Just a thought; maybe it’s a bad idea. But something needs to happen. I think getting it all out in the open so we can move forward with clear guidelines and rules might be more important than punishing all evildoers. In my understanding and experience of talking with victims, being allowed to come forward and tell their story with no repercussions, and preventing future abuse, is even more important (and maybe far more important) than actual criminal penalties for their abusers.
And the world will be a better place.
But seriously, we’ve got to find something to take down Kirk Cameron too.
Maybe something with a floor polisher?
Drawing a line in the sand on sexual misconduct is the guaranteed path to failure.
If you want to make men less interested in voting for the Democratic party, there is no better way to do that than lumping Franken in with CK, Moore, and Weinstein. Franken, having failed to understand his relationship with Tweeden, pushed her into a kiss and feigned groping in a picture. Once he learned how his behavior actually affected her, he apologized thoroughly and welcomed an ethics probe.
My guess is that a huge percentage of men have made these sorts of mistakes at various times in their lives and they are not the result of some compulsion to hurt women. If given the chance they would apologize for their behavior and attempt to make amends. If you want to make them feel like they aren’t much different than somebody like Weinstein or CK, then go right ahead and demand the puritanism. I am sure the Republican party will take those who feel ostracized by this “line in the sand”.
Of course, my opinion would be totally different on Franken if I thought that photo actually showed him grabbing her breasts or if the context of the groping and kiss was something where it couldn’t be ambiguous or if his response was like Trump’s or Weinstein or CK’s.
There can be a zero-tolerance policy on harassment and sexual assault, but it needs to include giving milder offenses a chance to be apologized for.
That’s true. But it puts a different spin on his going further in tongue kissing. Because if it was obvious that she was uncomfortable with the entire kiss altogether, then there’s that much less room for him to decide to make a much more sexual kiss out of it than the bare minimum “required” for the rehearsal.
Right. IOW, not enough to win.
Of course there’s a difference. But you can’t legitimately differentiate between two parties based on how one acts in a low-cost situation and how the other acts in a high-cost situation.
As for “how that looks”, maybe. One big problem the Democrats will have here is that they’ve lionized Bill Clinton all these years. I would expect if the Democrats make too much of trying to differentiate themselves in this manner, that good old Bill will come in for some more unwanted publicity from partisan circles.
I think this is downplaying and minimizing Franken’s offense. He forced a tongue kiss on her during what was supposed to be a rehearsal. That’s a violation of consent. Then he used her body (whether he touched or just pretended to) as a source of amusement and entertainment in the photograph, again violating her consent.
That’s pretty bad.
I don’t see how Franken staying a Senator helps anyone but Franken and the Republicans, who will always have a “what about Franken?” to point to the next time credible accusations are leveled at a Republican, along with a long investigation to serve as a distraction to whatever other shit they want to do.
I think you can. Not 1-to-1, perhaps, but 1-to-something. An easy good action is still better than the easy bad action; making the right choice is better than the wrong choice, even when the right choice in one circumstance is easier than the other.
Yes, Clinton could and should go down (in terms of his reputation) in my proposed strategy. This will be a painful process, but it’s highly necessary, IMO. This is just an utterly enormous problem in society.
Like I said before, there already will be doing that. They’re still echoing that same old “whatabout Clinton?” line 20 or so years after it was politically relevant.
It’s different when they’re actually in office. It’s a lot harder to be the “anti-sexual-assault” party if we tolerate a little bit of sexual assault in our ranks.
Doing the right thing matters, even if it’s just a little bit now. And it will matter more later.
Imagine if the Democrats have unanimously risen against Clinton and gotten him to resign due to the credible allegations of sexual assault (not the Lewinsky stuff, but the non-consensual stuff). Things would be pretty different now in terms of politics and sexual assault.
He’s got a real thing for bananas, so— I’m sure the photos are out there, somewhere.
OK. Not going to keep repeating myself.
OK, but the point is that just ousting Franken is not going to do it for you.
It’s relevant. Clinton has been a very respected Democratic elder statesman and is one to this day.
Yes, agreed. That would just be one insufficient by itself, but still necessary, part of what needs to be done, IMO.
I was toying with starting a thread like that in GD. I’m not in favor of blanket amnesty, but some sort of point system, and if you’re under the “cutoff point”, you can come clean, do penance, and go forth and sin no more. Points would be something like:
- Number of accusers (the more accusers, the more points)
- How long ago? (O points if it was 50 years ago, maximum points if it was this year)
- Did it involve minors?
- What was the nature of the act (high points for rape, low points of propositioning)
- etc.
And remember, it’s like golf. High scores are BAD!!!
But I’m not sure there is a way of NOT turning this into witch trials or whatnot. Practically speaking, I think we are just going to have to let this play out in all its messiness.
of course, for the americans it must have a triple signed form twenty-seven B stroke six or the consent for any kind of thing that has a touch on the dangers of anything that could have the sexual content.
but a punch in the face, it is quite all right without the form not as damaging.
funny american puritanism.
No, just requires consent. Non-sexual violence is also a bad thing, but it’s in a different category, and not related to this awful problem we have of minimizing sexual abuse, protecting abusers, and attacking accusers.
We’re exceptional.
I’m repeating the words used by Tweeden and Franken. You are exaggerating the offense.
So should we find all the Democratic officeholders who have looked at a woman’s ass? I mean if you’ve looked at 10 women’s asses then it’s probably a guarantee you’ve used a woman’s body for entertainment while violating her consent.
That’s pretty bad!
Worrying about what the Republicans might say about Franken or any of their other bugbears is loser thinking. The Democrats have messaging problems, but preventing this or that politician from running because of what the Republicans might say is, thankfully, not one of them.
btw, Ramira, you’re awesome and I enjoy reading what you have to say.
No, I’m also using her words – he stuck his tongue in her mouth.
If they took pictures staring at a woman’s ass, mugging for the camera, without her consent, then yes. That’s using a woman’s body as a prop for comedy, and isn’t okay without their consent.
I don’t care about “loser thinking” or whatever. I care about being the party against sexual assault, and showing it. If we don’t boot assaulters and gropers and violators of consent, then we’re not showing it.
I can’t agree more with this. I cringe every time someone brings up the idea that “we can’t do X because the mean ol’ Republicans will jump all over it and smear us”. “Loser thinking” is exactly right. I like that!
Save the outrage for someone who has committed a truly egregious sin, and don’t lets create a sacrificial lamb just because some pervy, GOP creep in Alabama was chasing after and trying to get into the skirts of underage girls for years and years.
N.B.: Franken needs to com clean if there are any other skeletons in the closet, though. That could change the calculus.
So a little bit of sexual assault is tolerable? A little bit of violation of consent?
It’s not the end of the world, and it’s not rape. But that doesn’t mean we have to tolerate it among our highest office-holders. Senator isn’t office manager – it’s one of the highest positions in the country. Our standards should be really, really high… and it seems to me that putting the amount of sexual assault and violation of consent that we allow as “zero”, and not “a tiny bit 11 years ago”, isn’t setting the bar particularly high.