“This allegation is categorically not true” is what Franken said about accuser #7. That doesn’t fit your narrative (emphasis added) very well.
I take your point. However, how can it be avoided? Standards of proof and evidence that apply elsewhere don’t work here. How does anyone prove anything when testimony is the only evidence?
We are witnessing a big social shift, and like anything to do with sexual behavior, there is more murk than clarity. (I read that the bonobos are the most sexually obsessed of the primates, more so than the humans, but those little fuckers are berserk!).
We are pretty clearly headed to such a standard, wherein we give extra credence to female experience and testimony. And that has potential for injustice, there is bound to be “false positives”. That may well be an injustice without a solution.
By comparison, I am wholly pro-choice, I accept the principle that a woman’s body and the choices thereof are entirely her own. The potential father of a fetus has no voice in the decision that she does not give him. Perhaps that isn’t just, and that does not matter. The choice is hers, period, full stop.
That isn’t fair? Tough shit. As regards harassment, from the trivial to the severe, men will have to adjust, especially men in positions of power. Good. Not gonna bother me any, I never put a hand anywhere its isn’t already welcome. (At least half of that is just plain lazy, true enough…)
I share your misgivings. But sweep back the tide…
What exactly do you want him to apologize for? Every action he has been accused of? Go ahead - draft a simple apology you feel would be sufficient.
I agree that Franken acted in ways he ought not have. But I strongly suspect that various factors and perceptions are involved in each of the multiple incidents, making a single blanket “apology” problematic. To a large extent, the only reason he is stepping down is because these allegations arose at this particular moment.
Moreover - while it is common to dislike “weasel words”, they are extremely useful in many situations. I do not know what potential legal implications might follow - civil lawsuits, pension issues, I don’t know what. It would be foolish for him to make some blanket admission that might further disadvantage him in the future. The fact that he is giving up his career and future is a considerable repercussion. I think it foolish to demand more. Why not make him wear a hairshirt as well!
He did say that, and got pilloried for doing so, which is why Sherred says that he isn’t allowed to do that.
Yeah, he did a little bit of both “I’m sorry for how I made them feel”-style admission, and some “she’s lying”-style denials, which simultaneously destroyed the narrative that he’s innocent and also the narrative that he’s such a nice guy he doesn’t want to call women out for lying about him. It was like the worst of both worlds.
I don’t think females are being given preference. Note that the Spacey accusers were male.
But the fact is, most sexual harass are male, and most males are straight, so most of those being harassed are going to be female. I do think that some people are playing the gender card (women don’t lie about such things!!), but I’m not seeing that as being determinative in these cases.
I agree that there is potential for abuse, but it’s more in the are of potential for voter fraud. We’re best if we stick to:
- The person’s testimony has some corroborating evidence (at least “I told a friend or two about it at the time”)
- We don’t overreact to a single charge, but look for a pattern.
- Rely on the established media outlets and their ability to fact check rather than on random tips here and there.
No system is 100% perfect, but I think it’s possible to put common sense safeguards in place so as to avoid a McCarthy style witch hunt.
Well, saying you’ll get criticiized for something is quite different from saying you are “prohibited” from doing that thing. But, I guess I missed the pillorying. Can you cite it? He also denied some of the accusations were true in his “I’m leaving the Senate speech”. The NYT notes only one Democratic response:
Testimony under oath > remarks to a reporter.
The standard should be “all accusers will be taken seriously, listened to fully, and their accusations will be investigated to the highest standard possible.” I agree that in some cases, ‘testimony [may be] the only evidence’—but it should be testimony under oath, in an established venue (congressional ethics committees or what have you).
I think it’s a terrible, anti-feminist choice to make women a protected class–which is what “believe the women” does. Women were members of protected classes under the law for most of history, and what they were ‘protected’ from was full participation in economic and political society. Revolutionary idea, but: women aren’t unicorns or angels or ‘special’ as a gender–they’re human beings.
The standard should be the same for all accusers: be taken seriously, and have their allegations investigated.
“Prohibited” and “allowed” were obviously (I thought) to be taken as ‘what’s considered acceptable,’ rather than as terms describing laws or regulations.
In my view Franken started out with the ‘respect the fact that women are now coming forward’ progressive stance: that it’s unacceptable to state any suggestions that the accounts weren’t literally true in all their details.
In Franken’s case, what he never confirmed were the allegations that he’d deliberately groped, or otherwise deliberately harassed or demeaned or sought to get sexual gratification via touches.
Instead (initially), he talked in the language of the day about ‘respecting their experience’ and such. I think he was sincere in saying he was devastated by the idea that any woman left an encounter with him feeling she’d been disrespected or demeaned.
As for as his response to #7, John Mace, I can’t see how that violates my reading of the case. By the time of #7, Franken had had plenty of opportunity to see how his ‘I want to respect the experience of my accusers’ language WAS being taken as an admission of deliberate harassment/groping. He’d never intended his responses to being admissions of having deliberately groped/harassed/demeaned, so he wanted to set the record straight.
You know this how? IOW, cite please.
I didn’t mean to imply that the law was in play, just what social conventions he needed to adhere to.
I don’t have your mind reading ability, but it does seem like your explanation adds at least one layer of complexity that isn’t needed. I’ll stick with Occam for now.
Trump endorsed Moore. The Dems asked Franken to stand down.
Moore committed Felony Sexual assault on a minor. Franken acted inappropriately vs adults.
There is a huge difference.
“whataboutism” lives.
Is Franken gone, or not?
He said he was going to resign.
He has not resigned yet.
Is he waiting to vote on any particular bills?
I’m willing to give him time to make sure his replacement is picked and ready to be seated. No need to let the Republicans reap any advantage from this that they don’t already have. I thought in his announcement he said it would happen in a few weeks.
It may be a minor point, but there are actual photos of Al “honk honk” Franken’s actions, and he’s actually admitted to at least some of his indiscretions.
Other than a she said/he said situation and a signed yearbook, is there any actual evidence against Moore? The “I don’t want Moore” isn’t generally considered to be actual evidence. just sayin’
Thanks for the info.
Moore has changed his story already - first he said he knew some of the women who accused him and dithered on whether he had dated teenagers; now he says he doesn’t know any of them and never dated teenagers.
So we already know Moore is a liar.
He said he is going to resign in the coming weeks. I’m betting he doesn’t resign and his reasoning will have something to do with Moore winning the election.
We all need a reason to live.
And if he does, I suspect it’s for something we don’t (yet) know about.