Sexism - It's a Real Thing

[BigRedBuster]

I just don't find political issues funny to the extent he and others try to make them.  

[teachercd]

Just now, RedDenver said:

-1 billion

Ha!  Now that is funny!  That made me chuckle!  

 

 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, teachercd said:

Ha!  Now that is funny!  That made me chuckle!  

 

 

Dang it, I meant to put that in a spoiler

[BigRedBuster]

And....we should never forget how disgusting this man is. 

 

 

[zoogs]

Far more eloquently stated about discomfort , anger, and 'congenial silence' than I could muster. http://uproxx.com/news/john-oliver-dustin-hoffman/2/

 

Quote

I’ll be the first to admit that what Oliver did, while not surprising since this is a guy who’s made a name via scathing attacks on injustice and political hypocrisy, was pretty difficult to watch. The idea of confrontation, public or otherwise, is foreign and unnerving to me and I’d like to think I’m not alone. My mother is a “peacemaker,” my best friend is “easy-going,” I’m a “people-pleaser.” These are all words that have been reshaped by our patriarchal culture to suffocate dissent, to silence opposition, to effectively mute the voices of women by painting their antithetical as less than desirable. Why be difficult when you can be liked? Why make waves when you can fly under the radar? Why speak up when you can suffer in silence for the comfort of someone more privileged and powerful than yourself? It’s part of the reason why women struggle with coming forward with their stories about sexual harassment and assault. We think, “Maybe I overreacted? Maybe he didn’t mean to brush up against me in the boardroom? He jokes like that all the time, there’s no harm in it. Boys will be boys.” We make excuses and shove down our intuition and self-respect to appease others.

 

Oliver's a joker, but he is no joke. He doesn't find the topics he usually covers funny; comedy is just his medium, and it's an effective one. When there's no right time, time must be created.

[BigRedBuster]

On 12/7/2017 at 0:10 PM, zoogs said:

Brief thread: 

We can find ourselves in a weird place when trying to defend someone we like.

 

One of the replies which I think is worth highlighting. NSFW language.

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

Question.....

 

Should the "dude" mentioned in the hidden tween of your post be found and fired?

[zoogs]

I feel like the obstinate, laser-like focus on that question is an interpretation of every "we must be a society where this is not permitted" as a stone's throw from "kill all men". I suppose it speaks to the differences in where our concerns lie.

 

If he were a Senator, I'd say he should resign.

 

If he were a co-worker, I'd have no desire to continue working with him. 

 

But, to underscore all of this, the simple message being communicated here is this is a thing that's not OK, and please stop explaining it away as boorishness, immaturity, men will be men, or any number of other tried-and-true, well-practiced ways to minimize the act. Because those things put us on the course where this was pervasive, and reversing course means recognizing it. Not even the person who made that tweet expressed any desire to find and get the guy fired. Perhaps that should be recognized, too, so we can better understand the intent in the other party in this conversation.

Edited December 8, 2017 by zoogs

[BigRedBuster]

9 minutes ago, zoogs said:

I feel like the obstinate, laser-like focus on that question is an interpretation of every "we must be a society where this is not permitted" as a stone's throw from "kill all men". I suppose it speaks to the differences in where our concerns lie.

 

If he were a Senator, I'd say he should resign.

 

If he were a co-worker, I'd have no desire to continue working with him. 

 

But, to underscore all of this, the simple message being communicated here is this is a thing that's not OK, and please stop explaining it away as boorishness, immaturity, men will be men, or any number of other tried-and-true, well-practiced ways to minimize the act. Because those things put us on the course where this was pervasive, and reversing course means recognizing it. Not even the person who made that tweet expressed any desire to find and get the guy fired. Perhaps that should be recognized, too, so we can better understand the intent in the other party in this conversation.

 

I specifically ask this question not as anything you describe in the bolded part.  You seem to jump directly to this the minute anyone would even think about asking a question about any situation.  This instant reaction is exactly what many are fearing in these situations.

 

Let me point out, nothing in the tweet by the woman says the "dude" touched her.  He "pretended" to grab her boobs.

So.....sexual assault can happen when a guy doesn't even touch the woman?  Now, asking that question, I have no problem, if I were there, pointing out to the kid to stop it, it's inappropriate and he shouldn't be doing it.

 

But, a career could be destroyed years later now by a college kid doing something where he didn't even touch a woman....interesting.

 

[zoogs]

Let me point out, nothing in the tweet by the woman says the "dude" touched her.  He "pretended" to grab her boobs

 

Right, and the important point here is that this is very bad. The bold part, I keep coming back to because that's exactly how such behavior is often excused, or minimized, explained away as NBD. Including right here, though I don't know if that's your intent. You don't have to physically assault to degrade and humiliate. So, yes. I don't know how exactly you'd classify this legally, criminally, etc, but the answer to the general question of "...even if you're not actually touching the woman but only miming an action on her, without her consent" is an emphatic, emphatic YES.

 

As for whether a career can be destroyed, it again depends on what kind of career. One that's built on public service, credibility, and accountability -- maybe! It probably also depends on the guy's response. And so forth. 

 

If it's in the workplace, what procedures and recourse are in place -- I've said this before, but stronger labor should protect workers. This is a worthy goal pursuing for many reasons, including to address concerns about fairness. Broadly, the process is still tilted against accusers coming forward and getting their own due process and justice. 

But, to sum up and to stress, the conversation here is yes, you don't have to actually touch the woman. This is the reason I posted that tweet in the first place.

[BigRedBuster]

13 minutes ago, zoogs said:

 

 

 

Right, and the important point here is that this is very bad. The bold part, I keep coming back to because that's exactly how such behavior is often excused, or minimized, explained away as NBD. Including right here, though I don't know if that's your intent. You don't have to physically assault to degrade and humiliate. So, yes. I don't know how exactly you'd classify this legally, criminally, etc, but the answer to the general question of "...even if you're not actually touching the woman but only miming an action on her, without her consent" is an emphatic, emphatic YES.

 

As for whether a career can be destroyed, it again depends on what kind of career. One that's built on public service, credibility, and accountability -- maybe! It probably also depends on the guy's response. And so forth. 

 

If it's in the workplace, what procedures and recourse are in place -- I've said this before, but stronger labor should protect workers. This is a worthy goal pursuing for many reasons, including to address concerns about fairness. Broadly, the process is still tilted against accusers coming forward and getting their own due process and justice. 

But, to sum up and to stress, the conversation here is yes, you don't have to actually touch the woman. This is the reason I posted that tweet in the first place.

 

Maybe this is your goal.  But, your response to even asking questions is an example of how discussing this issue is going to be extremely hard.

 

To the bolded part of your post.

 

This was not in the work place.

 

Edit to add:  At what age is a boy/man responsible years later for actions.  If a boy walking down the hall of middle school does something inappropriate, should that be held against him decades later?

Edited December 8, 2017 by BigRedBuster

[zoogs]

To clarify: if this is about some worker, versus some Senator. Obviously, the incident itself need not to have occurred in the workplace.

 

Discussing this issue is extremely hard. It begins with a baseline view that these things are not big deals.

 

You asked a question ("should he be fired?") which is another reason why I think this discussion is hard. There's a side of this conversation that is "Look, we have to start understanding that this thing is actually a big deal". The inevitable focus of a lot of the response is instead "But won't men's lives be wrecked?" Hopefully, you can appreciate the case being made about why this is problematic. It defers the question of whether to acknowledge harmful misconduct, and instead sets up a scenario where those who started the conversation are making victims of men. It moves the conversation from how can we protect women, to how can we protect men.

 

I'm confident this is not your intent. However, this is the general intent behind the "won't men be victimized now" argument. It's an anxiety that is legitimate, I guess, because we all want nobody to be victimized. However, the appropriate weight for this anxiety versus others should be placed in an appropriate context.

Edited December 8, 2017 by zoogs

[RedDenver]

Maybe the discussion needs to separate crime and punishment. zoogs is expressing how these things are wrong. BRB is asking if this is an appropriate punishment. It's possible to both say that these things are wrong and need to be fixed AND that the punishment should fit the crime. And also BRB brings up the question of a statute of limitations equivalence: how long after the incident should the punishment be enforced? (Or perhaps: how much should the punishment be reduced given how long it's been since the incident?)

[zoogs]

Yes, that's a good point, RD.

 

I think justice is always a concern, and if we want to protect workers in general from being fired without a chance to properly defend themselves, we need to talk about labor. I don't think there is an actual due process concern right now when it comes to cases brought to trial. The decline of organized labor has given bosses a lot of latitude to fire when they want to. That hurts us all on a lot of levels. For the most part here, we aren't talking about court and criminal charges and jail -- even in cases where that seems possible.

 

So there's a labor rights question, and there's a what do we consider inappropriate and how much question.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

22 minutes ago, zoogs said:

To clarify: if this is about some worker, versus some Senator. Obviously, the incident itself need not to have occurred in the workplace.

 

Discussing this issue is extremely hard. It begins with a baseline view that these things are not big deals.

 

You asked a question ("should he be fired?") which is another reason why I think this discussion is hard. There's a side of this conversation that is "Look, we have to start understanding that this thing is actually a big deal". The inevitable focus of a lot of the response is instead "But won't men's lives be wrecked?" Hopefully, you can appreciate the case being made about why this is problematic. It defers the question of whether to acknowledge harmful misconduct, and instead sets up a scenario where those who started the conversation are making victims of men. It moves the conversation from how can we protect women, to how can we protect men.

 

I'm confident this is not your intent. However, this is the general intent behind the "won't men be victimized now" argument. It's an anxiety that is legitimate, I guess, because we all want nobody to be victimized. However, the appropriate weight for this anxiety versus others should be placed in an appropriate context.

 

 

OK..you keep going back to this point.  NOBODY in this thread, that I remember, has said...."These things are no big deal".  So, you constantly harping on that holds back having open and honest discussion about it.

[BigRedBuster]

9 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Yes, that's a good point, RD.

 

I think justice is always a concern, and if we want to protect workers in general from being fired without a chance to properly defend themselves, we need to talk about labor. I don't think there is an actual due process concern right now when it comes to cases brought to trial. The decline of organized labor has given bosses a lot of latitude to fire when they want to. That hurts us all on a lot of levels. For the most part here, we aren't talking about court and criminal charges and jail -- even in cases where that seems possible.

 

So there's a labor rights question, and there's a what do we consider inappropriate and how much question.

 

 

 

 

Wait a minute.

 

You have had the attitude all along that if an accusation comes up that is anywhere close to valid, the guy should be fired on the spot.

NOW....you act like bosses are these horrible people for firing people when an accusation is brought up.