election.
-k
-
It was this criminal attachment that drove attention toward the workplace and claims/statements that Ghomeshi's workplace behaviour was, "widely known for some period of time". Oh wait, isn't that what's being stated about former Ontario Conservative leader Patrick Brown - "widely known for some period of time"?... that some here seem to want to challenge.
If there any charges of workplace harassment against Brown, we have yet to hear them.
per that, as you highlight, independent investigator report, findings stated there were 3 instances where {CBC} management, "failed to investigate allegations and concerns about Ghomeshi's behaviour while he was working for the corporation"... as I recall/believe, one of those three workplace allegations reflects on one of the same accusations that appeared within the criminal trial - that Giomeshi was acquitted of.
As I earlier explained to Michael, some people seem to have gotten the impression that Ghomeshi's acquittal on criminal charges was a vindication of his character. It wasn't, as Ms Rubin's investigation discovered.
In any case, the die was cast and Ghomeshi/CBC, from the onset, became the favoured attack point for rightees who absolutely detest the CBC, to the point events/accusers became almost a secondary focus.
Who cares? Are you suggesting that we have to pretend Ghomeshi was a good guy because if we don't then the rightees will use him to attack the CBC? Because that would be nonsensical. That knuckleheads saw Ghomeshi's conduct as an argument for defunding the CBC is beside the point. Those are the same knuckleheads that get their news from a source that has become famous for settling sexual harassment complaints using hush-money.
given the concern over 'false/exaggerated/suspect accusations' within #MeToo, in the Gomeshi case, it was the raised profile on criminal {unproven} accusations that ultimately resulted in forcing the workplace employers investigative hand. The workplace investigation report {public version redacted} included a summary statement: "There was conduct and behaviour on the part of Mr. Ghomeshi that was contrary to the Behavioural Standard of the CBC. Most prevalent was behaviour that was disrespectful including behaviour that is "considered to create an intimidating, humiliating, hostile, or offensive work environment"."
You've stumbled onto the key word here, which is "workplace".
ultimately a private workplace situation that should have been handled by an employer was raised to public consciousness as a result of criminal accusations where, per the trial judge, "reasonable doubt exists because it is impossible to determine, with any acceptable degree of certainty or comfort, what is true and is false.” #MeToo???
We have a case of a man whose workplace conduct created a hostile environment for women who worked for him, which resulted in numerous complaints, which were swept under the rug because the management felt that their "star" was too important. These women were given the impression that if they didn't like how Ghomeshi treated them their only choice was to leave. So yes, absolutely #MeToo. This is exactly what #MeToo is fighting against.
-k
-
What, no insults? It's your usual go to when refuted.
How would you know, never having enjoyed the triumphal experience of having refuted me - or anyone else.
-
I certainly don't see getting drunk and sitting on someone's bed as any kind implied consent.
I don't see it as "consent" either. But I do see it as "interest" and I really have trouble blaming someone like Brown, who interpreted women's willingness to drink heavily, go back to his house, and saying Yes to his invitation to go into his bedroom as sexual interest. When they refused, he didn't force them. I dont' see the problem.
-
That's absolute bollocks, and seems to indicate you think it could never be rescinded.
He said it's "established through communication." Nowhere at all is it even implied that it could never be rescinded.
-
I completely agree. The Aziz Ansari smear article was written by a nobody website for the express purpose of cashing in on #MeToo and the current furor over celebrity misconduct, even though nobody actually ever explained where the supposed misconduct actually was.
Yet the focus of the discussion has turned almost singularly towards this and the idea of false accusations. I'm not sure how people can make excuses for Patrick Brown, but the idea of a much older boss and political leader (which gives him relative power magnitudes greater over the accuser) whipping his dick out unexpectedly (to the accuser) should be at the bare minimum concerning to people. At the very least it's completely unethical. This nonsense about how she went into his bedroom on a tour of his house reminds me of the logical bankruptcy of "she was dressed like a ****" or "she shouldn't have been walking alone at night" arguments. My biggest concern is that people are far too quick to jump to the idea of false accusations, which has a detrimental effect on the ability for people who are legitimately harassed or assaulted to come forward (which is already impacted by the relative power of the people who we keep hearing about committing the abuse).
-
If there any charges of workplace harassment against Brown, we have yet to hear them.
You've stumbled onto the key word here, which is "workplace".
I would suggest to you some employers more broadly consider workplace behaviour to include employee actions/interactions that directly... or indirectly... affect an organizations effectiveness - an interpretation significantly less constrained than one that presumes to boundary's determined by physical bricks & mortar of a defined workplace 'office/building'. Considering one of former Ontario Conservative leader Patrick Brown's accusers is said to have been one of his constituency office staff, your selective interpretation of 'workplace' is noted.
and it continues as Ontario Conservative president Rick Dykstra has just resigned after sexual assault allegations against him have publicly surfaced. I wait Ms. kimmy's verdict on whether these allegations warrant workplace attachment/scrutiny particularly in regards the linked article's reference to Conservative party funds used to cover the cost of legal suits against the Conservative Party of Ontario. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/01/28/ontario-pc-party-president-rick-dykstra-resigns.html
-
Who cares? Are you suggesting that we have to pretend Ghomeshi was a good guy because if we don't then the rightees will use him to attack the CBC? Because that would be nonsensical. That knuckleheads saw Ghomeshi's conduct as an argument for defunding the CBC is beside the point. Those are the same knuckleheads that get their news from a source that has become famous for settling sexual harassment complaints using hush-money.
For some, everything is political.
-
Meh.
I only have conjugal relations with the wife after the blockchain has fully encrypted the contract (aka “the sexcoin”) and it has been verified with enough electricity to power a small country for a decade.
The value of “the sexcoin” turns up in a turgid parabolic arc but then, just as quickly, falls, limp and flaccid like a popping bubble.
Depression then looms until the next Initial Coin Offering can be raised.
Eloquent but depressing. Wow....and I thought my prostate issues were a problem. I defer to yours.
-
I simply parrot what Godess and Kimmy are saying and Dia. I will say this to JBG though. I think in the Nasser case he in fact forced himself on his patients/clients violating every line of professionality and trust. He is a classic example of how **** operate. They place themselves into positions of authority where they can have access to the kind of people they are sexually attracted to and then use that access and cover of authority to impose themselves sexually. So with due respect the evidence on Nasser is very clear, undisputed and in the open and the young women are not asking to be anonymous and what they have stated is not anything close to what Brown was said to have done.
There is suggestion by innuendo but no evidence that Brown used is perceived image of political authority to gain sexual access to one of the woman not both but there is no clear evidence to that fact. If there is then yes there would be a degree of exploitation but not on the same level as what happened to the gymnasts that Nasser inclicted. Brown did not engage in any sexual acts and touching, Nasser did. Large difference.
All that said I am not here to question whether men in their 30's should let 18 year old girls come to their home. I am hear to question sexual assault or using coercion to get anyone to perform sex acts. There is no evidence of that. This is why I hate this. Its taking away from the severity of sexual assault cases or molestation cases. Brown was set up by Lisa McLeod and other malcontents in his own Party who wanted him out and CTV which is pro Liberal was only to happy to oblige and spring the story with zero corroboration one day after the Liberal hack criminal conviction directly pointing to Kathleen Wynne trying to pretend she did not know.
Now the PC Party in Ontario has shot itself in the foot setting up a convention. There will be more infighting. Here is what is clear. The PC Party twice before rejected Vic Fideli their finance critic as leader and clearly were not going to appoint him leader. That is why a convention was called. He does not have sufficient support. There are two leading candidates. One male, one female. I believe there is going to be a battle that splits the party again. I think if I am a guessing man, the two most attractive and well qualified candidates are Carolyn Mulroney and Rod Philips. However politics being about egos here is who else might surface as candidates:
former Ontario PC leadership candidate Christine Elliot (rejected last time)
the one who backstabbed Pat Brown and tried to take personal credit for his down-fall and from the moment he was elected challenged him-Nepean-Carleton MPP Lisa MacLeod (twice rejected and widely hated in her caucus)
maybe Lambton-Kent-Middlesex MPP Monte McNaughton (considered too bland)
maybe Leeds-Grenville MPP Steve Clark (considered too bland)
maybe Dufferin-Caledon MPP Sylvia Jones (considered too bland)
former federal minister of foreign affairs John Baird (probably no basis to this rumour other than the media)
maybe but highly unlikely federal MP Tony Clement (probably no basis to this rumour other than the media)
If I am a political handler and want someone who can take Wynne down and has a clean background that can not be personally attacked I go with Mulroney or Philips take your pick. Problem is both are not insiders and may not have sufficient connections to win over sufficient votes within the PC party. I think some will resent Mulroney as not having paid her dues, likewise with Philips. Lisa MacLeod is considered a disloyal backstabber. No one in the party will support her. Christine Elliott does not have enough support. That leaves other than Philips or Mulroney two federal politicians, Clement and the former federal politician Baird. Baird is a good friend of Brian Mulroney so I doubt he relishes running unless Brian Mulroney tells him its o.k. Likewise with Clement. Both have too much tie in to Brian Mulroney to want to insult him. I also think Baird is making big bucks and does not want back in. Also he has sex rumours that follow him since he is gay and has had in the past some relationships he does not want to discuss in public with younger men that could dog him in this climate.
I have a strong feeling someone compromise could come up the middle again with a polarized floor and they head into an election with a compromise candidate depending on Philips and Mulroney to be their top cabinet Ministers. I also think Brown will be re-elected and while he will never make a full come back will bounce back in a limited role. There is not enough scandal to destroy him as some think. There is not any forced sex in what he did. If anything there is repressed support for him even in Liberal circles where certain Liberal ministers have done far worse crap than Brown.
Doug Ford will goof around but my gut is he will support someone else and only run if its to get him press attention. His real focus is taking out Tory who he considers back-stabbed him. Doug Ford is a loud methane gas deposit, or in layman's term a fart. There is no way the PC's want him leading with all those farting noises coming out of his mouth.
-
He said it's "established through communication." Nowhere at all is it even implied that it could never be rescinded.
Yeah, that first bit we seemed to agree upon. I had trouble figuring out what he actually disagreed with me on, so I settled for the bit about it either exists or it doesn't, and hoped for the best. I think he just wanted to insult me.
-
Of course they didn't give Brown consent to sex. But I don't think Brown was unreasonable in taking this as a signal. Certainly the part where things move from talk to physical intimacy is often awkward and signals aren't always clear. I am sure that many of us have been in a situation where one person wanted to go for the first kiss and the other wasn't into it, and that sort of thing.
As far as I can tell, the worst that Brown is guilty of is being overly optimistic.
I'm curious why you quoted and acknowledged my whole post except for the part where I said how the two women ended up in his room because it's very pertinent to the point we're debating.
One of them he offered a tour of his house and the other came along with him and a friend of his who conveniently left. The reason they were in his room therefore had nothing to do with false pretenses on the part of the women or any kind of gray area about mutual desirability where he could have taken things the wrong way and whipped out his ****.
His behaviour was not 'overly optimistic', it was outright calculated and predatory. Legal, ok, but definitely not who I'd want leading my party into an important election.
I think the current climate plays into this in two ways. First off, it created this environment where these allegations are considered a major scandal. And secondly it created an environment where immediately turfing Brown was the only viable option.
And the Ontario PCs may be better off for it, politically. They're certainly lucky that this became public now rather than during the election (which is one reason to suspect it was an "inside job" rather than a scheme by their opponents.) I don't follow Ontario politics at all, but from what I gather they can simply pick a new leader-- Christine Elliot is the name I keep hearing-- and still be heavily favored to win the next election.
-k
We agree on one thing at least, that it was his caucus who forced him out, but again, I don't think it's about #MeToo, it's about a winning campaign.
Predatory men rarely act out randomly, you can bet he didn't pull this kind of stunt only twice in life. The party members likely knew about his behaviour and they knew **** could hit the fan with more women coming forward.
Smart move, #MeToo or not. He would have been a huge liability who could've cost important votes in urban areas.
-
When iPhone footage starting sinking candidates (like Mitt Romney) I said that we were going to have to have 'dirty' people as candidates because nobody could withstand the scrutiny of pervasive coverage via phones. I didn't consider that the web would soon connect anyone with dirt on a candidate to an audience.
JFK was the television man, and maybe Trump is the internet man. Maybe somebody so typical, so dirty is immunized against the 'October Surprise'. I don't know yet.
In any case, Brown is a curious case of somebody who came up through popular support and was downed because of it. Kind of populism vs. populism although the downfall was initiated by caucus. He could have actually won the election if he stayed on, but polite Canadians wouldn't stand for that.
-----
Ultimately, this is very healthy and feels like 'adam and eve biting the apple'. The truth is coming out, and there's no going back. People are talking about inappropriate behaviour and regular people are moving on.
-
Ultimately, this is very healthy and feels like 'adam and eve biting the apple'. The truth is coming out, and there's no going back. People are talking about inappropriate behaviour and regular people are moving on.
Yeah, but there's no agreement on what is inappropriate. Oh, sure, the worst of it, but not most of it. Depending on age, gender and religion, the answers will all vary wildly. What a 20 or 30 year old man considers appropriate might not be considered appropriate by a 60 year old man or, for that matter, a 30 year old woman. It can also vary for other reasons. A man who has daughters probably feels differently than a man who has sons, for example.
-
Yeah, but there's no agreement on what is inappropriate. Oh, sure, the worst of it, but not most of it. Depending on age, gender and religion, the answers will all vary wildly. What a 20 or 30 year old man considers appropriate might not be considered appropriate by a 60 year old man or, for that matter, a 30 year old woman. It can also vary for other reasons. A man who has daughters probably feels differently than a man who has sons, for example.
I don't think it's nearly as complicated as you try to suggest. If things are going in a direction or at a speed that makes one party uncomfortable and they express that feeling, then the brakes need to be applied. sure a 20 year old might be a little more energetic about things than a 60 year old, but no is still no regardless of age, gender, religion etc.
-
Yeah, but there's no agreement on what is inappropriate.
There is generally agreement on a lot, and disagreement on a lot also. That's why somebody is a politician: they can tell.
-
I don't think it's nearly as complicated as you try to suggest. If things are going in a direction or at a speed that makes one party uncomfortable and they express that feeling, then the brakes need to be applied. sure a 20 year old might be a little more energetic about things than a 60 year old, but no is still no regardless of age, gender, religion etc.
I don't think there's much disagreement about no. The disagreement is what below that level is inappropriate. Not taking 'no' for an answer does not seem to be the case here but his conduct is still being called inappropriate. Which it may well have been but without knowing both sides it's hard to say. It may well have been inappropriate to take a staffer, even a summer student to his house and try to have sex with her, for example. Still, he took no for an answer and took no retaliation. The other one is more questionable still since you have to believe her story that he simply dropped his pants, asked for oral sex, and she gave it to him. I would agree that exposing yourself with no preliminaries is inappropriate.
-
I'm curious why you quoted and acknowledged my whole post except for the part where I said how the two women ended up in his room because it's very pertinent to the point we're debating.
One of them he offered a tour of his house and the other came along with him and a friend of his who conveniently left. The reason they were in his room therefore had nothing to do with false pretenses on the part of the women or any kind of gray area about mutual desirability where he could have taken things the wrong way and whipped out his ****.
His behaviour was not 'overly optimistic', it was outright calculated and predatory. Legal, ok, but definitely not who I'd want leading my party into an important election.
Okay, let's talk about these two incidents in detail, because it seems like some of the details are getting muddled. The first incident, which occurred in 2007, when the girl was 18 and Brown was 28.
The first incident occurred more than 10 years ago. The woman, a high school student in Barrie at the time, said she and a mutual friend met Brown at a bar.
Brown then invited them back to his home and provided them with alcohol, though the woman was under the legal drinking age at the time.
She says she was drunk when Brown invited her for a tour of his home. When the pair entered the bedroom, Brown closed the door and exposed his **** to her.
"He pulled down his pants said, and I don’t know if he said 'suck my dick' or 'put this in your mouth,' but something along those lines,” she said.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patrick-brown-denies-sexual-misconduct-allegations-from-two-women-resigns-as-ontario-pc-leader-1.3774686
So first off, I think it's ridiculous that people keep saying "a tour of the home" as if it's something with a well-understood itinerary and code of conduct. "Come tour Brown Manor", as if it's like a tourist attraction. Last time I invited someone for a tour of my place, we were both naked before the tour was half over, and my apartment is only 700 square feet, so it's a pretty short tour.
Second key point: Brown was 28 at the time. He wasn't an MP. She didn't work at his constituency office. He didn't have a constituency office. He didn't have any sort of leverage over her in the least.
"28 year old man asks for, receives, blow-job from 18 year old he met at a bar" is not news. People who insist that the Brown story is totally different from the Aziz Ansari smear piece need to stop talking about the part where he showed her his ****, because that part of the story is EXACTLY like the Aziz Ansari story.
And if this is what people feel women needed to be protected from, they are full of ****. That is completely retarded.
Let's move on to the second account, which bears closer analysis.
After an interview in his Parliament Hill office, Brown hired her to work in his Barrie constituency office.
Brown tasked her with organizing the Hockey Night in Barrie charity game he hosts annually. Emails from Brown viewed by CTV News confirmed this.
"You know you are my favourite :)" writes Brown in an email to the woman days before the Aug. 15, 2013 event.
At an after-party in a now-closed local nightclub, The Bank, the woman says Brown and others provided her with a string of free alcoholic beverages. She was by then legal age.
"It was too many to count," the former staffer said.
When the bar closed, the party moved to Brown's home, all captured on social media.
The woman says she was extremely drunk when Brown invited her and a male friend of his to Brown’s bedroom to look at photographs of a trip to Asia stored on his iPad.
Brown's friend then left, leaving her and Brown to sit alone on the bed.
"The next thing I know he's kissing me. Sitting beside me, kissing me and then I was, I kind of just froze up. He continued to kiss me and he laid me down on the bed and got on top of me. I remember consciously trying not to move my mouth and I was just not moving, so I was laying there immobile and he kept kissing me," she said.
"I felt it was sexual. I could feel his **** on my legs when he was on top of me so I felt that it would have gone to sexual intercourse if I had not done anything," she said. "I would characterize that as a sexual assault."
"That scenario, like of a very inebriated young employee in the bedroom of her boss, alone with him, who hasn’t had a drop of alcohol all night, just that’s an intimidating situation and I was not sure what to do about it," the former staffer said.
She told him to stop, saying she had a boyfriend and told Brown to take her home, which he did, driving her back to her parents’ house.
So first off, you claim that Brown's friend leaving was "calculated". That's highly speculative. And there's nothing indicating that the woman couldn't have left as well. Personally I have said words along the lines of "yeahhh, I should go too..." more times than I can remember. If she didn't feel safe sitting alone with Brown on his bed, maybe she could have accompanied the other guy out of the room.
I stand by what I said earlier: I don't think it's unreasonable that Brown thought she was interested in pursuing things further. And when she made clear she wasn't, he respected her wishes.
Is Brown guilty of bad judgment? Clearly. Is this "deeply disturbing" or any of the other hyperbole that is currently being thrown around? Absolutely not.
We agree on one thing at least, that it was his caucus who forced him out, but again, I don't think it's about #MeToo, it's about a winning campaign.
Predatory men rarely act out randomly, you can bet he didn't pull this kind of stunt only twice in life. The party members likely knew about his behaviour and they knew **** could hit the fan with more women coming forward.
Smart move, #MeToo or not. He would have been a huge liability who could've cost important votes in urban areas.
I have no doubt that this news item would have been damaging to the Ontario PC's chances of winning the election, and I completely understand the decision to dump Brown.
Would Brown's conduct still be "deeply disturbing", and so on, if he were an accountant rather than a politician.
-k
-
When iPhone footage starting sinking candidates (like Mitt Romney) I said that we were going to have to have 'dirty' people as candidates because nobody could withstand the scrutiny of pervasive coverage via phones. I didn't consider that the web would soon connect anyone with dirt on a candidate to an audience.
Well, Romney's comments to his private gathering of wealthy donors created a strong impression that he didn't care about "the 47%" and viewed the well-heeled as his constituency. The covert nature of the tape being made public might have been "dirty", but the nature of his comments was in the public interest and well worthy of attention.
immunized against the 'October Surprise'.
Rue earlier speculated that this was somebody in the PC party trying to immunize their own party against an "October Surprise", and I have to agree that the theory makes a lot of sense.
I have heard that nobody who has been in a bar in Barrie in the past couple of decades is surprised to hear that Patrick Brown is accused of trying to score with much younger women. It could well be that somebody decided it would be better to sink Brown now rather than wait for the election to see a Roy Moore type situation.
Maybe in the future our politicians will be figures whose private follies and foibles are already exposed and haven't killed them yet. Perhaps Trump is the first such figure.
If I ever found myself in the public eye, I can only imagine what kind of nightmare might befall me as all my exes and hook-ups come scrambling for microphones...
Anna Maria Tremonti: "Kim Party leader Kimmy, MP for Kim City/Lost Lake, has stepped down amid a storm of controversy over sexual misconduct. Today on The Current, we interview one of her accusers."
...
Accuser: "...and so then she said, 'Why don't you come back to my place and I can show you my record collection!' And I was like, 'OK, that sounds fun,' so we went to her place."
AMT: And then what happened?
Accuser: "well, so she showed me the shelf by her stereo, and it was like just some crappy CDs. She doesn't even have any real records. Just CDs. And I don't think she even listens to them very much because they're all covered with dust."
AMT: (skeptical sounding) "hmmm." pause. "And then what happened?"
Accuser: "so I said 'Hey I thought you said you had records,' and I notice her shirt is unbuttoned, and, like, the kim-bobbles were like practically bursting out of her bra."
AMT: (concerned sounding) "hmmm." pause. "And then what happened?"
Accuser: "well, like, before I could tell her to stop, my hands and mouth were all over the kim-bobbles..."
AMT: (concerned sounding) "hmmm." pause. "So she didn't even give you a chance to stop her?"
Accuser: "well like after about 4 hours she told me her nipples were really sore and asked me to stop. But until then, no."
AMT: (deeply disturbed sounding) "hmmm." pause. "And you said that she was much older?"
Accuser: "like, over 30."
AMT: "and you?"
Accuser: "Under 30."
AMT: (judgmental sounding) "hmmm." pause. "And what happened then?"
Accuser: "well then she told me like 'well I have to work tomorrow so I have to get some sleep, but I could give you a ride home if you want.'"
AMT: (sympathetic sounding) "hmmm." pause. "So how did you feel afterward?"
Accuser: "well I felt like really used, you know? And taken advantage of? Because I thought she was going to show me her record collection and all I got was a tired mouth from kissing the kim-bobbles for 4 hours, and I felt like I was kind of taken advantage of because I thought she had real records and she just has crappy CDs that she doesn't even listen to..."
AMT: (accusatory sounding) "hmmm."
...
-k
-
Well, Romney's comments to his private gathering of wealthy donors created a strong impression that he didn't care about "the 47%" and viewed the well-heeled as his constituency. The covert nature of the tape being made public might have been "dirty", but the nature of his comments was in the public interest and well worthy of attention.
Sure, but the public will not be told what to watch. If there's a tape of some powerful person yelling at an underling, or frowning at a baby ... watch out.
Rue earlier speculated that this was somebody in the PC party trying to immunize their own party against an "October Surprise", and I have to agree that the theory makes a lot of sense.
Me too. Oh... jeez that was unintentional but I left it instead of editing out. :(
I have heard that nobody who has been in a bar in Barrie in the past couple of decades is surprised to hear that Patrick Brown is accused of trying to score with much younger women. It could well be that somebody decided it would be better to sink Brown now rather than wait for the election to see a Roy Moore type situation.
Ok, but these "everybody knows" memes are bullshit at the core. People are ignorant and oblivious. That said, you just need one journalist or person with an axe to grind...
Maybe in the future our politicians will be figures whose private follies and foibles are already exposed and haven't killed them yet. Perhaps Trump is the first such figure.
Yes I am thinking that.
If I ever found myself in the public eye, I can only imagine what kind of nightmare might befall me as all my exes and hook-ups come scrambling for microphones...
-k
If they want to talk about you anonymously, they need to find a reputable journalist to take the story and protect your identity also. But the bar also does become a little higher than for the average person.
"Patrick Brown and I hooked up for a one night stand back when he was a nobody" is not a story. I will bet money that this has happened in the past, and we don't have a story nor do we need one. People may even have approached news outlets with those stories.
What we have now is a new system but it's still a system.
-
Sure, but the public will not be told what to watch. If there's a tape of some powerful person yelling at an underling, or frowning at a baby ... watch out.
We've seen this sort of thing before... the CEO caught kicking his puppy on elevator security footage, for instance. CEO Kicks Puppy might not be a news item, but the degree of social media backlash was such that the media felt that the backlash in itself was newsworthy.
Thinking back to 2008, CBC found similar excuse to put the Trig Palin conspiracy theory on air. CBC's own high standards prevent them from reporting such rubbish on air, of course. But because the Trig Palin conspiracy theory was apparently sweeping the land, they featured it in their coverage of the RNC convention, complete with a timeline and handy graphics of airplane routes.
Ok, but these "everybody knows" memes are bullshit at the core. People are ignorant and oblivious. That said, you just need one journalist or person with an axe to grind...
My point is that if Brown's "bar star" habits were known among people in Barrie, they were waiting to be discovered by political opponents (including those in his own party) and, potentially, if somebody did some research there was a potential scandal waiting to happen.
If they want to talk about you anonymously, they need to find a reputable journalist to take the story and protect your identity also. But the bar also does become a little higher than for the average person.
"Patrick Brown and I hooked up for a one night stand back when he was a nobody" is not a story. I will bet money that this has happened in the past, and we don't have a story nor do we need one. People may even have approached news outlets with those stories.
What we have now is a new system but it's still a system.
I am extremely confident that Brown has attempted to score with many other young women in Barrie bars. I'd be far more interested in finding out whether Brown has attempted to score with any other employees of his office.
It appears to me that the threshold for "multiple accusations" is now 2. In this instance, one of those appears to have been included just to justify use of the word "multiple".
-k
-
Thinking back to 2008, CBC found similar excuse to put the Trig Palin conspiracy theory on air. CBC's own high standards prevent them from reporting such rubbish on air, of course. But because the Trig Palin conspiracy theory was apparently sweeping the land, they featured it in their coverage of the RNC convention, complete with a timeline and handy graphics of airplane routes.
Peter Mansbridge, also, showing the latest cute dog video from Vimeo on the National. McLuhan would have loved it.
It appears to me that the threshold for "multiple accusations" is now 2. In this instance, one of those appears to have been included just to justify use of the word "multiple".
You are right.
-
I am extremely confident that Brown has attempted to score with many other young women in Barrie bars. I'd be far more interested in finding out whether Brown has attempted to score with any other employees of his office.
It appears to me that the threshold for "multiple accusations" is now 2. In this instance, one of those appears to have been included just to justify use of the word "multiple".
and somehow your expressed confidence in that precludes you from accepting there might be more to the Ontario Conservative party/members concerns... than just 2, "threshold meeting", publicly revealed accusations. Your expressed confidence... in spite of all the emphasis being placed on the difficulty women have in coming forward and actually saying, "#MeToo".
-
and somehow your expressed confidence in that precludes you from accepting there might be more to the Ontario Conservative party/members concerns... than just 2, "threshold meeting", publicly revealed accusations. Your expressed confidence... in spite of all the emphasis being placed on the difficulty women have in coming forward and actually saying, "#MeToo".
The Conservatives acted awfully quick for this to have been some unexpected accusation.
-
The Conservatives acted awfully quick for this to have been some unexpected accusation.
Yes indeed.
-
I don't see it as "consent" either. But I do see it as "interest" and I really have trouble blaming someone like Brown, who interpreted women's willingness to drink heavily, go back to his house, and saying Yes to his invitation to go into his bedroom as sexual interest. When they refused, he didn't force them. I dont' see the problem.
I deliberately defer to you and Kimmy on that. It ultimately comes down to a woman's decision and I know I have taught my daughters to think twice and they may have shown poor judgement as we all have but the point is, when do we say we are responsible for the decisions we made? Can we just off load them and dump them on someone else to avoid asking ourselves were our decisions forced by others or do we simply regret them.
I am not hear to justify bad behaviour, sexual assault, etc. I am hear to say it is women I have often listened to in my work, and when they discuss the freedom to control their bodies and make choices, I have not heard them say it means abrogating those choices. Sometimes the very empowerment of a woman or man is accepting they have made mistakes on an individual level and learning from them.
T
-
and somehow your expressed confidence in that precludes you from accepting there might be more to the Ontario Conservative party/members concerns...
On the contrary. If there's more to those concerns, I'm all ears.
than just 2, "threshold meeting", publicly revealed accusations.
Of these two accusations, one bears discussion and the other is nonsense.
As I say, I strongly suspect that many other women in Barrie could tell stories of Patrick Brown attempting to pick them up in bars. It sounds like something he was known for. I simply don't care. If 1000 other Barrie women come forward and say that Brown tried to score with them in bars, I still don't care. "Young single man tries to pick up women in bars" isn't "sexual misconduct" to anybody except fore puritans.
The woman who worked in his office, on the other hand, that's worth talking about. This is a situation that could have been cleared up by a word to Brown from an HR manager or similar, but as she pointed out there wasn't anybody like that at the constituency office, leaving her to deal with it on her own. So that's a point worth talking about. Many working women work in smaller businesses and don't have resources like that to turn to if they're uncomfortable with their coworkers' behavior. And that's an important point that has been lost in the furor over Brown's ****.
Your expressed confidence... in spite of all the emphasis being placed on the difficulty women have in coming forward and actually saying, "#MeToo".
The one woman who came forward about her experience had a good point and a story that contributes to the discussion.
But the woman whose story is that she met Brown at a bar and went home with him and gave him a hummer... she shouldn't have come forward, and has no business saying #MeToo.
-k
-
He’s only guilty of being a creep, as far as I can tell.... but creeps don’t make for good political leaders, so he was turfed.
-
This seems to be 'on topic':
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/01/29/metoo-journalism-new-rules/
The 'new rules' are, in fact, standards and are, in fact, 'new' in that they are updated to apply new strategies to accurately publicizing misdeeds.
-
I don't even like to be alone in the office with a woman for fear that a disagreement may turn into an accusation of untoward conduct.
Men wouldn't make such accusations against you?
-
Would Brown's conduct still be "deeply disturbing", and so on, if he were an accountant rather than a politician.
Accountants can do deeply disturbing things too, but it takes a lot more to lose their career over it. That's pretty much the point I'm making, this isn't about #MeToo running amok, it's about a politician having less than stellar past and it costing him his career.
Heck, this isn't even a man/woman issue. I would love to run for office but I have my own skeletons in the closet from my younger days so I went into, you guessed it... accounting. ;)
There is a different set of rules for politicians and Patrick Brown learned that lesson the hard way, unlike me.
-
Hmmmm, if having a pristine past is necessary to be a politician, perhaps we will now have less of them....that wouldn't be a bad thing.
-
Accountants can do deeply disturbing things too, but it takes a lot more to lose their career over it. That's pretty much the point I'm making, this isn't about #MeToo running amok, it's about a politician having less than stellar past and it costing him his career.
Heck, this isn't even a man/woman issue. I would love to run for office but I have my own skeletons in the closet from my younger days so I went into, you guessed it... accounting. ;)
There is a different set of rules for politicians and Patrick Brown learned that lesson the hard way, unlike me.
I prolly wouldn't make the cut either. Fortunately, I went into Project Management. I think most people are surprised that we get any at all, so they don't seem to care about what we do to get some. :D
-
The latest #MeToo blowback comes from a former Toronto mayoral candidate who claims that journalist Steve Paikin tried to pick her up.
As with the Aziz Ansari case and count #1 against Patrick Brown, I ask: "WHO GIVES A ****?"
-k
-
Well, we are now down to 1 complaint making the news, albeit two famous people involved. I know someone who knows Sarah Thomson so I will be asking about this in the future.
-
https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/08/28/louis-ck-surprise-ny-appearance-es-vpx.cnn
Louis CK comes back to the stage in NYC. :o
-
https://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2018/08/28/louis-ck-surprise-ny-appearance-es-vpx.cnn
Louis CK comes back to the stage in NYC. :o
Interesting. Seems it went well. It will be interesting to see if it translates into marquee standup again. I don't see him ever getting a TV show again but who knows.
-
I was glad to see Chris Hardwick be re-instated and the allegations about him shown to be false. I hope he can sue that Chloe Whateverhernameis for the stress and embarrassment and probably loss of income during the time he had to fight it. (Which I think he and his wife handled with a lot fo dignity.)
-
A 72 year old newswriter for PBS is suing them for gender discrimination after they fired him because two women complained they were subjected to sexual harassment when he said "Not bad' about a picture of Meghan Markle. Apparently they had both previously said a picture of Justin Trudeau was "hot" but the network had no issue with this.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/man-fired-from-pbs-for-saying-meghan-markle-is-not-bad-the-woman-who-complained-had-called-trudeau-hot#comments-area
-
A 72 year old newswriter for PBS is suing them for gender discrimination after they fired him because two women complained they were subjected to sexual harassment when he said "Not bad' about a picture of Meghan Markle. Apparently they had both previously said a picture of Justin Trudeau was "hot" but the network had no issue with this.
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/man-fired-from-pbs-for-saying-meghan-markle-is-not-bad-the-woman-who-complained-had-called-trudeau-hot#comments-area
It may be time to put an end to all such comments in the workplace. But firing for one comment is too much.
-
Sure glad I'm retired, the world has gone nuts.
-
Sure glad I'm retired, the world has gone nuts.
'the world'
Do you think this one example means 'the world has gone nuts' ? Think about it.
-
'the world'
Do you think this one example means 'the world has gone nuts' ? Think about it.
This one example shows what a minefield it is out there. If true, this guy got fired for saying a woman was attractive.
-
This one example shows what a minefield it is out there. If true, this guy got fired for saying a woman was attractive.
Are you willing to pair this kind of event with men being outed for years of abuse of power?
Maybe that will make it seem less like a witch-hunt and more like Ike culture change.
-
Are you willing to pair this kind of event with men being outed for years of abuse of power?
That is what his accusers have done.
Maybe that will make it seem less like a witch-hunt and more like Ike culture change.
More like programming to me.
On edit
There is nothing in this article that indicates he was in a position of authority over these women.
-
Of course not. I am not excusing his firing, and I already posted in that.
It may be part of the bigger picture is my point.
-
Of course not. I am not excusing his firing, and I already posted in that.
It may be part of the bigger picture is my point.
I sure hope I never become part of the bigger picture.
-
I sure hope I never become part of the bigger picture.
The only upside would be if you could somehow capitalize on your fame/infamy.
-
The only upside would be if you could somehow capitalize on your fame/infamy.
Ooh, never thought of that! I could use some extra cash...
-
Maybe that will make it seem less like a witch-hunt and more like Ike culture change.
I think the culture has long accepted that it's wrong to abuse your power against a subordinate in a sexual way. This is not about that. This isn't even about real harassment. If it's a culture change it's a culture of demonizing straight men. Society still embraces gender roles, to a great extent, and that means that, for the most part, it's a male role to make the first move. This sort of 'culture change' makes that inherently more dangerous, not just to a man's pride but to his livelihood. Make the first move on a woman who welcomes it and you have a date. Make the first move on a woman who doesn't and you're fired. I mean, if anything a man says which is the least bit suggestive can get you fired, then how many men simply won't even want to work around women, much less ever approach them at work?
-
I think the culture has long accepted that it's wrong to abuse your power against a subordinate in a sexual way.
It has long been accepted. But it has also long been understood that the powerful can get away with it. Movie producers, tv stars, sports stars, business executives, sons of connected families, and so on... they've acted like the rules that apply to others don't apply to them. It's entitlement. They feel that their privileged positions entitle them to perks like access to women and leniency from the authorities, and until lately they've been right.
This has been building for years, but has come to a head lately with scandals like the Baylor University cover-up of their rapist football players, or the Steubenville High cover-up of their rapist football players, or the election of President Grab 'em by the ****... and the exposure of Harvey Weinstein was the straw that broke the camel's back.
This is long overdue. It is extremely unfortunate that it has been accompanied by a lot of frivolous accusations, but this isn't going away.
-k
-
It has long been accepted. But it has also long been understood that the powerful can get away with it.
The powerful can get away with all kinds of stuff. But I'm not talking about the powerful. I'm not even talking about the boss. I'm talking about colleagues. This individual had no power over his colleagues, and his comment was innocuous, but he got fired anyway.
And let's face facts, gender roles are still in place. Thus it is still largely expected that the man will be the one to make the first move. And I wonder how much of this is just men being targeted for being men. If every fumbling approach to a woman can bring HR down on your neck what are guys supposed to do? Ignore all women at work? Like it or not, most of our waking lives are spent at work (leaving out travel, eating, general maintenance, shower/shave etc.) Many of the other ways men and women meet are of less value these days. Most people don't go to church. Lots of people don't drink. People's circle of friends and family are much smaller now as we spent much of our lives in front of screens.
-
If it's a culture change it's a culture of demonizing straight men.
Actually there have been many accusations by young men about inappropriate sexual advances from older men, usually in positions of authority. I don't see this as having anything to do with demonizing straight men, it is about the problem of men in positions of power thinking it is ok to abuse their authority over others.
-
Actually there have been many accusations by young men about inappropriate sexual advances from older men, usually in positions of authority. I don't see this as having anything to do with demonizing straight men, it is about the problem of men in positions of power thinking it is ok to abuse their authority over others.
Sorry, didn't mean to dislike your post, quite the opposite, but jostling marred my aim. It was already locked in when I tried to change it.
-
Sorry, didn't mean to dislike your post, quite the opposite, but jostling marred my aim. It was already locked in when I tried to change it.
No problem. Yes, there does seem to be some bug that rarely occurs where you can't change your rating. I remember it happening to me several months back, I think I was using an iPad at the time I registered my original rating.
-
Speaking of fender discrimination and harassment...
This is a dissection of the evidently slack academic standards behind a recent, well-publicized study of sexual harassment in the STEM fields that found 56% of women experienced sexual harassment. Evidently this conclusion was derived by expanding the definition of sexual harassment beyond previous recognition.
It looks like the authors of the NASEM report considered it sexual harassment if an employer treated a female employee differently because of her sex and sexual harassment if an employer failed to treat a female employee differently because of her sex. The former is considered patronising, while the latter is inconsiderate. In light of this, NASEM’s estimate that only 50 percent of women experienced sexual harassment begins to look quite conservative.
https://quillette.com/2018/11/07/redefining-sexual-harassment/
-
Another interesting article this Sunday on the metoo movement and how it has allowed women who might not be either honest or entirely stable to make false accusations which are almost automatically accepted with little attempt to validate them.
Eventually, Chloe simply refused to testify any further. When she didn’t show up to court following two days of cross-examination, slowed by the prosecutor’s many objections, the prosecutor told the court that Chloe’s mother had called in with information that Chloe was suicidal. The prosecutor asked for a six-month adjournment. The judge said no. With the complainant’s story now falling apart, the entire case collapsed and the charges eventually were stayed for a year in October of 2017.
https://quillette.com/2018/11/06/how-the-metoo-movement-helped-create-a-script-for-false-accusers/
-
Another interesting article this Sunday on the metoo movement and how it has allowed women who might not be either honest or entirely stable to make false accusations which are almost automatically accepted with little attempt to validate them.
How do you conclude the accusations are false. Did you ever consider the enormous pressure victims are under, and how it would make it extremely difficult for them to get through the terrifying and punishing court system?
-
Sorry, didn't mean to dislike your post, quite the opposite, but jostling marred my aim. It was already locked in when I tried to change it.
I have a # of times been in a position of authority (had to do with the seat I occupied in the cockpit) with attractive people of the opposite sex, and it never crossed my mind to try to use that authority beyond anything except safety. It makes me wonder what does cause people to use authority inappropriately. Is it because their "appropriate" attempts have failed and so they are frustrated, or was there something in their upbringing which caused them to be disrespectful?
-
How do you conclude the accusations are false. Did you ever consider the enormous pressure victims are under, and how it would make it extremely difficult for them to get through the terrifying and punishing court system?
Yes we all recall the **** case here in Canada where the judge asked the accuser why she didn't just keep her knees together.
-
How do you conclude the accusations are false?
I read the article, which I strongly suspect you did not.
-
Yes we all recall the **** case here in Canada where the judge asked the accuser why she didn't just keep her knees together.
And he then found the defendant guilty.
-
I have a # of times been in a position of authority (had to do with the seat I occupied in the cockpit) with attractive people of the opposite sex, and it never crossed my mind to try to use that authority beyond anything except safety.
Yes, but we all know (because you tell us endlessly) that you are the most noble, virtuous, tolerant, enlightened, respectful, inclusive, open-minded and unbiased person who has ever walked the face of the earth.
-
Yes, but we all know (because you tell us endlessly) that you are the most noble, virtuous, tolerant, enlightened, respectful, inclusive, open-minded and unbiased person who has ever walked the face of the earth.
Hmm , I didn't realize not grabbing women by the **** would raise someone to such high honor in your eyes.
-
And he then found the defendant guilty.
He had little choice. But I see you agree with his blatantly misogynist comment.
-
I think the culture has long accepted that it's wrong to abuse your power against a subordinate in a sexual way.
Right, but as was pointed out the degree of freedom to engage in this abuse has been large up until now.
This is not about that.
I think it is about that.
Make the first move on a woman who doesn't and you're fired.
That shouldn't be the case, and I suspect is not the case in most cases. If you are concerned, then I agree we should monitor it but not wish that this era would go back if that's what you're doing.
This individual had no power over his colleagues, and his comment was innocuous, but he got fired anyway.
Individuals may indeed have power over their colleagues and the culture has power over everyone.
And let's face facts, gender roles are still in place. Thus it is still largely expected that the man will be the one to make the first move. And I wonder how much of this is just men being targeted for being men.
No, this is not a thing. Don't be paranoid, it won't help you adjust.
what are guys supposed to do? Ignore all women at work?
If you can't execute a simple forward motion without evoking a response then, yes, ignore them. Don't s**t where you eat.
-
I have a # of times been in a position of authority (had to do with the seat I occupied in the cockpit) with attractive people of the opposite sex, and it never crossed my mind to try to use that authority beyond anything except safety. It makes me wonder what does cause people to use authority inappropriately. Is it because their "appropriate" attempts have failed and so they are frustrated, or was there something in their upbringing which caused them to be disrespectful?
So you place yourself on a moral throne and pose as an example of the saint wevshould all be then ask what why mere mortals do not seem to live as you do? What a Jesus figure you are.
People abuse or misuse or missapply their power over others of course. The fact you ask why is absurd. The fact that you needed to pose yourself asq moral example once again suggests the very problem with this dialogue and that is smug sanctimonious Individuals like you usingplaying as one of the good people shocked at how the savages behave. What next will you burn books? You sound like some Hitler youth hyped up on whatever object ofvscorn it is today for you to feel superior over others about. You do not express any insight or concern just personal grandiose reference. That is what is wrong with Me Too..the way it gives people like you an excuse to chant in unison and light torches. Phack off and get off my lawn before I shove that flame of righteousness up your sainthood if you catch my drift.
Here you want rhetorical questions...answer this...how do you know all accusers of being abused are telling the truth and not using the exercise to abuse? I think you are programmed to see black and white and drape yourself in white and attack the black. You want a target to hate to make you feel sanctimonious about your position in life. You sit on a toilet not some sacred throne. I am tired of you expecting complements for thinking you go potty properly. Move on.
-
So you place yourself on a moral throne and pose as an example of the saint wevshould all be then ask what why mere mortals do not seem to live as you do? What a Jesus figure you are.
People abuse or misuse or missapply their power over others of course. The fact you ask why is absurd. The fact that you needed to pose yourself asq moral example once again suggests the very problem with this dialogue and that is smug sanctimonious Individuals like you usingplaying as one of the good people shocked at how the savages behave. What next will you burn books? You sound like some Hitler youth hyped up on whatever object ofvscorn it is today for you to feel superior over others about. You do not express any insight or concern just personal grandiose reference. That is what is wrong with Me Too..the way it gives people like you an excuse to chant in unison and light torches. Phack off and get off my lawn before I shove that flame of righteousness up your sainthood if you catch my drift.
Here you want rhetorical questions...answer this...how do you know all accusers of being abused are telling the truth and not using the exercise to abuse? I think you are programmed to see black and white and drape yourself in white and attack the black. You want a target to hate to make you feel sanctimonious about your position in life. You sit on a toilet not some sacred throne. I am tired of you expecting complements for thinking you go potty properly. Move on.
I don't think I sit on any kind of throne because I was raised to, and learned to have respect for other people. Beyond that I'll ignore the rest of your rant.
-
I don't think I sit on any kind of throne because I was raised to, and learned to have respect for other people. Beyond that I'll ignore the rest of your rant.
You chose and continue to make this is sue about you...why?
-
You chose and continue to make this is sue about you...why?
No it's not about me. It's about the value of interpersonal respect. Go back to sleep now.
-
No it's not about me. It's about the value of interpersonal respect..
A subject about which you are entirely ignorant.
-
No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on flights. Book hotel rooms on different floors. Avoid one-on-one meetings.
In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is “an unknown risk.” What if she took something he said the wrong way?
Across Wall Street, men are adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women.
Call it the Pence Effect, after U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he avoids dining alone with any woman other than his wife. In finance, the overarching impact can be, in essence, gender segregation.
https://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/wall-street-rule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost?video_autoplay=true
-
A subject about which you are entirely ignorant.
Naw, I just apply it where it's appropriate.
-
No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on flights. Book hotel rooms on different floors. Avoid one-on-one meetings.
In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is “an unknown risk.” What if she took something he said the wrong way?
Across Wall Street, men are adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women.
Call it the Pence Effect, after U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he avoids dining alone with any woman other than his wife. In finance, the overarching impact can be, in essence, gender segregation.
https://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/wall-street-rule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost?video_autoplay=true
So... first they create an environment unwelcoming and harassing to women, and when women complain they say "SEE ? we never should have let them in"
-
So... first they create an environment unwelcoming and harassing to women, and when women complain they say "SEE ? we never should have let them in"
You have the causality wrong. The issue is the vast majority of men are not sexists and have no issues with women in the workspace. But the lynch mobs justified because of a bad behavior of a minority of men mean all men have to protect themselves from false accusations that may destroy a career. The way out of this mess is to create a system where a woman who claims abuse is treated fairly but accused men are not presumed guilty. That may be a tall order in today's culture but you can hardly blame men for responding rationally to the lynch mob culture that has emerged.
-
You have the causality wrong. The issue is the vast majority of men are not sexists and I have no issues with women in the workspace. But the lynch mobs justified because of a bad behavior of a minority of men mean all men have to protect themselves from false accusations that may destroy a career. The way out of this mess is to create a system where a woman who claims abuse is treated fairly but accused men are not presumed guilty. That may be a tall order in today's culture but you can hardly blame men for responding rationally to the lynch mob culture that has emerged.
I will agree that we have come a long way, but there are still enclaves where sexism is a major issue, and that is what I was talking about.
-
I will agree that we have come a long way, but there are still enclaves where sexism is a major issue, and that is what I was talking about.
The pendulum has swing has been a good thing because it is brought the likes of Harvey Weinstein to account but we need to dial it back and remember a process has to be fair for both the accuser and the accused.
-
I will agree that we have come a long way, but there are still enclaves where sexism is a major issue, and that is what I was talking about.
I think the major issue is that harassment complaints are not dealt with either quickly or fairly. The major motivation of the company or organization involved is to make it go away as quickly as possible. In many cases, the easiest way to do this is to get rid of the man who has been complained about. If you get rid of the complainant and it goes to the media there can be hell to pay, after all.
-
I think the major issue is that harassment complaints are not dealt with either quickly or fairly. The major motivation of the company or organization involved is to make it go away as quickly as possible. In many cases, the easiest way to do this is to get rid of the man who has been complained about. If you get rid of the complainant and it goes to the media there can be hell to pay, after all.
Perhaps the best approach would be to get rid of whoever is not telling the truth.
-
Perhaps the best approach would be to get rid of whoever is not telling the truth.
It usually takes time to find that out - if you can. In a he said/she said case you really can't tell for sure.
-
I think the major issue is that harassment complaints are not dealt with either quickly or fairly.
That is true for almost any dispute.
-
I think the major issue is that harassment complaints are not dealt with either quickly or fairly. The major motivation of the company or organization involved is to make it go away as quickly as possible. In many cases, the easiest way to do this is to get rid of the man who has been complained about. If you get rid of the complainant and it goes to the media there can be hell to pay, after all.
Uh... or to give him a rap on the knuckles and pay off the complaintant ?
-
Uh... or to give him a rap on the knuckles and pay off the complaintant ?
That only happens if you're really important, like high up there. It certainly doesn't happen for 95% of men accused. And it can be career ending. It doesn't even have to be something outrageous. I think I posted a story of an old English scholar who made a stale joke in an elevator and was subjected to investigation. There is the guy at Google who dared to express a few truths in a private in-house bulletin board, and was demonized and fired, and the guy who made appreciate noises about a picture of some actress and got fired. It really doesn't take much if you're around one of these outrage maidens.
-
No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on flights. Book hotel rooms on different floors. Avoid one-on-one meetings.
In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is “an unknown risk.” What if she took something he said the wrong way?
Across Wall Street, men are adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women.
Call it the Pence Effect, after U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he avoids dining alone with any woman other than his wife. In finance, the overarching impact can be, in essence, gender segregation.
https://business.financialpost.com/news/fp-street/wall-street-rule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost?video_autoplay=true
My son had his life ruined by a false accusation; almost lost his life over it too, because someone believed the accusation. It's a horrific experience to go through.
The thing is, women have been dealing with this throughout history: false accusations about their lack of morals/honesty/worthiness if they have sex outside of marriage, or if they're even perceived as being sexual. Never mattered what the man did - he could behave like an absolute pig, lie to her, persuade her, or **** her - whatever happened, it was always her fault. Women have had to fight, and hard, for the right to be heard, to be taken seriously, to be treated with respect, to have equal standing with men in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion.
The tables have turned somewhat - its been a couple of years of hell for these poor guys. Some men have had well-deserved accountability thrust upon them, and some few others have been unfairly victimized, true enough. How amazing the response: "This is a very dangerous time for men! So dangerous, in fact, that men should avoid being alone with women, ever!"
Hilarious, really. And fitting, I think, since the advice still being given to women to avoid being victimized by men is to avoid being alone with them.
-
That only happens if you're really important, like high up there.
Yeah, like the assistant sales manager of a regional aluminum siding company.
Listen, you're not wrong but you can't focus on false accusations only without looking at the big picture... ie. where this all came from.
-
This is getting downright looney.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4731417/baby-its-cold-outside-radio-canada/
-
This is getting downright looney.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4731417/baby-its-cold-outside-radio-canada/
My favourite version is Colin James and Roxin Potvin...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3iG8kYjO0c
-
That's nice. I like this one as well. One romantic compared the song to a Tango. I think the likeness is apt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmiWm9CsLBU
-
I really liked this one too... Lady Gaga and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. They reversed the rolls and it was played on the Muppet Show, of all places.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtoW4aV-CIc
It's sick how talented Joseph Gordon-Levitt is...
-
Ply her with liquor and then move in.
-
Ply her with liquor and then move in.
Seen that work both ways.
-
Ply her with liquor and then move in.
Is that what you think this song is promoting?
-
I never liked the song. A guy who won't take no for an answer trying to browbeat a girl into staying in a situation she's not comfortable with anymore. I know that's not how they intend it, but that's what I hear. Too close to home. Probably most women have had a similar experience.
I don't think it needs to be banned, but it always rubbed me the wrong way.
-k
-
I never liked the song. A guy who won't take no for an answer trying to browbeat a girl into staying in a situation she's not comfortable with anymore. I know that's not how they intend it, but that's what I hear. Too close to home. Probably most women have had a similar experience.
I don't think it needs to be banned, but it always rubbed me the wrong way.
-k
I must admit I've heard this song god knows how many times since it seems it was always playing this time of year since I was a kid. I never really paid much attention to it actually, but now with it a focal point in this issue I went and googled up the actual lyrics, and having done so I concur with your comments, including that there was no coercion intended, but the times they are a changin'.
-
I never liked the song. A guy who won't take no for an answer trying to browbeat a girl into staying in a situation she's not comfortable with anymore. I know that's not how they intend it, but that's what I hear. Too close to home. Probably most women have had a similar experience.
I don't think it needs to be banned, but it always rubbed me the wrong way.
-k
A singer on the CBC was asked about this the other day. I forget her name, but she was reasonably young. She ridiculed the idea of banning it and said that those looking at it from the lens of 2018 didn't understand that from the context, the woman WANTED to stay. Remember, this was written in 1949. And her wanting to leave is never based on HER wanting to leave, but on what her mother, her neighbor, her brother, her maiden aunt would say. Because good girls don't stay overnight with men in 1949.
Words she sings like "I wish I knew how" juxtaposed with all the lines about "My sister will be suspicious", "my maiden aunt's mind is vicious" suggest her problem is with what society expects of her not what the guy does.
-
A singer on the CBC was asked about this the other day. I forget her name, but she was reasonably young. She ridiculed the idea of banning it and said that those looking at it from the lens of 2018 didn't understand that from the context, the woman WANTED to stay. Remember, this was written in 1949. And her wanting to leave is never based on HER wanting to leave, but on what her mother, her neighbor, her brother, her maiden aunt would say. Because good girls don't stay overnight with men in 1949.
Words she sings like "I wish I knew how" juxtaposed with all the lines about "My sister will be suspicious", "my maiden aunt's mind is vicious" suggest her problem is with what society expects of her not what the guy does.
I think she did actually want to leave because of the very reasons you suggest in the latter part of your chat. She didn't want her character damaged.
-
I really can't stay (but baby, it's cold outside)
I've got to go away (but baby, it's cold outside)
This evening has been (been hoping that you'd drop in)
So very nice (i'll hold your hands, they're just like ice)
My mother will start to worry (beautiful what's your hurry?)
My father will be pacing the floor (listen to the fireplace roar)
So really I'd better scurry (beautiful please don't hurry)
But maybe just a half a drink more (put some records on while I pour)
The neighbors might think (baby, it's bad out there)
Say what's in this drink? (no cabs to be had out there)
I wish I knew how (your eyes are like starlight now)
To break this spell (i'll take your hat, your hair looks swell)
I ought to say, no, no, no sir (mind if I move in closer?)
At least…
-
A singer on the CBC was asked about this the other day. I forget her name, but she was reasonably young. She ridiculed the idea of banning it and said that those looking at it from the lens of 2018 didn't understand that from the context, the woman WANTED to stay. Remember, this was written in 1949. And her wanting to leave is never based on HER wanting to leave, but on what her mother, her neighbor, her brother, her maiden aunt would say. Because good girls don't stay overnight with men in 1949.
Words she sings like "I wish I knew how" juxtaposed with all the lines about "My sister will be suspicious", "my maiden aunt's mind is vicious" suggest her problem is with what society expects of her not what the guy does.
I understand that's what the writer intended, but for a lot of women I think it brings up a very different experience. For myself and I think probably a lot of women, it brings up memory of a pretty uncomfortable experience. I'm not saying it should be banned, I'm just saying you can't blame people for not seeing it in the same way people who like the song see it.
This is a challenge for every writer. Your audience won't necessarily see your work the way you anticipate they will. It's quite possible that they're going to look at what you're creating and see something you never saw yourself, because their experience is different from your own.
-k
-
People in my news feed have said... go ahead and enjoy your interpretation of it but we don't like it. Please don't play in public. They don't play dirty rap in the supermarket either.
-
People in my news feed have said... go ahead and enjoy your interpretation of it but we don't like it. Please don't play in public. They don't play dirty rap in the supermarket either.
So much Christmas music is total dog **** that I don't see the point in getting upset about this one song.
I find "Brown Sugar" by the Rolling Stones to be thoroughly gross, but I haven't asked the radio people to stop playing that either.
But I'm the sort of person who didn't think the **** Monologues should have been canceled for making people feel "excluded", so what do I know.
-k
-
So much Christmas music is total dog **** that I don't see the point in getting upset about this one song.
I find "Brown Sugar" by the Rolling Stones to be thoroughly gross, but I haven't asked the radio people to stop playing that either.
But I'm the sort of person who didn't think the **** Monologues should have been canceled for making people feel "excluded", so what do I know.
-k
I feel that this week's controversy had better discussions. The people who are triggered by others objecting to their oldy time favourites were told that they don't get to decide what's ok or not and the dialogue proceeded from there. Maybe going through these things over and over again has finally established a framework that people actually get, ie. we all get to decide if we want something or not.
-
Well, the **** issue was argued out between trans activists and gender studies departments. It's like a dialogue between a spoiled toddler and a dysfunctional codependent mother on mood-elevators. Of course there wasn't a constructive dialogue.
In regards to this Christmas song controversy and others like it, something I find more annoying than the song itself is the fragility underlying these controversies. I think it's good that people can have a dialogue around things like this... perhaps it never occurred to SirJohn before that for some listeners the song has a very different connotation from what he hears. But at the same time, I don't think it's reasonable of people to expect the world to shape itself around their various anxieties.
I think there's a difference between saying "when people talk about Sir John A MacDonald, people tend to whitewash some of the bad things he did. For example..." and saying "Sir John A MacDonald was a terrible person and we need to tear down this statue and others like it because..."
And I don't think there's a way to sanitize the world to make it "trigger-free" for people who have had traumatic experiences. You can ask people to do "jazz hands" instead of applauding at your conference to make it less intimidating for people with PTSD, but it's a world full of loud unexpected noise so what's the point? Helping people cope and overcome is the key, not sanitizing everything.
-k
-
I feel that this week's controversy had better discussions. The people who are triggered by others objecting to their oldy time favourites were told that they don't get to decide what's ok or not and the dialogue proceeded from there. Maybe going through these things over and over again has finally established a framework that people actually get, ie. we all get to decide if we want something or not.
I don’t give a **** if you don’t like a particular Xmas song. No one is “triggered” by your musical tastes. You know what normal people do when they don’t like a song....? Change the station!
But SJWs can’t have anyone else listening to it ever again..... ::)
-
Hey there could be some other songs to come under scrutiny:
You can offended by everything if you choose to be.
Since several radio stations decided to pull “Baby it’s Cold Outside” from playlists because someone was offended, I feel that these other holiday songs better be looked at as well.
1. I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus: subjecting minors to softcore ****
2. The Christmas Song: Open fire? Pollution. Folks dressed up like Eskimos? Cultural appropriation
3. Holly Jolly Christmas: Kiss her once for me? Unwanted advances
4. White Christmas? Racist
5. Santa Claus is Coming to Town: Sees you when you’re sleeping? Knows when you’re awake? Peeping Tom stalker
6. Most Wonderful Time of the Year: Everyone telling you be of good cheer? Forced to hide depression
7. Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer: Bullying
8. It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas: Forced gender-specific gifts: dolls for Janice and Jen and boots and pistols (GUNS!) for Barney and Ben
9. Santa Baby: Gold digger, blackmail
10. Frosty the Snowman: Sexist; not a snow woman
11. Do You Hear What I Hear: blatant disregard for the hearing impaired
12. Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas: Make the yuletide GAY? Wow, just wow
13. Jingle Bell Rock: Giddy up jingle horse, pick up your feet: animal abuse
14. Mistletoe and Holly: Overeating, folks stealing a kiss or two? How did this song ever see the light of day?
15. Winter Wonderland: Parson Brown demanding they get married…forced partnership
See how ridiculous everything can be twisted? Everyone gets so offended these days that it is impossible to even communicate anymore. We as a society can’t have any music, interact with others, build anything, believe in anything because someone else will be offended. Just stop the madness.
Stolen from a friend.
PS Grandma got run over by a rain deer... Elder abuse... :D
-
I hasten to add that as I read the lyrics to "Baby it's cold outside" I can see a lot of innuendo that probably wasn't intended at the time it was written, but that I would certainly be aware of were I writing a song nowadays. I think I'll stick with "Jingle Bells"
-
I think I'll stick with "Jingle Bells"
Chopping a horse tail short, and hanging a bell on it, while you laugh at the poor animal as it slaves to pull you through the snow?
-
I hasten to add that as I read the lyrics to "Baby it's cold outside" I can see a lot of innuendo that probably wasn't intended at the time it was written, but that I would certainly be aware of were I writing a song nowadays. I think I'll stick with "Jingle Bells"
No that is an insult to old men like me with saggy scrotums. Please.
-
Chopping a horse tail short, and hanging a bell on it, while you laugh at the poor animal as it slaves to pull you through the snow?
Dont **** with Santa
There was supposed to be a picture there but it doesn't seem to want to load. It's of a mock up of Santa in his sleigh with reindeer's, a bag of toys, and a 50 cal. on a swivel pointing forward as we sat down to Xmas dinner in Jbad.
-
1. I don’t give a **** if you don’t like a particular Xmas song.
2. No one is “triggered” by your musical tastes.
3. You know what normal people do when they don’t like a song....?
4. But SJWs can’t have anyone else listening to it ever again..... ::)
1. Good, good.
2. Yes, people really are sometimes.
3. No, they complain too.
4. No - you can listen to it.
-
You can offended by everything if you choose to be.
Yep.
-
I hasten to add that as I read the lyrics to "Baby it's cold outside" I can see a lot of innuendo that probably wasn't intended at the time it was written ...
"What's in this drink ?"
-
Chopping a horse tail short, and hanging a bell on it, while you laugh at the poor animal as it slaves to pull you through the snow?
Offensive.
-
"What's in this drink ?"
Wouldn't be the first time a woman was drugged for "sex"
-
Wouldn't be the first time a woman was drugged for "sex"
Cosby isn't on the air anymore.
-
Cosby isn't on the air anymore.
Good thing. I always considered him a creep.
-
4. No - you can listen to it.
SJWs want it banned from radio... can't listen to it.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/is-baby-its-cold-outside-an-ode-to-****-that-deserves-its-sudden-banishment-from-canadian-radio
-
SJWs want it banned from radio... can't listen to it.
You can listen to it. I can send you a link here if you want.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/is-baby-its-cold-outside-an-ode-to-****-that-deserves-its-sudden-banishment-from-canadian-radio
Yes people want it removed from public airwaves.
-
You can listen to it. I can send you a link here if you want.
Yes people want it removed from public airwaves.
"people" should change the channel rather than go on some sort of puritanical rampage because they take a song completely out of its actual context.
What other songs are on your puritanical hit list MH?
-
"people" should change the channel rather than go on some sort of puritanical rampage because they take a song completely out of its actual context.
I would say the puritanical rampage from those wanted it removed scores a 3, and the puritanical rampage from those who previously couldn't care less about the song and have now adopted as their martyr of the century scores a 9.5.
-
"people" should change the channel rather than go on some sort of puritanical rampage because they take a song completely out of its actual context.
What other songs are on your puritanical hit list MH?
Such anger. You are so angry with my categorization if others' views that you ascribe them to me so that we may fight ! 😂
-
My finding based on internet is that people who are the most angry about this issue are comfortable. Fight me.
-
Such anger. You are so angry with my categorization if others' views that you ascribe them to me so that we may fight ! 😂
Your comment is idiotic... I think you may be projecting, but I can’t tell for sure.
Telling SJWs to **** off over this issue is no different than the fight over censorship of rock and roll in the 90s. You’re playing the role of Tipper Gore and her Puritanism.... “listen to what I want you to listen to”.
-
1. Your comment is idiotic... I think you may be projecting, but I can’t tell for sure.
2. Telling SJWs to **** off over this issue is no different than the fight over censorship of rock and roll in the 90s.
3. You’re playing the role of Tipper Gore and her Puritanism....
4. “listen to what I want you to listen to”.
1. Which one ?
2. And the puritains also won in the 1990s.
3. You are really bad at comprehension. Nowhere did I say this was my point of view. Do I need to say it again ?
4. Slightly different. Gore was about labelling offensive music so parents would know what their kids were listening to. This is about people objecting to music on the airwaves.
-
I would say the puritanical rampage from those wanted it removed scores a 3, and the puritanical rampage from those who previously couldn't care less about the song and have now adopted as their martyr of the century scores a 9.5.
I would say if you don't want to listen to it, dont, and leave those who do alone. But then I'm sane.
-
I would say if you don't want to listen to it, dont, and leave those who do alone. But then I'm sane.
Agreed.
-
I would say the puritanical rampage from those wanted it removed scores a 3, and the puritanical rampage from those who previously couldn't care less about the song and have now adopted as their martyr of the century scores a 9.5.
Yes. Like, I've never encountered a person who was actually offended by "Merry Christmas", but I've met numerous people who felt like raging about all these imaginary people who are offended by "Merry Christmas."
"I'm not even Christian, but it really bothers me when somebody wishes me Happy Holidays." Yeah? **** you. If Happy Holidays was good enough for Bing Crosby, a king amongst men, then it's good enough for you, you pompous bag of crap.
-k
-
Yes people want it removed from public airwaves.
What people? No one asked me. Did anyone ask you? Did you ask anyone?
-
Yes people want it removed from public airwaves.
People? How many people? Nine people? Eleven people?
-
What other songs are on your puritanical hit list MH?
I'm guessing a fairytale of new york by the pogues.
-
I'm guessing a fairytale of new york by the pogues.
That would be a shame. So would Alice's Restaurant.
-
Money for Nothing. Dire Straits.
-
Hey, someone sane at the CBC just woke up. It's back on their play list.
-
What people? No one asked me. Did anyone ask you? Did you ask anyone?
This is like the people on the pro-Trump threads who claim the polls were wrong because no one asked them.
-
People? How many people? Nine people? Eleven people?
Why does that matter ? I don't like people farting in my home. Even one is enough to put me off.
-
I'm guessing a fairytale of new york by the pogues.
LOVE that song. I also like 'Baby It's Cold Outside'. I think I sang the first one in a show.
-
Why does that matter ? I don't like people farting in my home. Even one is enough to put me off.
If you don't like the radio turn it off. Problem solved. Desperately delicate and dainty people don't get to overrule everyone else.
-
Hey, someone sane at the CBC just woke up. It's back on their play list.
I can't wait for this controversy to be over. Really this is the most random one yet...
-
If you don't like the radio turn it off. Problem solved. Desperately delicate and dainty people don't get to overrule everyone else.
People have always complained about public art and even private art. They actually don't play things that are offensive sometimes.
The theatre of people telling each other "this song is good" "this song offends me" is the most boring theatre there is.
-
Why does that matter ? I don't like people farting in my home. Even one is enough to put me off.
I suppose it only matters if you try and stop them farting in the home of someone who welcomes it.
I wish you'd used smoking...
-
I just found out on the CBC that the song was originally about a woman trying to get a man to stick around. She even took his jacket off him and pushed him down.
I still don't care.
It sure is crap though...
-
It sure is crap though...
Yeah.... they should ban it.
-
Yeah.... they should ban it.
IT'S GREAT WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU
-
IT'S GREAT WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU
I'm offended by it...
-
I'm offended by it...
You are a retarded !
-
I'll just wait for you to finish...
-
If you don't like the radio turn it off. Problem solved. Desperately delicate and dainty people don't get to overrule everyone else.
I do have to wonder. If you drew a Venn diagram of people who say "If you don't like it, don't listen" in regard to "Baby It's Cold Outside", and people who'd be mad if they started playing gangsta rap music at supermarkets, how much do you think the circles would overlap?
-k
-
I do have to wonder. If you drew a Venn diagram of people who say "If you don't like it, don't listen" in regard to "Baby It's Cold Outside", and people who'd be mad if they started playing gangsta rap music at supermarkets, how much do you think the circles would overlap?
-k
I would find another supermarket. Businesses can do what they want but consumers will decide what they want. Hence the blowback on this song.
-
I do have to wonder. If you drew a Venn diagram of people who say "If you don't like it, don't listen" in regard to "Baby It's Cold Outside", and people who'd be mad if they started playing gangsta rap music at supermarkets, how much do you think the circles would overlap?
-k
I'm mad at whatever music they play in supermarkets.
-
I do have to wonder. If you drew a Venn diagram of people who say "If you don't like it, don't listen" in regard to "Baby It's Cold Outside", and people who'd be mad if they started playing gangsta rap music at supermarkets, how much do you think the circles would overlap?
-k
There is a difference between a soft, treacly music and harsh, grating, angry rap. Now if you want to compare Christmas music to say classical music (which I don't generally listen to) that would be similar.
Plus, we're talking about radio stations, not supermarkets. The playing of music in stores is a whole other discussion.
When it comes to rap, guess what? I don't listen to those stations. So they can play whatever they damn well want.
-
Rather than call the radio station to request the song being played, I will grumble and grumble and grumble because I love to grumble.
-
Plus, we're talking about radio stations, not supermarkets. The playing of music in stores is a whole other discussion.
When it comes to rap, guess what? I don't listen to those stations. So they can play whatever they damn well want.
The airwaves are public, and governed as public places but under private control also. Something like a mall, you can complain if you don't like what they are playing in there.
If they played rap on your stations would you complain ? If you switched and found they were all playing rap would you complain ?
Given how conservatives complain about every single bullshit thing that isn't a thing I find it hard to believe you guys wouldn't complain.
-
The people spoke, sanity prevailed and the song is back.
-
The airwaves are public, and governed as public places but under private control also. Something like a mall, you can complain if you don't like what they are playing in there.
If they played rap on your stations would you complain ? If you switched and found they were all playing rap would you complain ?
Given how conservatives complain about every single bullshit thing that isn't a thing I find it hard to believe you guys wouldn't complain.
If rap was on every radio station I would stop listening, much as I did many years back when disco was on every radio station.
Conservatives complain no more than liberals. The main difference, I think, is that conservatives complain about what government is doing, while liberals and progressives complain about everything else and demand government do something about their complaints, and make conservatives pay for it. Is there a single solitary thing liberals and progressives don't think government should be paying for, banning, regulating or organizing?
-
The people spoke, sanity prevailed and the song is back.
Now there was a bit of a "tempest in a teapot" I'd say. I suppose it's to do with the times we live in. I wasn't around in '49 when the song became popular, but I imagine sexual assault either wasn't occurring or wasn't being reported/treated in ways to make it the relevant issue it has become. And as I look out my front window I see the grass needs a cut so it's not "beginning to look a lot like Xmas" here.
-
Is there a single solitary thing liberals and progressives don't think government should be paying for, banning, regulating or organizing?
Muslims coming to Canada and special security procedures for Muslims coming to Canada.
-
Muslims coming to Canada and special security procedures for Muslims coming to Canada.
On the contrary, liberals and progressives are fanatical about demanding the government bring ever greater numbers of Muslims to Canada, even if we have to search in the desert and grab them up by the scruff of the neck.
-
Now there was a bit of a "tempest in a teapot" I'd say. I suppose it's to do with the times we live in. I wasn't around in '49 when the song became popular, but I imagine sexual assault either wasn't occurring or wasn't being reported/treated in ways to make it the relevant issue it has become. And as I look out my front window I see the grass needs a cut so it's not "beginning to look a lot like Xmas" here.
Puking rain here.
-
The main difference, I think, is that conservatives complain about what government is doing, while liberals and progressives complain about everything else and demand government do something about their complaints, and make conservatives pay for it.
I seem to remember conservatives complaining about 'Happy Holidays' about NFL players kneeling during the national anthem about Starbucks cups that don't have Jesus' family on them...
The baseline for this is you are not allowed to be **** in public. This is the way you naturally came into the world, and you are obliged to buy something to cover up your genitals even if it's 40 degrees out. And nobody challenges that.
What it means is that public aesthetics are something we all feel we have a right to comment on, and when we comment it tends to work as the rules are written to reflect the loudest/most numerous protesters.
I LIKE 'Baby it's cold outside' but I don't blubber about Millennials when tastes change and things like "Song of the South" get removed from the public eye because they're not palatable any more. It seems to me to reflect a vanity to think that one can denounce these changes when they have always happened. Nobody is so special that they can defy history.
-
I seem to remember conservatives complaining about 'Happy Holidays' about NFL players kneeling during the national anthem about Starbucks cups that don't have Jesus' family on them...
Did they demand government do anything about it? Nope.
-
Why is everything about liberals and conservatives these days. Can't something just be stupid on its own.
-
Would someone PLEASE make some rude sexual jokes in my presence and comment about my appearance? Please!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/entertainment/eliza-dushku-cbs/index.html
-
Would someone PLEASE make some rude sexual jokes in my presence and comment about my appearance? Please!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/entertainment/eliza-dushku-cbs/index.html
You look a lot like John A. MacDonald to me.....
**insert **** joke**
Good luck getting a settlement from me.
-
Would someone PLEASE make some rude sexual jokes in my presence and comment about my appearance? Please!
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/entertainment/eliza-dushku-cbs/index.html
From reading this...
"The allegations in Ms. Dushku's claims are an example that, while we remain committed to a culture defined by a safe, inclusive and respectful workplace, our work is far from done," CBS said. "The settlement of these claims reflects the projected amount that Ms. Dushku would have received for the balance of her contract as a series regular, and was determined in a mutually agreed upon mediation process at the time."
...I get the impression that she was not given $9.5 million because Michael Weatherly made some rude comments, but rather because she was removed from the show after confronting Weatherly about it.
The whole point of the Weinstein thing was that women were scared to speak out against him because they were afraid they'd lose work. So here's an actress who confronts the star of the show she's been cast on about offensive behavior, loses work because of it, and your reaction is "lol, what a crybaby"? That's beneath you. Go do a backflip into an empty pool.
-k
-
From reading this...
...I get the impression that she was not given $9.5 million because Michael Weatherly made some rude comments, but rather because she was removed from the show after confronting Weatherly about it.
From the various accounts of this she confronted him and he apologized. She was only signed to 3 episodes, though there was (as is standard) language in the contract that said she could be made permanent if things worked out. They didn't.
The whole point of the Weinstein thing was that women were scared to speak out against him because they were afraid they'd lose work. So here's an actress who confronts the star of the show she's been cast on about offensive behavior, loses work because of it, and your reaction is "lol, what a crybaby"? That's beneath you. Go do a backflip into an empty pool.
I don't see it the same way. I see it as a hyper-sensitive woman going ballistic over a few jokes. Then a timid network, already under fire for a variety of cases, tossing some money at her to go away. In one account, for example, she describes being 'embarrassed and humiliated" when at a wrap party they had a raffle and he asked her to draw the ticket because a beautiful woman should do the draw and she was the most beautiful woman there.
And your comparing this to Weinstein merely shows how far down the rabbit hole we've come. We've gone from a guy who allegedly physically assaulted women, pressured them to sleep with him, and tried to ruin their careers when they refused - to a guy who made a few jokes around her in public, and equating the two.
And this basically demonstrates the reality that's now emerging of men who increasingly want no women around them at work, who won't hire them, won't work with or for them, and don't even want to be in the same room with them lest they turn out to be offended by some off colour remark and immediately rush to HR and the media to cry about how she's been abused by his insensitive jokes and words. There's certainly a mid-point here where the likes of Weinstein get crushed, but where a few remarks simply have someone speak to the two parties and ensure it doesn't happen again. But a lot of women seem uninterested in moderation when condemnation is so much easier.
The new attitude seems to be that when women are present men have to act like automatons at work, not joke around, not even notice women ARE women, be earnestly serious and focused on work the entire time, and make no effort to socialize. That's anathema to me. So yes, I think almost ten million for that is ridiculous.
-
From the various accounts of this she confronted him and he apologized.
She confronted him, he apologized, and "things didn't work out".
She was only signed to 3 episodes, though there was (as is standard) language in the contract that said she could be made permanent if things worked out. They didn't.
Eliza Dushku's case appears to be that "things didn't work out" because she confronted Weatherly for acting like a jerk.
I doubt that CBS likes writing $9.5 million dollar cheques, and I doubt Dushku would have gone out of her way to antagonize a prospective employer without cause. This article from CBS News describes it thusly:
The Times said when Dushku appeared on "Bull" last year, there were "well-developed plans" to make her a full-time cast member, but those plans allegedly ended after she came forward with allegations against the show's star.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eliza-dushku-michael-weatherly-harrassment-accusation-cbs-paid-bull-actress-9-5-million-settlement/
After being written off the show, Dushku entered mediation with CBS. According to the Times, that's when a lawyer for CBS handed over outtakes from "Bull" in belief it would help their case, but it allegedly backfired. The Times reports "the outtakes were a goldmine" that actually captured some of the harassment. CBS investigators allegedly concluded the failure to recognize the harassment was a "symptom of larger problems" at the network.
They're drawing a straight line between her complaining about Weatherly's conduct and her losing what was planned to be a full time job. She lost a $9.5 million dollar job because she confronted her employer for being a creep.
I don't see it the same way. I see it as a hyper-sensitive woman going ballistic over a few jokes.
You don't see it the same way because in your experience guys don't come up to you and act like creeps.
Then a timid network, already under fire for a variety of cases, tossing some money at her to go away. In one account, for example, she describes being 'embarrassed and humiliated" when at a wrap party they had a raffle and he asked her to draw the ticket because a beautiful woman should do the draw and she was the most beautiful woman there.
Also **** jokes and talking about spanking her and threesomes. I'm certainly not going to feel bad about confronting a co-worker if they talk about stuff like that to me, but fortunately my co-workers have more tact than that.
And your comparing this to Weinstein merely shows how far down the rabbit hole we've come. We've gone from a guy who allegedly physically assaulted women, pressured them to sleep with him, and tried to ruin their careers when they refused - to a guy who made a few jokes around her in public, and equating the two.
I mentioned Weinstein because he was able to get away with his conduct for years because people were afraid to speak out against them because it would hurt their careers.
Weatherly's conduct is obviously far less severe than Weinstein's, but her getting fired for complaining about his conduct is the same kind of leverage that Weinstein-- and lots of other creep bosses-- use to keep women quiet.
And this basically demonstrates the reality that's now emerging of men who increasingly want no women around them at work, who won't hire them, won't work with or for them, and don't even want to be in the same room with them lest they turn out to be offended by some off colour remark and immediately rush to HR and the media to cry about how she's been abused by his insensitive jokes and words. There's certainly a mid-point here where the likes of Weinstein get crushed, but where a few remarks simply have someone speak to the two parties and ensure it doesn't happen again. But a lot of women seem uninterested in moderation when condemnation is so much easier.
The CBS lawyers looked at the out-takes from the show, realized that it was a **** disaster for their case, and gave Dushku $9.5 million. That kind of makes it seem like you're soft-peddling the extent of Weatherly's conduct.
The new attitude seems to be that when women are present men have to act like automatons at work, not joke around, not even notice women ARE women, be earnestly serious and focused on work the entire time, and make no effort to socialize. That's anathema to me. So yes, I think almost ten million for that is ridiculous.
I think there must be a happy medium between acting like an automaton at work vs telling **** jokes and talking about threesomes and spanking somebody who you clearly don't have that kind of rapport with. I feel like most men who are not unmitigated creeps or autistic can sense that there's a difference.
-k
-
Eliza Dushku's side of the story, in her own words. (https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/12/19/eliza-dushku-responds-what-happened-cbs-took-job-and-because-objected-being-sexually-harassed-was-fired/OCh7h0pwg4Aq7xfwOUasyO/story.html)
The whole thing is worth a read, but I'll quote some particularly notable excerpts:
I feel compelled to chronicle what actually happened after The New York Times published a story about how CBS handled my allegations. I declined to be interviewed for that piece because I wanted to honor the terms of my settlement with the network. I was under the impression that Weatherly and Caron would also not respond per our settlement. Instead, both commented to the Times in what amounted to more deflection, denial, and spin.
...
The tapes show Weatherly routinely exclaimed “yellow card” after distasteful remarks. I learned from crew members that, because there had been previous harassment training on “Bull,” Weatherly’s delight in yelling “yellow card” was his way of mocking the very harassment training that was meant to keep him in line.
...
In no way was it playful, nor was it joking with two willing participants. It was not “Cary Grant ad-libbed lines,” an incredulous Weatherly excuse which, even if true, asks us to believe that Hollywood behaviors from 70 years ago might be acceptable today. What is hardest to share is the way he made me feel for 10 to 12 hours per day for weeks. This was classic workplace harassment that became workplace bullying.
...
There was daily undeniably demeaning conduct that is unacceptable in an absolute sense. Everyone should be allowed to work without harassment. Weatherly sexually harassed and bullied me day-in and day-out and would have gotten away with it had he not been caught on tape, and had the CBS lawyers not inadvertently shared the tapes with my counsel, Barbara Robb. Reflecting on the whole ordeal, it often makes me think with sadness of the majority of victims who do not have the benefit of the fortunate evidence — the tapes that I had.
...
Weatherly never apologized to me. Instead, I was fired shortly after speaking with him.
After weeks of enduring Weatherly’s harassment, I resolved to deal with it directly. I aimed to be my diplomatic best. This was not easy for me, since there were plenty of other things I would like to have said to him. Framing my request as a plea for “help” in setting a different tone on the set, I asked him to “be my ally” and to “help ease the sexualized set comments.” Weatherly responded with, “Eliza, no one respects women more than I do,” citing his many sisters and his professed history of being “too respectful of women.”
After I left his trailer, I went straight back to my own trailer and wrote down everything I could remember about the conversation in a text to my manager, adding, “I hope he actually received it well & doesn’t run back to the studio telling them to fire me lol.” Then, as I came to learn months later in the settlement process, Weatherly texted CBS Television President David Stapf about 40 minutes after our conversation and asked for what amounted to my being written off the show. Specifically, Weatherly complained that I had a “humor deficit.’’
As for Caron, the “Bull” showrunner, he was undaunted to do Weatherly’s bidding. The fact is that Caron wrote me off the show within 48 hours of my complaints about Weatherly.
...
My talent representatives spoke to Caron about my firing months later. Caron defended Weatherly, explaining he had simply exhibited “frat” behavior and added, “What does [Eliza] expect, she was in Maxim.” On the subject of my legal rights, Caron said to my manager, “If Eliza wants to be out of the business by suing CBS, she can be out of the business.”
...
The boys’ club remains in full force at CBS. The bullying continued. In the settlement process, CBS used as defense a photo of me in a bathing suit, pulled from my own Instagram, as if this suggested I deserved or was not offended by the sexual harassment I experienced.
...
The condition CBS required of me was that I not speak about what happened. I really struggled with this and still do. Some online “posters” have called it hush money. Headlines have called it a “secret settlement.’’ How was I to get paid? I have worked in this industry for close to 30 years. I faced a wrongful termination, the prospect of a three-to-five year lawsuit, and million-dollar legal fees for a war with a massive corporation. And where would that war have been fought? According to the fine print in my contract with CBS, I was required to submit to a “confidential” arbitration, where all “proceedings will be closed to the public and confidential, and all records relating thereto will be permanently sealed.” No judge, no jury, and no chance of anyone finding out what really happened (or so they hoped).
-k
-
Needless to say, I'm glad she got the **** money. Too bad it didn't come out of Weatherly's own pocket.
-k
-
While Argus objected to the comparison to Weinstein earlier, I have to again point out that this...
My talent representatives spoke to Caron about my firing months later. Caron defended Weatherly, explaining he had simply exhibited “frat” behavior and added, “What does [Eliza] expect, she was in Maxim.” On the subject of my legal rights, Caron said to my manager, “If Eliza wants to be out of the business by suing CBS, she can be out of the business.”
...is exactly the leverage that Weinstein used to keep his victims silent.
-k
-
The new attitude seems to be that when women are present men have to act like automatons at work, not joke around, not even notice women ARE women, be earnestly serious and focused on work the entire time, and make no effort to socialize. That's anathema to me.
It's not anathema to women. That's pretty much how we've had to be in the workplace since we were first allowed to work.
-
The new attitude seems to be that when women are present men have to act like automatons at work, not joke around, not even notice women ARE women, be earnestly serious and focused on work the entire time, and make no effort to socialize. That's anathema to me.
We have both men and women in our office, and we joke around a lot, without any sexist comments or even sexual innuendo, no jokes that demean women - or men for that matter. Funny how people can actually do that! If you cannot, that is your problem.
-
We have both men and women in our office, and we joke around a lot, without any sexist comments or even sexual innuendo, no jokes that demean women - or men for that matter. Funny how people can actually do that! If you cannot, that is your problem.
Agreed. I worked in a number of offices that featured men and women, and I managed one for a few years across the waters in Africa that had a combination of Black and White men and women. We had fun and joked around a lot as well. It was helpful as the work got done efficiently, and educational because you learned about other peoples cultures. I don't recall a moment of any racism or sexism any other such anathema. SJ must have worked in a fairly dysfunctional office.
-
[attachimg=1]
-
We have both men and women in our office, and we joke around a lot, without any sexist comments or even sexual innuendo, no jokes that demean women - or men for that matter. Funny how people can actually do that! If you cannot, that is your problem.
It's weird for me to hear that you can't have that kind of humour in the workplace. Why not ? Do you NEED bawdy humour elsewhere in life ?
Find some weird friends and make jokes with them...
-
The important part of this story is Eliza Dushku appears to have made an honest attempt to resolve the issue privately. It only became a lawsuit when she was then punished for expressing her opinion. CBS management failed big time. Even if the argument that Dushku had a thin skin as merit they had an obligation to at least mediate the disagreement.
-
It's weird for me to hear that you can't have that kind of humour in the workplace. Why not ?
You find it weird that people in our office have fun without "bawdy humor"? Is that what you are saying here?
Do you NEED bawdy humour elsewhere in life ?
Me personally? Or people generally? I'd say people generally need humor in their life, type is personal preference.
Find some weird friends and make jokes with them...
All my friends are weird. Was hoping to meet some normal ones and see how that went.
-
You find it weird that people in our office have fun without "bawdy humor"? Is that what you are saying here?
Me personally? Or people generally? I'd say people generally need humor in their life, type is personal preference.
All my friends are weird. Was hoping to meet some normal ones and see how that went.
No - the opposite. I was unclear. Some people say you can't have fun without it. It's a weird idea.
I have friends that we have bawdy jokes with, often on stage :) and people and children that I can have great humour with - without dirtyness.
-
No - the opposite. I was unclear. Some people say you can't have fun without it. It's a weird idea.
I have friends that we have bawdy jokes with, often on stage :) and people and children that I can have great humour with - without dirtyness.
Thanks for clarifying, I was confused.
I think that there are groups within the office who have worked together for years, developed trust and respect between them, who may be a bit more risque from time to time.
-
The important part of this story is Eliza Dushku appears to have made an honest attempt to resolve the issue privately. It only became a lawsuit when she was then punished for expressing her opinion. CBS management failed big time. Even if the argument that Dushku had a thin skin as merit they had an obligation to at least mediate the disagreement.
Well said.
This bears some similarity to the Jian Ghomeshi situation (the workplace harassment complaints against him and CBC, not the sexual assault stuff that he was charged with and acquitted of.)
The "Bull" TV show is built around the popularity of Michael Weatherly that he established during many years on the enormously successful "NCIS" tv show. Weatherly was basically the meal-ticket for everybody working on that program. "Q" was CBC Radio's most successful program, one that I gather was actually popular and had some profile, unlike just about every non-news item on CBC (I can hear an accusatory hmmmm from Ana-Maria Tremonti as I write that) and Jian Ghomeshi was seen as the star of the show-- a ballsy interviewer with a sense for what's current.
In both cases, management decided that keeping their star happy was more important than the concerns of the other employees. Maybe they're right. Obviously "Bull" doesn't exist without Weatherly. And I gather CBC's attempts to replace Ghomeshi on "Q" have not been very successful. On-air personalities and sports stars are somewhat unique in that sense. You can't just hire a different Ben Roethlisberger or a different Michael Weatherly and continue business-as-usual. Most other employees are somewhat more replaceable.
The other thing is that Dushku was in a pretty unique position. She has had a pretty long and pretty successful career and seems content to walk away from the business at this point-- move back to Boston, enjoy her new marriage, and finish her college degree-- so the showrunner's threat of blacklisting her from the industry might not have been very intimidating to her. It makes you wonder what happens to younger actresses who'd be risking their futures by speaking out. Every few years some young actress comes along who people think is going to be "the next big thing" and so many of them just vanish from the industry. In the case of Mira Sorvino and Ashley Judd, we now know what happened behind the scenes to make them just disappear like that.
-k
-
https://twitter.com/_NadiaPotia_/status/1075159566529236994
Literally don’t fall for fake outrage.
Ask your local feminist what feminists are actually mad about.
It’s probably rapists getting off on $400 fines.
It’s definitely not Baby It’s Cold Outside or Santa being a man.
-
Anecdotal, but I heard an example of Me, Too blowback from my daughter over the Christmas break - she was telling me they recently had a big issue at work. As they were walking into a meeting, a lady noticed her male co-worker had his pants fly down and also was not wearing any underwear. :o
So she whispered to him, "Hey, XYZ."
He then took her to HR for "sexual harassment".
The charge was determined to be unfounded, but it does go on her work record that there was a complaint about her sexually harassing a male coworker.
My daughter said the woman told her she would never tell another man that his fly was down.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/21/arts/television/james-franco-sexual-misconduct-settlement.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
James Franco suit settled...
-
Anyone watch the Maj. Kellie Brennan interview on West Block today? Pretty damming of both Vance and the military in general.
-
Anyone watch the Maj. Kellie Brennan interview on West Block today? Pretty damming of both Vance and the military in general.
Links? Background?
-
Links? Background?
It was all over Global News last night.
https://globalnews.ca/national/program/the-west-block/d
Episode 22, Feb.21
-
Anyone watch the Maj. Kellie Brennan interview on West Block today? Pretty damming of both Vance and the military in general.
I feel bad for any woman working for CAF, DND, RCMP, or police.