# No big deal, right? She wasn't your daughter **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 18, 2009, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194 "2009-10-18T02:35:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/141 "2009-10-20T22:19:38Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Because there’s a deadweight cost to regulation. Which means profit-minded firms will either charge us more for goods and services or provide us with lesser quality goods and services. And this regulation in particular is addressed to one extraordinary situation that can hardly be held to obtain in nearly any other case. So we ended spending more money than we need to for no apparent reason. Are you suggesting that it would cost a company too much money if they were NOT allowed to put an unenforceable binding arbitration clause into an employment contract? A clause that only deals with forcing binding arbitration in the case of > [@](#): > > any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention. ?? You suggest that it would be an undue financial hardship on a company if they were unable to coerce employees into signing away their legal rights? I’d suggest that if companies are concerned about their bottom line, they should not go to cour **t for over 4 years** , drawing out the inevitable decision against them, piling up lawyer fees. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/142 "2009-10-20T22:55:20Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Because there’s a deadweight cost to regulation. Which means profit-minded firms will either charge us more for goods and services or provide us with lesser quality goods and services. And this regulation in particular is addressed to one extraordinary situation that can hardly be held to obtain in nearly any other case. So we ended spending more money than we need to for no apparent reason. Wow, it’s a good thing this regulation wasn’t in force before this, because otherwise KBR might have been forced to sell us lower quality materials and shoddy workmanship that could have led to substantial numbers of American soldiers dying in the showers from electrocution! Whew, dodged that bullet! :rolleyes: And if you think sexual abuse of American women by male colleagues in a war zone is an “extraordinary situation” then I submit you’re pretty fucking naive about how business is conducted in Iraq. That extensive a gang rape scenario didn’t just happen out of nowhere, coalescing in some mysteriously magical manner from the otherwise pristine purity of the KBR work environment and corporate ethos, wholly fuelled by a ragtag band of bad apples that Manchurian Candidated their way past the eagle eyed guardians at KBR Human Resources, who generally use the scales of Anubis to weigh the worth of each candidate–must’ve been in the shop that day. I’d say it’s more reasonable to assume that the case that spurred this amendment was much more likely to be “business as usual that got out of hand, oops.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/143 "2009-10-20T23:12:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Again, the language of the amendment would seem to exclude most of that long list unless they arise from sexual misconduct. NO. > [@](#): > > …through arbitration **any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964** or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention. OR. Any claim under title VII OR any sexual misconduct claim. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/144 "2009-10-21T00:47:08Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > The ends of hundreds of thousands died, people brutally tortured, and suffocating war debt was worth lying? > > Maybe the justified end was the massive unemployment that could have been avoided had republicans stopped committing war crimes long enough to fix the banking sector? Of course not. Why would I say that? Oh, I get it … you’re making assumptions about people you don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Peanut\_Gallery](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/838e76/32.png) [@Peanut\_Gallery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut_Gallery)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/145 "2009-10-21T00:51:05Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Because there’s a deadweight cost to regulation. Which means profit-minded firms will either charge us more for goods and services or provide us with lesser quality goods and services. And this regulation in particular is addressed to one extraordinary situation that can hardly be held to obtain in nearly any other case. So we ended spending more money than we need to for no apparent reason. No apparent reason? The reason is knowing that my tax dollars do not go to companies who systematically suppress rape cases and god only knows what else for profit. I can accept that by giving up the practice, they’ll raise their fees to accommodate the projected increase in costs, and then some tyrant liberal will raise my taxes to pay them more (and we’ll \*still \*get reduced service…). If it costs a little more to do business while treating people decently, then we pay more. Or we invade less countries for recreation. Halliburton should just fuck off and die for plenty of reasons by now. I sure hope their next contract has some other bidders. Suggesting that we not improve standards just because they happen to be the one doing the work today (and guilty of the abuse today) is complacent. And it’s not “regulation”. This is the free market at work. This is the customer defining what they want from sellers, and giving them a chance to perform or adapt in some other way. It is only unusual as contract requirements go because instead of being a demand to squeeze more money out of something, it is a demand to inject more care for human beings into it. ---
**Author:** ![Peanut\_Gallery](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/838e76/32.png) [@Peanut\_Gallery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut_Gallery)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/146 "2009-10-21T00:53:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Any claim under title VII OR any sexual misconduct claim. Great. Let’s discourage companies from trying to suppress crimes, and/or trick people into giving up their rights. I feel even better about it. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/147 "2009-10-21T01:11:13Z")
> [@Peanut\_Gallery](#): > > No apparent reason? The reason is knowing that my tax dollars do not go to companies who systematically suppress rape cases and god only knows what else for profit. I can accept that by giving up the practice, they’ll raise their fees to accommodate the projected increase in costs, and then some tyrant liberal will raise my taxes to pay them more (and we’ll \*still \*get reduced service…). If it costs a little more to do business while treating people decently, then we pay more. Or we invade less countries for recreation. > > Halliburton should just fuck off and die for plenty of reasons by now. I sure hope their next contract has some other bidders. Suggesting that we not improve standards just because they happen to be the one doing the work today (and guilty of the abuse today) is complacent. > > And it’s not “regulation”. This is the free market at work. This is the customer defining what they want from sellers, and giving them a chance to perform or adapt in some other way. It is only unusual as contract requirements go because instead of being a demand to squeeze more money out of something, it is a demand to inject more care for human beings into it. It is more likely it was rewarded to them without bids ,and then guaranteed profit and accepting cost over runs. That is not about free enterprise. That is how unconected people do business. If you are connected you just do pretty much what you want and get guaranteed profits. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/148 "2009-10-21T02:09:42Z")
> [@Peanut\_Gallery](#): > > Great. Let’s discourage companies from trying to suppress crimes, and/or trick people into giving up their rights. I feel even better about it. AGAIN: That’s fine. Perfectly valid point of view. But let’s NOT accomplish that perfectly fine goal by claiming that it’s a way to redress harms caused by gang rape. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/149 "2009-10-21T02:31:44Z")
I will totally agree **Bricker** , that the hyperbole of senators “voting for gang rape” does not help. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/150 "2009-10-21T02:48:52Z")
Even though it’s true. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/151 "2009-10-21T03:19:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Even though it’s true. Your only value in discussions here, **Diogenes** , is to offer up commentary that others read and then compare unfavorably with actual arguments. You are the great rock, practically immovable in your own ideas once you have announced them. While it happens that you will concede error, you do so only after mountains upon mountains of incontrovertible evidence has been piled in front of you and pages upon pages of your intransigent refusal to look at any point of view besides your own have passed. In short, the effort required to convince you to change your mind is so mind-bogglingly absurd that it’s practically never worth it. But ignoring you is not the best solution, because continuing the dialog allows many other people reading the discussion to get a good sense of the actual issues and perhaps change their own minds, a task not nearly as herculean as changing yours. In case you were wondering why people keep talking to you, now you know. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/152 "2009-10-21T03:41:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Even though it’s true. Oh, **Dio** , if you’re going to be daft, do at least be consistent. A few pages ago you got quite shirty when I said you called this a referendum on gang-rape. You were very adamant that it was about subsidizing gang-rape–a much different thing, one presumes, in **Dioland**. But now we see it embraced head on. So which is it? Once and for all? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/153 "2009-10-21T03:48:42Z")
**Diogenes** , do you know that feeling you get when you hear an argument centered around, I don’t know, Swift Boats or medals or inventing the internet or birth certificates or being a secret Muslim? You know how it makes you sick and makes you want to just give up entirely on the idea that people can be more or less decent something like half of the time? You know how it fills you with that toxic cocktail of superiority and moral indignation and spite and contempt, and prevents you from even acknowledging that there’s such a thing as a reasonable disagreement with your point of view? I’m as anti-corporation, regulation-tolerant, socially liberal a person as you’re likely to ever run across on these boards, and you’re giving me that feeling. Fuck, if the Franken amendment had been a proclamation that “Hey, Fuck Halliburton, they’re all going to jail,” on a personal level I would have been just tickled like a motherfucker. But you’re still giving me that feeling. I agree with your perspective, broadly speaking, but you’re being a dick and you’ve got yourself stuck in despite not really knowing what you’re saying. You’re getting a pretty mild reaction, actually, considering the way you’re behaving in this thread. Give it a rest. Engage an idea or two, for christ’s sake. There are important things happening in the world. Don’t be on my side and be one of the people playing catchphrase Bingo, please? Fucking please? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/154 "2009-10-21T04:14:30Z")
Bricker. Thanks for the legal analysis. But for the third time, if the gang [del]rape[/del] of thirty didn’t want the broader language, they could have offered an alternative amendment. They didn’t, so it creates the appearance that they are not unduly concerned about gangrape or sexual harrassment. eg: **Hypothetical Republican Amendment of 2009 #1** : “…subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [del]or[/del] and [del]any tort[/del] related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.” If the Republican Senate offered an amendment like that, we could have serious discussion. Since they didn’t, I’m inclined to go with the hypothesis that they were simply obeying their corporate masters. Yes that’s shrill. But I fear that it’s accurate: today 3/4 of Republican Senators take the sort of extreme positions that 20 years ago would have only attracted a mere handful. Separately for the 2nd time, **Bricker** hasn’t named any Republican Senator that actually shared his concerns. Admittedly that would require some digging and I can understand why he’d be reluctant to go to that effort. Suffice it to say that Bricker wasn’t working off of Senator Sessions’ remarks on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/155 "2009-10-21T04:20:15Z")
**Hypothetical Republican End Gangrape as We Know It Amendment of 2009 #2** : “…subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [del]or[/del] and [del]any tort[/del] related to or arising out of sexual assault [del]or harassment[/del], including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.” ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/156 "2009-10-21T04:20:25Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Or maybe they just don’t think the braying of **Dio** and his ilk is worth responding to. I’d have supposed that a vote for gang-rape in the United States Senate would have made the newspapers, but outside of the Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground, nobody really seems to be carrying this story. [Victim: Gang-Rape Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR - ABC News](http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1&page=1) Hows ABC news. Is that main stream enough. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/157 "2009-10-21T04:21:57Z")
[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-11-halliburton-rape\_N.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-11-halliburton-rape_N.htm) USA Today is pretty mainstream too. I suppose Fox did not cover it. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/158 "2009-10-21T04:45:04Z")
The USA Today and ABC news articles are from Dec 2007. They therefore cannot cover the Senate vote. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/159 "2009-10-21T04:48:05Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Victim: Gang-Rape Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR - ABC News](http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1&page=1) Hows ABC news. Is that main stream enough. I meant more that the Franken Amendment isn’t really newsworthy. Jones’s story, when it broke two years ago was, obviously. But I think most outlets aren’t covering it because the Franken Amendment is kind of nakedly not much more than an attempt to paint the GOP into a corner. But it’s exceedingly unimportant legislation, and I’ll put it to you that the circumstances that have inspired it will likely never recur (not, clearly, that we should hope they recur–but this really is a “solution” without a problem). My problem with the Franken Amendment is that I don’t like this kind of desultory tampering with the substantive law of dispute resolution procedure. I would like to keep procedural justice as whole and systematic as we can, and not to turn it into a battlefield for partisan point-scoring. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2009, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194/160 "2009-10-21T05:00:14Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > But it’s exceedingly unimportant legislation, and I’ll put it to you that the circumstances that have inspired it will likely never recur (not, clearly, that we should hope they recur–but this really is a “solution” without a problem). I’m puzzled. [A KBR employee](http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/090715_kbr_assault_allegations) was charged with sexually assaulting a woman in October 2008. During the 2000s the military contracted out much of its work to private services, for reasons that were somewhat dubious. Why do you believe that women working for KBR et al won’t be raped while on duty in the future? Or do I misunderstand? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-big-deal-right-she-wasnt-your-daughter/514194.md?page=9)