Celebrity Sexual Harassment Charge Sheet

[Forty Two]

The next creep: Charlie Rose ousted by both CBS and PBS after harassment allegations

Turns out, all the men harassed all the women in all the places. Next offender may be Stephen Hawking.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation ... story.html

Hawking already is a sexual harasser. He publicized a bet he made with Kip Thorne on the issue of the existence of black holes. The loser would purchase the winner a year-long subscription to the pornographic and sexist magazine "Penthouse," which featured stereotypically "hot" women, scantily clad and nude, and posed in sexual positions with men and other women all for the prurient enjoyment of men and the "male gaze." Publishing that bet means that some women he works with or teaches will feel uncomfortable and unsafe at his university because they may not meet the Penthouse standards of beauty and physicality and sexual libertinism. Some would be constantly in fear that Hawking's male gaze was judging them based on their appearance and willingness to engage in kinky acts, rather than their scientific worth.

Also, his views are deeply problematic, in that he has stated publicly that robots will replace humans entirely. If this were to come about, like on the issues of climate change, heating and cooling, shoes, shopping, taxes, glaciers, etc., women would be most effected, and therefore it is a sexist and harassing thing to say and would make people at his university uncomfortable. Like the investigators at Wilfred-Laurier university said about airing a debate including the viewpoint of someone who argued against mandating the use of a myriad newly coined pronouns, airing the view that humans would be replaced by robots is deeply problematic.

[Tero]

https://twitter.com/EricPaulLeue/status ... 5381799937

[Brian Peacock]

Lol, now it's John Conyers, Democratic representative from Detroit, Michigan, and longest serving member of the House of Representatives.

They're starting to eat their own. Of course, the "victim" is remaining anonymous, fearing some unspecified but no doubt horrifying "retribution". Salem witch trials, 2017 version.

I'm really enjoying all this, I've always loved broad farce and slapstick. I'm particularly enjoying the about face on Slick Willy by several young democratic women, who now think he should have resigned. Hey, you dim cunt, I said that YEARS ago, and was branded a reactionary, knuckle dragging Republican. Lol, the worm ain't just turning, it's hoppin' around like a flea on a hot griddle, to mix my metaphors (and phyla).

In the 1990s, the President of the US having sex romps with a 21 year old intern in the White House was not the patriarchy exerting its power over an oppressed and marginalized person whose "consent" was not real consent due to power disparity. Back then, the leftist folks had some sense that a woman actually has some agency of her own. Today, if a man makes a pass at a woman, it's sexual harassment, because even if the woman says she welcomed the advance, that's just the patriarchal culture talking and she's really been harassed and doesn't even know it. Women react to harassment differently and in an infinite number of ways, so we cannot judge whether a woman was harassed by what she says or does, except if she says it was sexual harassment. Ergo, if she says it was harassment, it was harassment. if she doesn't say it was harassment, it was harassment. The only exception is if it's a politician or "ally" whose message is too important to the movement...

Gosh, what a chip you have 42. it's not a new things for sexual harassment and abusive behaviour to be considered normal by the both the harasser and the harassed, and many women considered, and still consider, it a 'normal' fact of life. Friends and family members, work colleagues, bosses, and political allies have always made excuses for harassers and abusers, and in that sought to blame, discredit, or otherwise gaslight the harassed and abused. Women have been sexually harassed and abused by men forever, and tone-policing the language people use to describe and object to it doesn't change any of that. So, what exactly do you want us to think about here? Why do you continue to favour a narrative which essentially maintains that it is impossible to determine if someone has actually been harassed in arguments ranging from suggestions that victims have or are misinterpreting events, contexts, and circumstances, to the idea that touching and lascivious remarks are trivial actions which can be dismissed without reference to any other context, to ones specifically bemoaning feminism for muddying the waters by calling out controlling and bullying behaviour?

[Forty Two]

LOL - "chip?" I don't have a chip.

It isn't a new thing for sexual harassment and abusive behavior to be considered normal by both the harasser and harassed. Sure. But, if the harassed person doesn't consider it sexual harassment, then it's not sexual harassment. There are not prior restraints on speech - things you "cannot say." If a man and woman in the workplace tell each other dirty jokes every day, and she participates in it and says that it doesn't bother her, and she likes it. She's not being sexually harassed. That's why there is an element of sexual harassment cases (the hostile environment variety) that involves "welcomeness" - i.e. conduct must be "unwelcome" to be harassment. Even vulgar, sexual, and other such conduct is not sexual harassment if it is welcomed behavior.

There is a lot of conduct that goes on between men and women that, if reported on the news, sounds a lot like sexual harassment. Like if a woman reports that at an after work happy hour gathering, a man made sexual comments to her and suggested that they go back to his place for sex. Is that harassment? Doesn't it depend on her state of mind? If she welcomed it, because she herself was a sexual person who was sexually attracted to the guy, and she also suggested that they have a romp in the hay, would that still be sexual harassment?

"Why do you continue to favour a narrative which essentially maintains that it is impossible to determine if someone has actually been harassed in arguments ranging from suggestions that victims have or are misinterpreting events, ..."

I don't favor any narrative. I don't view guilt or innocence in these matters as a function of a narrative. Narrative just means "preconception" or "presupposition." You're assuming something about a specific allegation or event based on the "narrative" of what should be true or is normally true in these instances. That's not justice. It's common in "social justice" but it is not justice.

It is not, moreover, impossible to determine if someone has actually been harassed. However, acknowledging that PEOPLE can and do misinterpret events, have faulty memories, and misreport events, etc., is not a "narrative." It's a reality in the world. It applies everywhere, and no less to sexual harassment. The narrative people try to sell is one that sex assault and harassment claims are somehow more inviolable than other claims - that "women don't lie" and "believe the women" - that's a narrative. And, it means that we abandon critical thinking, and skepticism, in favor of that narrative. I won't do that, because it's irrational.

[DRSB]

Lol, now it's John Conyers, Democratic representative from Detroit, Michigan, and longest serving member of the House of Representatives.

They're starting to eat their own. Of course, the "victim" is remaining anonymous, fearing some unspecified but no doubt horrifying "retribution". Salem witch trials, 2017 version.

I'm really enjoying all this, I've always loved broad farce and slapstick. I'm particularly enjoying the about face on Slick Willy by several young democratic women, who now think he should have resigned. Hey, you dim cunt, I said that YEARS ago, and was branded a reactionary, knuckle dragging Republican. Lol, the worm ain't just turning, it's hoppin' around like a flea on a hot griddle, to mix my metaphors (and phyla).

In the 1990s, the President of the US having sex romps with a 21 year old intern in the White House was not the patriarchy exerting its power over an oppressed and marginalized person whose "consent" was not real consent due to power disparity. Back then, the leftist folks had some sense that a woman actually has some agency of her own. Today, if a man makes a pass at a woman, it's sexual harassment, because even if the woman says she welcomed the advance, that's just the patriarchal culture talking and she's really been harassed and doesn't even know it. Women react to harassment differently and in an infinite number of ways, so we cannot judge whether a woman was harassed by what she says or does, except if she says it was sexual harassment. Ergo, if she says it was harassment, it was harassment. if she doesn't say it was harassment, it was harassment. The only exception is if it's a politician or "ally" whose message is too important to the movement...

True! One woman feels harassed, another one flattered. It all depends on how attractive the man is. Attractiveness has many facets, to some in may be a six-pack to others a six-figure income. Women make passes too by the way! They invite men to lunches under the guise of business talks when all they have in mind is getting a husband an provider, this is just how women are. A lady I know spoke to an attractive man at a gala, invited him to lunch several days later, he responded he'd be up for dinner instead, now they are married! This is what I call one advance leading to another!

[Forty Two]

It partly depends on whether the woman welcomed the conduct.

As I've mentioned, sexual harassment has an objective and subjective component. The objective component is a standard of reasonableness that means that not everything someone subjectively feels is inappropriate or even harassing is, in fact, harassing. It must be such that a reasonable person would find it to be harassing. Trifles are not sexual harassment. Something only an unreasonable person would find sexually harassing is not sexual harassment.

Next, even if something rises to the level of conduct a reasonable person could find to be sexually harassing, the subjective component requires that the complaining person have actually found the conduct unwelcome AT THE TIME.

The analysis has nothing to do with "how women are." The analysis is individual, not via an identity group. Women are all over the map, like men.

[DRSB]

It partly depends on whether the woman welcomed the conduct.

As I've mentioned, sexual harassment has an objective and subjective component. The objective component is a standard of reasonableness that means that not everything someone subjectively feels is inappropriate or even harassing is, in fact, harassing. It must be such that a reasonable person would find it to be harassing. Trifles are not sexual harassment. Something only an unreasonable person would find sexually harassing is not sexual harassment.

Next, even if something rises to the level of conduct a reasonable person could find to be sexually harassing, the subjective component requires that the complaining person have actually found the conduct unwelcome AT THE TIME.

The analysis has nothing to do with "how women are." The analysis is individual, not via an identity group. Women are all over the map, like men.

I am with you on the point of the timing. Yes, all it took was a case against Weinstein to unleash a storm that had been kept under the lid for decades. We are hearing the actresses that turned down the roles, we don't know how many took the roles even though they many have cursed him under their breath, they'd be too ashamed to acknowledge the transaction.

[Forty Two]

Well, with Weinstein, the analysis is a little different. The harassment in the case of Weinstein seeems to mostly be "quid pro quo" sexual harassment, which is not the same thing as mere unwanted advances by someone who is not an employer or supervisor. In the case where Weinstein is conditioning a role on submission to sexual acts, then even if the actor or actress submits, they can claim quid pro quo harassment.

That's a different animal than the hostile environment type harassment where the issue is whether conduct of a sexual nature was unwelcome.

[laklak]

When does sexual harassment become a mutually beneficial transaction? I support the legalization of prostitution, on the grounds that it's her body and she can do what she wants with it. If that includes charging money for some dude to stick his bits in then so be it. Plenty of older, rich men get young trophy wives, who probably wouldn't look twice at them were it not for the money. Is that harassment? There is definitely a power differential, and refusing to suck his dick would definitely impact their lifestyle. How about mail order brides? Marry a fat, basement dwelling gamer with bad breath and get American citizenship. Harassment or transaction?

Fact is, sex has been an alternative currency for basically ever, and that's unlikely to change no matter how many times Lena Dunham throws a wobbly.

[pErvinalia]

How about mail order brides? Marry a fat, basement dwelling gamer with bad breath and get American citizenship. Harassment or transaction?

Dave Dodo's life.

[laklak]

Dave has bad breath?

[pErvinalia]

Only cucks have good breath!

[laklak]

Probably the mouthwash they use after sucking all that feminist cock.

[pErvinalia]

[Brian Peacock]