Sexual Harassment

[TexRex]

I don't know what this is trying to accomplish.

Just highlighting the stupidity of the remark that "it's an illusion."

Are you talking about the police?

The police are no more at fault than the rest of the judicial system. Sadly, law enforcement isn't in the best position to assist individuals attempting to escape their situation. I'm referring to family, friends, coworkers.

Internal bleeding/broken bones = 911, police, incarceration, restraining orders. Is it possible for someone to be victimized without receiving justice? Absolutely. Does it happen often enough that they should think twice about going to the cops? Absolutely not.

The arrest of an abuser, even one with a record, isn't justice. A restraining order isn't justice. Even if an abuser is incarcerated, sentences passed down are a joke because the correctional system can't cash the checks that the courts write. Abusers get out long before they deserve, if they were sentenced to begin with, and in either case they're enraged because action was taken against them and/or emboldened by the lack of punishment. Restraining order violations are against the law too, you know, and yet they're still carried out.

You make it sound as though it's the safe thing to do for these people to not seek help.

I don't believe that, but I'm not in an abusive relationship. Victims of repeated abuse, abuse that has led to hospitalization of one and incarceration or attempted legal action of/against the other, haven't been given reason to believe anything but that.

You cannot falsely imprison someone in the united states, it is a crime, it will land you in jail. You cannot beat someone (innocent) in the united states, it is a crime, it will land you in jail.

You make it seem like calling something illegal prevents any occurrences.

You cannot beat someone (innocent) in the united states, but it is a crime, it will land you in jail.

Fixed that for you. Also, for the record, and as it pertains to this debate, you can beat someone (guilty) in the United states, but it can land you in jail. (Even if it's in defense of one's-self and/or another. A sentence may be lifted if the action is justified, but I assure that it can happen.)

 

[Danoff]

You make it seem like calling something illegal prevents any occurrences.

Fixed that for you.

You make it sound as though I'm not aware that people get abused by their spouses. I am aware that crimes happen in the US.

Just highlighting the stupidity of the remark that "it's an illusion."

You have yet to persuade me that it's even wrong, let alone stupid. Resorting to personal attacks is a violation of the terms of use of this website.

You make it sound as though it's the safe thing to do for these people to not seek help.

I don't believe that,

Good. Sounds like we're done here.

 

[TexRex]

I am aware that crimes happen in the US.

You make it sound as though I'm not aware that actions specified aren't against the, making them crimes.

You have yet to persuade me that it's even wrong, let alone stupid. Resorting to personal attacks is a violation of the terms of use of this website.

I haven't managed to persuade the moon to sprout legs and dance a jig either. Now, I can and will call that remark stupid, but that's not the same as me calling myself stupid.

And since you feel the need to state the obvious...you haven't convinced me that what you call illusions are such.

Sounds like we're done here.

We who? You and the mouse in your pocket? What's its name?

 

[Danoff]

You make it sound as though I'm not aware that actions specified aren't against the, making them crimes.

I haven't managed to persuade the moon to sprout legs and dance a jig either. Now, I can and will call that remark stupid, but that's not the same as me calling myself stupid.

And since you feel the need to state the obvious...you haven't convinced me that what you call illusions are such.

We who? You and the mouse in your pocket? What's its name?

Really? You want to keep at this? I didn't flag your post for the moderators to review, but I will point out that calling someone's comments stupid is not a loophole to allow you to insult other members and stay within the AUP. If you'd like to find out, we can go that route.

You're not interested in a discussion, at least not as best I can tell with this response. You're interested in mud-slinging and name calling. I'm not interested. If you'd like to think that battered women have no recourse in the US, fine go ahead. Continue believing that they actually are controlled by their abusive spouses. Continue telling yourself that they have no options. Continue telling yourself that they have no defense, and there is nothing they can do about it. I'm not here to persuade someone who isn't listening.

 

[TexRex]

I've seen individuals in abusive relationships get out. I've seen intervention work and have been a part of said intervention. I've also seen victims not get out, either having lost track of them or seen them never get the opportunity to get out. My views are informed by what I have seen personally. Of course I can understand someone not involved in a situation not believing in it, but that doesn't falsify it.

Regarding potentially offensive remarks, I would like someone in a position to make a judgement to chime in. To that end, I've flagged the comment myself already. I believe incredibly intelligent people can say incredibly stupid things, but if the remark is deemed offensive, I will remove it and apologize.

 

[Danoff]

I've seen individuals in abusive relationships get out. I've seen intervention work and have been a part of said intervention. I've also seen victims not get out, either having lost track of them or seen them never get the opportunity to get out. My views are informed by what I have seen personally. Of course I can understand someone not involved in a situation not believing in it, but that doesn't falsify it.

I'm not falsifying what you've seen personally. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, possibly intentionally.

Edit:

Here are some examples to think on:

that's stupid, that's moronic, that's idiotic, what a dumb thing to say, what kind of nonsense is that, what kid of idiotic brainless drivel are you spouting...

I assume that you're not trying to argue that saying "the stupidity of that remark" is somehow adding to the conversation and fostering a genuine discussion.

 

[TexRex]

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying--

That very well may be the case. If you imply that an inability to seek assistance in escaping an abusive environment is an illusion--I agree--but that illusion is backed by experience.

I want to get that out now in case it's cause for debate, but an edit is pending. I'm too used to not using a potato phone that my responses, even on a decent one, take considerable time to craft.

Edit: While an individual may seek assistance, there's no guarantee they will get it. This is why those who care for the individual are in the best position to help. Whether imprisonment is physical or not, it's terribly difficult for a victim to accept that there are options available to them. Experience has taught them that it doesn't work, at least not until the seventh attempt on average.

Even if the justice system works perfectly, which it doesn't (that's no secret, and is perhaps stating the obvious), I can cite instances where perpetrators--because of their transient or transitional existence in society--have been able to skirt the system entirely.

Instances such as the above aren't the norm, but how should they be addressed?

I assume that you're not trying to argue that saying "the stupidity of that remark" is somehow adding to the conversation and fostering a genuine discussion.

You asked what the intent behind making the smoke and mirrors comment was. "Illusion" as I perceived it in the context seemed a wildly inappropriate description and I chose to equate it to the malarkey that is performance magic. The wording I used, in hindsight, wasn't particularly tactful, but as I wasn't implying you're stupid, it didn't really show up on my own radar.

 

[Danoff]

That very well may be the case. If you imply that an inability to seek assistance in escaping an abusive environment is an illusion--I agree--but that illusion is backed by experience.

I want to get that out now in case it's cause for debate, but an edit is pending. I'm too used to not using a potato phone that my responses, even on a decent one, take considerable time to craft.

Edit: While an individual may seek assistance, there's no guarantee they will get it. This is why those who care for the individual are in the best position to help. Whether imprisonment is physical or not, it's terribly difficult for a victim to accept that there are options available to them. Experience has taught them that it doesn't work, at least not until the seventh attempt on average.

Even if the justice system works perfectly, which it doesn't (that's no secret, and is perhaps stating the obvious), I can cite instances where perpetrators--because of their transient or transitional existence in society--have been able to skirt the system entirely.

Instances such as the above aren't the norm, but how should they be addressed?

Let's go back to my original statement.

The whole thing is an illusion, and it's the illusion that's the problem. The illusion that their lives depend on it (in this case, I was referring to the end of your post, ie: that their lives depend on defending thier attacker). The illusion that they're worthless, that the perpetrator is all-powerful, that they're ultimately to blame for all of it. Some of them may be under the illusion that they are hostages, and until they risk everything (in their minds), they'll stay that way. but @Imari is right that there is literally nothing anyone can do if they won't accuse the people who have committed crimes against them. The injured party is the one who has to at least claim that they did not consent.

The illusion I'm talking about is the illusion of control. The illusion that one human being can control another human being, by force, in the US, and that this will be allowed. The illusion is that these people have no power to control their circumstances. They have been psychologically tricked into this belief. The reality is that people do have control over their circumstances. The police do exist, and they can arrest.

It goes beyond that too. In the US, you are allowed to buy firearms that you can use to protect yourself from would-be aggressors. There are shelters, there is employment. I've known people who have changed their names and disappeared from their stalking spouses, even when unemployed and homeless.

Yes, it can all go wrong, but the resources and opportunities are there for everyone to find help, and ultimately empower themselves. The illusion that they are trapped is what keeps them trapped. Their fear is real, and what they fear is real, but their belief that they cannot win is not real.

 

[TexRex]

The fact that it can be done is the reason it is done, but what gets me is people easily brushing it off when it's not done. The fear is real because the danger is real.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The fact that it can be done is the reason it is done, but what gets me is people easily brushing it off when it's not done. The fear is real because the danger is real.

Firearms are real too. So are shelters. So are restraining orders. So are the police. So is the law.

 

[TexRex]

Firearms are real too. So are shelters. So are restraining orders. So are the police. So is the law.

That's the most consistently beneficial option listed.

The position of firearms used for self defense held by organizations I've worked with, and indeed myself, is that they're more likely to do harm than good. The potential for the abused to be victimized with the firearm they acquired is real, and when they are used successfully in defense of the abused, there are those who deny the existence of battered woman's syndrome or refuse to believe that it was a factor. Now I haven't witnessed the latter myself, but I've heard of instances from people I have no reason to doubt.

I've already stated that it's too easy for the law to fail the abused, and that's something I have witnessed. Involvement of law enforcement is beneficial, but it's temporary...the failings occur down the line.

It appears a number here see no logical reason for victims to not successfully escape a violent environment, so how does one explain the seven times statistic?

 

[KungFury]

I've already stated that it's too easy for the law to fail the abused, and that's something I have witnessed. Involvement of law enforcement is beneficial, but it's temporary...the failings occur down the line.

I don't understand this stance. The law is in place to investigate crime and prosecute criminals and not protect as we're so often told. Either way they do indeed fail to protect but your answer is to not protect ourselves?

If would be rapists become dead by gun often enough maybe they will think twice or not?

 

[TexRex]

I don't understand this stance. The law is in place to investigate crime and prosecute criminals and not protect as we're so often told.

That's why the involvement of law enforcement is temporary as I stated. If a perpetrator is present, they're arrested. The judicial system's failure occurs after this and law enforcement is only involved again if that first step takes place again.

Either way they do indeed fail to protect but your answer is to not protect ourselves?

If a victim is capable of self-defense, I believe wholeheartedly that they should utilize it*, but I don't believe guns are the answer.

*Then again, victims wouldn't be victims if they were consistently capable of protecting themselves.

If would be rapists become dead by gun often enough maybe they will think twice or not?

Then let's arm everyone, right? It seems to me there's a more appropriate thread to voice that sentiment.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's the most consistently beneficial option listed.

The position of firearms used for self defense held by organizations I've worked with, and indeed myself, is that they're more likely to do harm than good. The potential for the abused to be victimized with the firearm they acquired is real, and when they are used successfully in defense of the abused, there are those who deny the existence of battered woman's syndrome or refuse to believe that it was a factor. Now I haven't witnessed the latter myself, but I've heard of instances from people I have no reason to doubt.

I've already stated that it's too easy for the law to fail the abused, and that's something I have witnessed. Involvement of law enforcement is beneficial, but it's temporary...the failings occur down the line.

It appears a number here see no logical reason for victims to not successfully escape a violent environment, so how does one explain the seven times statistic?

That's why the involvement of law enforcement is temporary as I stated. If a perpetrator is present, they're arrested. The judicial system's failure occurs after this and law enforcement is only involved again if that first step takes place again.


If a victim is capable of self-defense, I believe wholeheartedly that they should utilize it*, but I don't believe guns are the answer.

*Then again, victims wouldn't be victims if they were consistently capable of protecting themselves.


Then let's arm everyone, right? It seems to me there's a more appropriate thread to voice that sentiment.

You seem to have a lot of anecdotes and reasons why people can't use the tools available to defend themselves. I've been around a long time, I've seen a lot of things and I have quite a few anecdotes of my own. I've never seen anyone that truly wanted to escape an unhealthy, abusive situation, took the proper steps and was not able to break away. I've seen plenty of people talk about wanting to escape an abusive situation but stick around because the abuser was going to change or they didn't think he/she deserved to go to jail or because they didn't like the options presented to them or because they didn't want to be embarassed in front of their family or because they thought they wouldn't be safe anywhere. The biggest abuse is usually of the mind, not the body. Abusers convince their victims there is no way out, they'll get them no matter where they go, and that they're worthless and stupid and no one else will want them. That isn't true. That's the real battle IMO. No system is perfect, but it can't work if you don't try to use the tools at hand to the best of your, and their, ability.

 

[Danoff]

It appears a number here see no logical reason for victims to not successfully escape a violent environment, so how does one explain the seven times statistic?

Fear. It's not logical, it's emotional. You're right, I see no logical reason for the victims not to escape in the US. But, I do see a reason. I hope that the people who are trapped, for whatever reason, are able to be convinced that it's not logical, and they do have options.

Does that make sense? I'm not trying to dismiss the notion that it happens.

 

[TexRex]

I'm not trying to dismiss the notion that it happens.

You established this in your last post but I appreciate the reiteration. That position wasn't apparent [to me] initially, and perhaps I did want to misunderstand. I've seen some outright dismiss the issue of domestic abuse as an "illusion" put forth by I can't imagine whom--in their minds likely some overly leftist entity with an agenda--and because your position [that is now apparent but] wasn't apparent, that's where my mind went. I apologize for the confusion, but hope it puts some reactions and remarks into perspective.
----------------------------------------------
Moving to the topic as specified by the thread title, this has come to light.

 

[Johnnypenso]

----------------------------------------------
Moving to the topic as specified by the thread title, this has come to light.

While I am no fan of USA Gymnastics for their apparent complicity in this debacle or of Doctor Nassar, the specifics of this case seems pretty clear after a brief read. The gymnast in this case had legal counsel and chose to trade off her silence for money and now regrets it. Perhaps at the time, if she had chosen the greater good over her personal gain she would not now have this regret.

 

[Imari]

Claiming that trauma drove her from the sport? Well, yeah, but if it was sexual abuse trauma it was probably secondary to the massive string of injuries she had before retiring.

 

[TenEightyOne]

While I am no fan of USA Gymnastics for their apparent complicity in this debacle or of Doctor Nassar, the specifics of this case seems pretty clear after a brief read. The gymnast in this case had legal counsel and chose to trade off her silence for money and now regrets it.

Reading a little further shows that her attorney at the time calls US Gymnastics' claim "misleading", surely it'd be better to know exactly how the NDA came about? That article claims that it was presented as a prerequisite for funding pyschological treatment - something she'd surely need after years of "invasive pelvic therapy" for the coach's sexual gratification?

Perhaps at the time, if she had chosen the greater good over her personal gain she would not now have this regret.

Well, if it was that simple then it'd be that simple a lot more often. Sadly it isn't. Victims don't tend to thing of any greater good at critical times and paedophiles often work by isolating victims. I'd applaud Maroney if she had considered a greater good but I don't think she can be condemned for not doing so.

Claiming that trauma drove her from the sport? Well, yeah, but if it was sexual abuse trauma it was probably secondary to the massive string of injuries she had before retiring.

Surely mental injuries are a thing, or are we saying that what this guy was doing wasn't so bad?

 

[Imari]

Surely mental injuries are a thing, or are we saying that what this guy was doing wasn't so bad?

Mental injuries are absolutely a thing. What the guy was doing could absolutely have been bad enough to drive her from the sport.

However there was also that pile of injuries that she had stacking up.

http://olympics.nbcsports.com/2016/02/24/mckayla-maroney-retires-gymnastics-olympics/

Concussion. Broken toe. Fractured shin. Broken tibia with screws in it, followed by full rehabilitation and months away from training. Knee surgery. As a gymnast, I think at that point physical limitations would be a legitimate reason to wind down your professional career all on their own.

I'm not saying that any sexual abuse that may have occurred wouldn't have contributed. I'm saying that in 2015 her top-level gymnastics career was basically over regardless of any sexual abuse. I find the claim of being driven from the sport (at least at the Olympic level) a little odd given that she was past being able to be in it at all. It sounds a bit Hollywood, a way to make the abuse seem somehow even worse, as if a doctor molesting a team of teenage athletes wouldn't be enough for people to really get up in arms about.

Then again, people seem completely able to defend the Catholic church and other organisations with histories of serial child molestation, so perhaps she's doing the right thing by spicing up her story a bit.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not saying that any sexual abuse that may have occurred wouldn't have contributed. I'm saying that in 2015 her top-level gymnastics career was basically over regardless of any sexual abuse. I find the claim of being driven from the sport (at least at the Olympic level) a little odd given that she was past being able to be in it at all.

But the coach was in it and he was far from being able to perform medal-winning floor routines. Normally one would expect that she could easily go on to coaching/management in US Gymnastics, at least that's the impression I had?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Reading a little further shows that her attorney at the time calls US Gymnastics' claim "misleading", surely it'd be better to know exactly how the NDA came about? That article claims that it was presented as a prerequisite for funding pyschological treatment - something she'd surely need after years of "invasive pelvic therapy" for the coach's sexual gratification?

No. Her attorney at the time was Gloria Allred and according to USA Gymnastics it was her idea. "The concept of confidentiality" was initiated by Maroney's attorney at the time of the settlement, Gloria Allred, who asked the organization to take part in a "confidential mediation process.” It's her current attorney, John Manley, that calls the claim misleading. Regardless, it doesn't matter who initiated it if both sides agreed to it in exchange for compensation.

Well, if it was that simple then it'd be that simple a lot more often. Sadly it isn't. Victims don't tend to thing of any greater good at critical times and paedophiles often work by isolating victims. I'd applaud Maroney if she had considered a greater good but I don't think she can be condemned for not doing so.

She wasn't isolated. She had the best legal advice money can buy from a lawyer that is nationally famous for taking on the cases abused and mistreated women and is a well known advocate for women's rights. It's not like she was brought into a room alone and bullied or leveraged into signing an agreement. She didn't deserve anything that happened to her, I sympathize with her plight but she made an informed choice at the time, she chose money in exchange for silence. She chose personal compensation vs. helping her fellow gymnasts, past, present and future. She likely condemned other women to suffer the same fate as her and also did nothing to help others who had already suffered the same fate, get the compensation and treatment they might also have deserved and needed.

 

[Imari]

But the coach was in it and he was far from being able to perform medal-winning floor routines. Normally one would expect that she could easily go on to coaching/management in US Gymnastics, at least that's the impression I had?

She's not exited gymnastics entirely. She's just not competing at an Olympic level any more. The link in the original article goes directly to the one I posted, discussing her injuries.

If there's more to it then by all means point me to it, but the reporting is pretty clear about the reasoning it's drawing. I don't see anything mentioned that supports that the abuse was a reason for her leaving the sport, other than completely reasonable assumptions that we as normal people might make and the ongoing struggle that she was having with mental illness caused by the abuse. But it is mentioned very clearly that she had numerous injuries and was also having trouble keeping up physically.

Again, is it not enough that she was molested? Do we also need claims that she was forced out of USA Gymnastics because of it? Claims that don't seem to be referenced anywhere in the source material? If you've got a source, then by all means provide it and I'll be right there with you. But so far I'm seeing that she was abused pretty much her whole career, got fairly heavily injured and fell into mental problems, retired, took a settlement to try and deal with her issues (a settlement that was probably illegal and outright disgusting in how they tried to hush up the matter), and then broke this story about the abuse.

 

[KungFury]

No sexual harassment for you, I'm a racist.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...cause_he_didnt_harass_her_.html#ixzz522JFYRmk

Not a great source but the quotes if true, are what they are.

 

[Johnnypenso]

No sexual harassment for you, I'm a racist.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...cause_he_didnt_harass_her_.html#ixzz522JFYRmk

Not a great source but the quotes if true, are what they are.

The quotes are her interpretations of the events. The original source is an Esquire article. I honestly have no idea how anyone navigates this minefield of political correctness and perceived slights and offenses when it seems like no matter which way you go, you're wrong.
Does the black staffer deal primarily with the black guests or would putting a white person in that role mean cultural appropriation? Which is the worst offence? Or is it which is the least offensive?
Does the star of the show, a man with decades of experience in the business, determine it's tone and content when non-white guests are involved or is he deliberately being racist towards the rookie, low-level black staffer by not honouring her suggestions as to how the interviews should be conducted? Should you invite Steven Spielberg , who's doing a promotional tour for his new movie, into your studio and do a puff piece about a movie which is what he's expecting, or ambush him with questions about exploiting black history through a white lens?
Only a fraction of the guests on the show were black but then again, only a fraction of the population is black. Was it racist? What % of black guest booking is racist?
Charlie only harassed the white girls, was that also racist? Should Charlie have also harassed the non-whites just to be fair?
Charlie didn't just have a preference for white women, "his sexualization of white women was a manifestation of gendered power dynamics in the same way that his not sexualizing me was an expression of racialized power dynamics." I can't tell if that's a real statement or a line from an upcoming Saturday Night Live episode mocking the absurdity of the SJW movement.

 

[Famine]

So at the moment it looks like the process is:
* Get accused of sexually harassing someone
* Get convicted by media, without any legal action ever taking place
* Lose entire career and vanish from airwaves

If you're male. If you're female, on the other hand, it goes like this:
* Get accused of sexually harassing someone
* Get ignored by media, despite ongoing legal action
* Get booked to perform at glitzy, televised New Year's Eve event (despite sucking out loud at it the previous year)

And the story about Mariah Carey sounds very familiar - call for person to come to hotel room, greet them more or less entirely naked, hurl abuse at them if they don't respond to sexual advance.

I guess Weinsteining is only wrong if you're male.

 

[Imari]

I guess Weinsteining is only wrong if you're male.

Feminism is very clear that there are different societal standards for men and women.

What gets up my nose is that "modern" feminism only seems to care when those are to the detriment of women. And even thinking about anything like a men's advocacy group to push for legitimate equality is also a ticket to being branded an outcast for the rest of your life.

 

[KungFury]

Like this?

 

[Com Fox]

Like this?

I really get boiled up from stuff like this, not because she's an 🤬. There's a lot of 🤬 in the world and couldn't care less, but I absolutely hate hypocrital 🤬.

It represents to me that nobody wins with these us vs. them mentality wars. Almost everything that is portrayed by most as the good side pull the same tactics as the "bad guys". It doesn't make your side right, it makes it just as bad and I rather watch both die out. Willing to sacrifice innocent livelihoods for a "greater good" is exactly what their opposition thinks.

 

[UKMikey]

I really get boiled up from stuff like this, not because she's an 🤬. There's a lot of 🤬 in the world and couldn't care less, but I absolutely hate hypocrital 🤬.

I don't think Lindin represents any kind of opinion except a very tiny minority's. She closed down her Twitter account after those outrageous tweets.