I would not characterize his behavior as you did.
No, you are not right and I never said or suggested or implied that there is “no number” that will convince me.
You don’t seem to be getting the difference between “a customary greeting ritual that involves touching” and “touching somebody without their consent”.
Do your supervisors, or strangers on the street, pinch your bottom if they feel like it? If so, do you consider that sort of thing fundamentally (so to speak) no different from a customary kiss of greeting?
Meh, even at its worst the national culture of today is still much better than the 1950s world of Jim Crow segregation, routine workplace sexual harassment and sexist discrimination, rape victim shaming, suppression and persecution of gay and transgender people, codes of silence about child sexual abuse, blackballing Jews from institutions, and all the other forms of discrimination and prejudice that were taken for granted back then.
If you old straight cisgender conservative white males don’t approve of the way that modern liberals are trying to fix these problems, why didn’t you fix them yourselves back before the cultural revolution of the 1960s that you keep complaining about?
The cultural revolution only caught on in the first place because so much of the existing “establishment” culture was so deeply shitty, especially for those who weren’t old straight cisgender conservative white males.
I’m so deeply disgusted by Al Franken and, as silly as it seems, his actions almost seem like a betrayal. The picture is in such bad taste, I doubt even rats would take a nibble. With that said, I don’t think he should resign. Yet. If more women come forward then let justice be done. As it stands, I think Franken should be publically admonished. His apology suggests he knows he’s wrong (much better than the ego-stroking, totally missing the point Louis C.K. apology, at least). He should be told in unequivocal terms that what he did was improper. Perhaps given a Congressional censure. If the voters decide in 2021(?) that this incident means he shouldn’t be a Senator then so be it. I think asking for his resignation, at this stage, is premature for two primary reasons:
-
the nature of Franken’s assault. I have no doubt Ms. Tweeden was embarrassed/humiliated by the kissing and discovering the picture, but Franken’s case has unique circumstances that add a shade of gray. There was no power differential between the two. They were rehearsing a scene. He asked and she agreed to kiss him (the alleged badgering is repulsive, but the lack of a clear power differential and the fact she could presumably leave at any time muddies the water). From what I’ve seen of the picture, he didn’t actually grope her. She was wearing a flak jacket. The act was obviously mean-spirited and meant to humiliate her, but I don’t think it warrants Franken being called a groper. From what I’ve seen/read, he’s not from an objective, factual standpoint. I’ll change my stance if more damning information comes to light.
-
The slippery slope of forcing Senators to resign amidst public pressure. While it may seem like a good idea, I think the practical outcome will be that those with relatively minor infractions (I guess I’ll use Franken here) who have a shred of decency will tell the truth and resign while the Moores of the Senate ignore the calls, keep on denying, and go on to serve their term. A “zero tolerance” policy (one that operates retroactively, at that) sounds great in theory, but would likely be a disaster in practice. Primarily because only certain members would be playing by those rules. Not to mention that doing so would just further politicize rape/sexual assault. If a party adopts a “zero tolerance” policy, then the other party will absolutely use that to their advantage. All they would need is one incident from decades ago (is there an age limit?) to make them go away. And you can be damned sure that people will likely cast aspersions on the victim just as much as the perpetrator when everything is going down. It just seems like it would cause more problems than it would fix. I also believe that elections should generally be the decider of who becomes Senator or not. Obviously, there are exceptions but I think it’s important for them to be rare. Requiring Franken to resign over this would set a dangerous precedent. I have no doubt many Senators have done worse things (not necessarily talking about incidents with a sexual component) and Franken would just be the tip of the iceberg. I have no problem with that information being disseminated, but I believe the voters of the state that Senator represents should be the ultimate decider. I might not agree with their decision, but I think it’s important they have it.
If the Senate investigates Franken, what the hell are they going to do to Moore if he wins the election???
I wonder if there is some contemplation (by the GOP) about sacrificing Franken so they have cover to get rid of Moore, in that case. But there are probably a dozen more Franken-type accusations towards other Senators just waiting to surface. They might be playing with fire here. I bet there are more than a few Congresscritters not sleeping well tonight!!
No, what you wrote about what you think I really meant is wrong.
THey say the votes are there to unseat him, so we’ll see.
As for Franken, one incident of this nature doesn’t seem resignation-worthy to me. If more come forward, my opinion might change, but right now he’s doing the right thing. He’s cooperating with an investigation
Now we just need to know for which Congressmen $150 million in sexual harassment payoffs have been made.
…nope. I haven’t missed the point. You made a false allegation. You admitted you falsely accused me of a crime for the express purpose of, and I’ll quote you, you “made it up to make a point”.
Lets not pretend you " found someone who was in your vicinity 15 years ago for a few minutes when no one else was around." Because we both no that didn’t fucking happen. Just like we both know that Franken and Tweeden were on the same tour, we know that the picture was taken, we know that a kiss happened. We are discussing credibility: we aren’t discussing how easy it is to make an obviously false claim. Tweeden’s story is credible because both parties agree on nearly all of the fundamental details of the story. Your story is not credible because you admitted you “made it up to make a point.”
Are you not relieved? A few millimeters more and he would have been guilty of a crime!
I have not diminished the concept of trauma for anyone that experiences it. You aren’t in any position to lecture me, and especially Spice Weasel, on what constitutes trauma.
"I walked away. All I could think about was getting to a bathroom as fast as possible to rinse the taste of him out of my mouth.
I felt disgusted and violated.
…
I felt violated all over again. Embarrassed. Belittled. Humiliated.
…
I wanted to shout my story to the world with a megaphone to anyone who would listen, but even as angry as I was, I was worried about the potential backlash and damage going public might have on my career as a broadcaster.
**But that was then, this is now. I’m no longer afraid."
**
You don’t get to say if she was or wasn’t traumatised. She said she was embarrassed, belittled, humiliated, felt disgusted and violated, she was fearful for her career. A far cry from how you characterized it: as “grossed out, upset and pissed off.” (None of those words she actually used in her original statement.)
Tweeden has agency. She doesn’t need me to tell her what to do.
It wasn’t worthless at all. It served its purpose.
Yeah, I initially agreed with iiiandyiii but thinking it through logically, I can’t agree that he should resign. The punishment should be proportionate to the crime. But there should still be accountability. What does that accountability look like?
Oh, and the idea of sexual assault possibly becoming “further politicized” makes me want to throw up. This isn’t a political problem, it’s a cultural one, Jesus God just once can we not throw victims under the bus to score political points? I don’t really give a shit what’s best for Democrats or Republicans, I care what’s best for humans interacting with mutual respect.
I took his call for an ethics investigation to be a slow-rolling of any consequences so that he can stave them off until flaring tempers have cooled and thus hang onto his Senate seat. The alternative being proposed is for him to resign more-or-less immediately. In other words, it’s precisely an attempt to avoid any real consequences for his behavior, not accepting them. I thought everyone understood that.
Sorry iiandyiiii, it seems pretty clear from the various posters in this thread that the Dems have no desire to be the party of zero tolerance towards sexual harassment.
For someone who considers himself so amazingly witty and with the times, you’re surprisingly regressive and stale.
I’m thinking he’s about to bust out the paper towel tube.
I think you’re mixing up “zero tolerance” with “immediate expulsion”.
It’s possible to consistently maintain that certain types of behavior should never be tolerated and that people who commit them should be investigated and punished, without also maintaining that anybody who ever committed any form of them should instantly be entirely ostracized.
And in fact, the Dems so far seem to be doing a pretty good job of consistently maintaining that certain types of behavior should never be tolerated and that people who commit them should be investigated and punished.
Do you think we should be? On what grounds?
I can’t help but take this personally given my participation here. It really sounds like you’re suggesting my opinion is politically motivated. Do you believe that?
First, are the best people running for office? Do the best people all have something like this in their past?
Well, it’s probably not the worst thing that could happen to a woman but she isn’t calling for his banishment from society, is she? And let me ask you, how would you like to have Franken’s tongue down your throat?
First she ignored him. Then she said they didn’t have to rehearse the kiss. That’s two “No”'s right there. Apparently they were not emphatic enough. And then he badgered her and she said okay, and then he took that kiss way too far. A kiss that he wrote into the scene in the first place.
You know, I can kind of almost get there with the consent thing, since it was acting, and she saw the scene and agreed to be in it, and didn’t reject it outright. But if it was me, I’d definitely feel he took advantage. It’s more of “I consented to this, NOT this” kind of thing, which to me equals…no consent.
Is this enough to throw him out of the Senate? I don’t think so, particularly as it happened before he ever got to the Senate. But it reflects badly on him, and I sure don’t think people should be coming down on her for sharing the story.
I’ve been asking myself that same question for hours and…I’m not sure. Depending on the circumstances, a Congressional censure, some type of mandated therapy/seminars? Obviously an unequivocal statement of accountability. Community outreach geared towards educating high school/college/graduate students, specifically those interested in going into politics? What are your thoughts?
*For the record, I’m talking about offenses that are somewhere in the proximity of Franken.
I completely understand. I make a conscious effort to never question the victim’s emotions or why they reacted the way they did. Seems profoundly counterproductive and I very much imagine it’s something you can’t really comprehend unless you’ve been through it. Perhaps one of the most frustrating things about modern politics is how invasive it is. You can’t seem to escape it. You skin tone? Political. Your sexuality? Political. Your religion? Political. You being able to afford a surgery and not die? Political. Your traumatic sexual experiences traumatic? Well, you get it. Another area this really irritates me is the drug problem. Us treating it as a criminal rather than a health issue was a direct result of politics.
This might actually be on me. Sorry! When I hear “zero tolerance” I go right back to high school and the rule that if you were caught fighting, you were immediately expelled. No matter what. Anyway, “immediate expulsion” is what I was meant when referring to a “zero tolerance” policy, in case anyone was wondering.
NO! This is literally exactly the opposite of the truth. You should not be so morally bankrupt as to put political stuff, which is debatable, over sexual harassment, which is objectively wrong.
Sexual harassment is not merely a personal failing. There is a reason these assholes are being driven out of their jobs no matter how good they are at that job. Because none of that matters in the slightest if they are a sexual abuser.
This is the exact moral stance that leads to me to argue that Republicans have given up on the concept of Right and Wrong. Electing someone you disagree with may not be the best action, but it isn’t wrong. Electing someone you know who does objectively evil thing and runs a directly evil campaign is. And a moral person must prioritize doing what is right.
Lets say Weinstein were to run for the Democratic presidency, and he was somehow able to win the primary. I would not vote for him. I would campaign against him. If I didn’t, I’d be supporting a sexual harasser.
What is unreasonable is all these excuses people make. Do you or do you not think that sexual harassment is wrong? If you do, then your actions should show it. That which you oppose is that which you provide consequences for. Otherwise it’s just words.