meower wrote: 
Wow. And this guy's evaluating other peoples' mental processes?  
  
Subject change: I've heard this wave of revelations being referred to as The New Puritanism, the implication being that we're getting to a point where Gentlemen may only risk rejection via a calling card. To actually broach the subject of pursuing a relationship more casually is becoming unacceptable.
 

And of course, the Valentine card, which was once, literally, asking permission to consider the recipient his girlfriend; actual conversation may come later.
 


 
The point is that the 60s and 70s did away with so much of this stifled protocol. I'm sure creepers were around in earlier days but to get rid of any rule is usually/always taken as a hint that you should do the thing that used to be verboten. I think the 70s confused the hell out of a lot of people, but they got more sex (or thought it was working that way for others), so they went along with it. I do not know what I'm talking about.

 meower wrote: 
Wow. And this guy's evaluating other peoples' mental processes?  
  
Subject change: I've heard this wave of revelations being referred to as The New Puritanism, the implication being that we're getting to a point where Gentlemen may only risk rejection via a calling card. To actually broach the subject of pursuing a relationship more casually is becoming unacceptable.
 



And of course, the Valentine card, which was once, literally, asking permission to consider the recipient his girlfriend; actual conversation may come later.
 


 
The point is that the 60s and 70s did away with so much of this stifled protocol. I'm sure creepers were around in earlier days but to get rid of any rule is usually/always taken as a hint that you should do the thing that used to be verboten. I think the 70s confused the hell out of a lot of people, but they got more sex (or thought it was working that way for others), so they went along with it. I do not know what I'm talking about.

 islander wrote: 
well we need some standards

and we need to decide if we're going to allow political/religious shielding

and will there be other qualifiers like time, geography, race, gender, etc.

coffee?

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

 
I know a woman who is a PhD psychologist. The psychiatrist who is her boss regularly asks her to go out with him. He has lain on her couch in her office and said that he has an incredible sex drive and has no idea how to meet his needs, he needs sex regularly. She left a box of tampons in the shared bathroom and he walked all over the office asking every woman in the department whose they were and then put them on his desk and told everybody that she wanted them back, she would need to talk with him first.

 

WTF is that?

I know it's not "handsy" but it's fucking inappropriate.

 

 meower wrote: 
I know this isn't isolated to just politics and entertainment, but whenever I meet someone from those worlds, I think "they are a different animal." So I guess I feel most days that it's more of a problem there than in the rest of society. 
 
But then I remember hearing guys/bosses described as "handsy," which was an acceptable way to say in public that he'll do a Franken Butt Squeeze, I guess. An open warning. Certainly not anything a guy in the 70s-80s would get in trouble for, it just gave others the lay of the land if you were going to work for XYZ company. And it was always said so matter-of-factly. 

 islander wrote:

 
I don't know that he has to step down. I think that there should be an investigation of the Senate, and we should see what comes out of it. I have the feeling that he is the tip of the iceberg, and that others have done more egregious thing than him (not that I'm comparing!) Of course, part of AF's "problem" is that he did not deny the allegations. It seems that all you need to do is deny them and your base might just continue to support you

I think that in general, he has handled this quite well, and if I were his wife/friend/etc I'd likely be working to forgive him.

EDIT: to be clear, I don't necessarily think that everyone who's done this stuff should be punished.  I think it's important to understand the breadth of the problem and figure out as a society how we're going to change it.

 meower wrote: 
So question for you and other women here: 

It appears that Al F. does have a problematic history from his entertainment years.  But he also has a recent history of good work and a cadre of female supporters who say he has done no wrong since he's been in the senate. He has acknowledged some of the wrongdoing, and apologized sincerely.  

Do you want him to step down?

Is a supportive voice on 'your' side more important than the ideal of purity?  Consider that there are many unrepentant accused on the other side (starting at the very top) who are openly defiant. Franken's departure will give them more power, and probably embolden their denials and deflections.  

 meower wrote: 
Nope.
I was taught to respect people and their property... no matter the gender/ race/ etc.
The years I've spent on this earth... I've learned to give people the benefit of doubt too.

 kurtster wrote: 
I remember Mary Jo Kopechne and Ted Kennedy but I'm not sure if there are many parallels between what happened at Chappaquiddick and what's going on presently.  There probably are parallels in regards to his behaviors other than that specific night, but of course, the malfeasances of powerful people seem to have been easier to keep hidden in those days.

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
I asked if anybody remembered "Mary Jo" over in the other thread about a week ago when the tsunami started.  Apparently. you and I are the only ones ... 

 black321 wrote: 
I understand your query better now.

And I agree there are degrees.

But this is a tsunami of information - important, sometimes almost unutterable information. What traumatized me was not the constant shouts of "muff diving time!" whenever I walked into the kitchen at the Princeton diner.

Having my genitals touched and penetrated when I was completely vulnerable and could not defend myself? Nightmares I still have today. At 60.

I might chalk Franken's episodes to lack of judgment. But I need to hear it out first.

Anybody remember Ted Kennedy?

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
It's interesting juxtaposing harassment in hospitality jobs like waitressing/bartending  with other workplace power dynamics in showbiz or any other business. As a waiter/waitress, bartender, etc. you're basically "auditioning" for the customer for a good tip. Sort of a brief, limited version of an ongoing power relationship between supervisor/boss and employee. But then, of course, hospitality staff have supervisors, as well, so you potentially get a double whammy.

 ptooey wrote: 
Your's and Islander's comments are kinda what i was thinking.  I agree that its good most of this is coming out, but it's complicated too and we need to be careful.

...and it blows my mind that someone as intelligent and insightful as a Charlie Rose would have such little self control.  Just proves we are still such primal creatures. 

 lily34 wrote: 
and i didnt take it that way...your comment just prompted the question the wife posed.

 islander wrote: 
  There's a pretty wide gulf between "guy who made inappropriate joke/innuendo at office party" and "baby-raper". Sorry if that's too blunt.

There's a lot of good coming out of this fiasco - the discussion, accountability, and transparency are all going to help us. But, I'm a little worried that those of us who try to not be completely horrible are getting lumped in with some who really are completely horrible. That suspicion and distrust coming from women who I'd like to consider my friends is unsettling and (IMO) not completely warranted.

 black321 wrote: 
that was probably mine. and i should have clarified - my experiences only - the verbal/mental/emotional abuse was worse FOR ME. i don't mean for everyone. i was just typing out my personal thoughts, and that's all i meant by that. i wasn't meaning to belittle physical abuse in any manner.

 meower wrote: 
I do think there is a scale of awfulness. And I'm not comfortable putting a one-time teenage ass grabber in the same bucket as Roy Moore the 30 year old state attorney who is banned from the mall for creepiness before that was even a thing.  I believe redemption counts too, not that it nullifies the initial transgression, but it demonstrates understanding of right and wrong. 

A verbally abusive boss could be any number of things. Is belittling someone for a minor failing (a common management tactic) the same as telling a female subordinate to show a little cleavage (or worse)?  They are both bad, and have repercussions, but I would make a distinction, and would handle them both much differently. We are pretty complex primates, most one size fits all answers work poorly for most sizes.  I think because sex is so complex and powerful, that any transgression with a sexual element should be handled much more seriously. 

Al Franken is a good example here. I think he certainly did some wrong things. But his actions since, and his sincerity in dealing with the problem (once it was publicized) make me think he's more valuable where he is than on the trash heap of cast outs.

I have not groped/raped/controlled/abused anyone. I have a lot of people that would speak well of me and defend me. But I did have a wild youth, and while I don't believe that I caused any harm on that level, I'm sure I've hurt feelings and caused tears. I feel bad about it and it informs my actions now.  But I see the world through a different lense than others. I realize I don't have the same experiences as black/brown/female people do.  I do wonder how others would see my actions now and then, and if they would feel the same way I do about them. 

I'm not really sure if I've answered your question clearly - so Yes - similar, but yes - less awful. I know that wasn't really the choices, but this stuff is hard.
 

 meower wrote: 
Nice sarcasm.  But I think it was pretty clear i wasnt talking about rape or molestation, despite the fact I was referring to another post that did say being verbally abused was worse.

Perhaps instead of saying "where does it stop" i should have said, "should it stop"

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
I'm was asking a question, not making an argument.  A question my wife posed as she watched another news story on the topic. 
Of course there is a range of inappropriate behavior...to the point earlier about some type of scale between Fred Rogers and Cosby. 
But yeah, i guess not worth discussing. 

Guys: weigh in here..... are you with-sin? Have you groped? Date raped? Controlled/abused your wife? Continued to have sex with some who said "no" or fought back? Any gynecologists out there abuse their patients? Molested kids? 

Those of you who didnt, do you see the behavior described above as similar or less awful than a verbally abusive boss?

just checking.