I saw this coming, and “retired” over 10 years ago. 
In other words–
“Shaking hands is rape.”
It’s looking more and more like a certain Doper was merely ahead of her time.
Yeah, because don’t touch people without their permission is the same as “Shaking hands is rape” :rolleyes:
I hate him too, but probably for a less-good reason than you do. (He’s self-indulgent and he reads poetry really poorly.)
I didn’t ask whether you’d consider it warranted, I asked if you’d be surprised be it - and it seems pretty clear that you wouldn’t. After all, if ‘accidentally’ putting your hand inside someone’s shirt is such an innocent gesture that putting it in the category of ‘sexual harassment’ is an insult to “everyone” and implies that women are not “tough enough”, like Dinsdale claims, why exactly would you expect recoiling and serious stink-eye? Surely if it’s insulting to seriously consider classing this as ‘sexual harassment’, then there’s no reason to expect a man to recoil from something so innocent or give the stink-eye to someone doing something that couldn’t possibly be considered a come-on?
Defenders of sexual harassment, especially men, like to pretend that people objecting to a situation like this are overreacting and clearly reaching to class this sort of touch as sexual harassment. But if you change the situation from a guy-into-girls touching a girl to a guy-into-guys touching a guy, trying to argue that it’s unreasonable to regard the situation as sexual becomes simply absurd.
That’s completely at odds with every piece of information we have. In this case, a law firm was hired to review the allegations and spent a month doing so before MPR took any action. Al Franken still has his job in spite of FIVE accusers, and the only significant movement is to launch an INVESTIGATION by an ethics committee before doing anything else - so it’s actually pretty much the direct opposite of guilty unless proven innocent. Roy Moore is still running a strong campaign with significant support in spite of his awfulness. Donald Trump is still in the White House despite pages and pages of allegations (and comments caught on tape). In none of the cases have the ‘presumed victims’ been believed without question, and in none of the cases is an actual ‘zero tolerance’ policy in effect.
I’m willing to presume that a law firm that spent a month investigating the allegations was competent enough to determine whether they were credible. Especially when we’re talking about a guy who has said that he would not be able to flirt if sexual harassment was actually banned.
Unwanted physical touch IS VERY MUCH a bad thing and creating a world where people don’t touch other people against their will is a great goal. The fact that you object to actually obtaining consent before touching people is pretty awful, but I can’t really say more about my opinion of people who object to getting consent before touching other people outside of the pit. I have no idea where the ‘outside of an intimate relationship’ comes from, that’s not a position that me or anyone else is taking here, or that any significant group is taking at large. In face, in my experience, there’s a lot more casual touch going on in environments where people respect other people’s bodies than in environments where people object to the concept of getting consent before touching.
Yes, putting your hands on a co worker very much should require their permission, and the attitude that you can just touch whoever you want however you decide is appropriate when them getting no say in the matter is just plain disgusting. “Oh you’re sad? Let me slip my hand inside your shirt by ‘accident’ and you’re insulting real sexual harassment victims if you object” is not OK, but seems to be what a set of arguments in this thread argue for. And offering your hand to them instead of just grabbing their hand regardless of whether it actually comforts them is not some huge terrible burden.
I don’t think anyone is disputing that touch THAT PEOPLE WANT is a good thing for those people. But the study that you cited didn’t test for how people responded to unwanted touching. Not that it would pass an ethics committee, but you’d need a study where your subjects were being touched by people who they don’t want to touch them but didn’t feel comfortable saying no to the touch to support your opposition to the need for consent. What you’re doing is really the equivalent to taking a study that shows that people who kiss their partners get benefits, and using it to justify kissing whoever you want.
I literally quoted the portion of the article pointing out that two staffers complained and that Keillor’s comments only addressed one of the complainants in this thread. If that’s not enough for you, there’s really not any more that I can do.
You could post a youtube video where you explain it again, but through interpretive dance.
Good idea! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxPbgnO81sQ
That is some funny shit, right there! 
Can we just go ahead and assume there are going to be some episodes of inappropriate behavior by basically any man over 40 with almost any degree of celebrity or power?
Frankly it’s bizarre to me that this is shocking to anyone. I’m not defending it, but in reality, this sort of behavior has been par for the course at every level of society since roughly the beginning of time, and only very recently has it been widely viewed negatively by both genders (I’m assuming women have always felt negatively towards it).
A bit hyperbolically expressed maybe but not too far off from the position being taken that all touch requires explicitly given permission first and that any touch without such explicitly given consent first is minimally a step towards assault. That’s absurd.
Let’s start off a bit farther back maybe. We live in society that is perhaps even increasingly multiculturally diverse. Some cultures, some subcultures, have varying conceptions of what is assumed as acceptable touch and what touch should be understood as not wanted without explicit permission. For example there is fairly little casual touch traditionally in Germany, England, or Japan, but quite a bit in various parts of Africa, parts of Latin America, China, Italy, and France. Subculturally casual touch is a big off limits between the sexes among Orthodox Jews and many observant Muslims, but among many secularized Jews in Israel casual touch is very common. So on.
Circumstances certainly occur in which one person is touching in a manner that is very standard within their subculture and it is perceived minimally as overly familiar or as unwanted touch by the other.
Should the subculture with the most restrictive rules regarding touch, be it Orthodox Jews or Muslims or say a hypothetical Aspergerish tech support or Sheldonesque person, set the rules for all? Should a perception of ill intent be assumed to be correct in all circumstances? Trying to be aware and respectful of the rules of others is all well and good - a woman dealing with an Orthodox man who understands their rules should of course be respectful of avoiding contact if possible for example - but applying that standard to everyone because some are touch averse and out of fear that any touch is potentially unwanted and is potentially viewed as harassment? The Orthodox standard would be for a woman at at cash register to put money on the counter to avoid accidental contact and unwanted touch with an Orthodox male. Should that standard apply across the board to all? The touch that occurs when giving change will be unwanted some few, so verboten it is to all? Give a wide berth just to be safe?
Forbidding all touch (or minimally requiring explicit permission before any touch) because some have touched grossly inappropriately and out of fear that any touch could interpreted in a bad way and that such interpretation will automatically be accepted by many as the reality … that might make those at that end of the personal space needs spectrum happy but IMHO making society touch free is not a desired outcome.
Nurses are advised to use touch compassionately and to communicate empathically. It is most often discussed in the context of elder care but is across the board. Skilled nurses commonly utilize touch appropriately without any conscious thought. Is that something that should be disallowed? Should it be okay for a female nurse but disallowed if the nurse is male? Is the male’s touch more at risk of being perceived negatively?
Again, some touch is part of normal communication and requiring explicit permission first for that is not far off from getting permission before talking to someone.
Returning more to the subject of the thread -
No question that blaming a victim is A Bad Thing and that victims need to know that the workplace structure supports their coming forward without fear of retribution or consequence to them, but that badness does not justify assumptions of guilt before one even knows what the individual is accused of. And that is what many here seem to be doing with Keillor: “He’s been accused … of something … by one person with no pattern identified … so he must be guilty, heck he looks like someone who would, never liked the guy.” No, MPR’s lawyers reviewing and advising them that their safest option with someone whose value is now minimal to them, in the current context of Minnesota, is to sever ties, is not enough to assume guilt of something horrific without even knowing the charge. He may be guilty of rape for all I know, but assuming such based on what we so fa know? That is also A Bad Thing.
Maybe I am blind. I’ve reviewed your posts and I do not see that. Seriously, maybe I missed it like when I look for something in my fridge and can’t find it when there it is right there behind the mayo. So help me out. In which post did you do that? Or are you one of those who use “literally” to mean “figuratively”? Because I literally quoted the actual MPR press release in which they explicitly stated that they know of no other similar allegations.
It does seem to be the standard that some here would want. All men, okay you are limiting it to those over 40 and of almost any degree of power or celebrity, generous of you, can be, should be, assumed to be guilty.
And of course when all are guilty then none are. Why be upset over men who walk in naked, demand massages or sexual favors, masturbate in front of women, molest 14 year olds, boast about how they get away with grabbing pussy, when all men (over 40 and with almost any degree of celebrity or power are guilty too?
In the workplace? No it isn’t. I don’t need to touch anyone, and don’t want anyone touching me during my time at work.
If you need to touch someone in order to do your job, I hope you are a masseuse.
I’ve been giving way too much thought to instances where I’ve had physical contact with cow-orkers. Can confidently say the number of times women have initiated hugs greatly exceeds the number of times i touched someone’s shoulder or forearm. And - to put it mildly - I am NOT a hugger.
Well, this is from the MPR statement on their own website, dated yesterday, so yeah, you can show us where you got what you’re claiming.
For a minute there I thought I was still in the Charlie Rose thread…
At this point, I’m almost hoping for the sake of MPR that it turns out he does have an extensive record of depraved behavior because their almost Stalinist expunging of all things Keillor-related could bite them in the ass financially if it turns out this is all over an awkward bareback pat. Until this scandal broke, Garrison Keillor and (even though he retired from hosting a year ago) Prairie Home Companion were still a big cash cow for MPR and right now they’re not only cutting themselves off from that cow, they’re slaughtering it, burying it in an unmarked grave, and trying to pretend the cow never existed.
Lemme be clear:
- I believe the shirt thing could be an accident.
- The women recoiled when it happened, according to Keillor.
- I’d equally expect a man to recoil if it happened.
- People can recoil from accidents.
- A man responding with a punch is completely irrelevant to the conversation; it’s an attempt to get me to see something that I already see. (See point 3).
- The shirt thing could be intentional too. I’m just saying it’s not obviously intentional.
- I absolutely don’t believe Keillor that this is the sum of the offense(s).
- Don’t hold me responsible for anything that Dinsdale is saying; I’m skipping his posts.
Don’t expect an answer as you’ll undoubtedly skip this, but I’m mildly curious as to what I posted that struck you such that you choose not to even cast your eyes across anything else I post?
Is there any chance you are participating in more than one thread and are getting them confused? I just skimmed the articles linked by both OPs and don’t see what you say they say. One does say
So that sounds like there’s more than one case.
Happy to be pointed to the right place in the article(s). I’m exhausted, so it wouldn’t surprise me to learn I’m just misreading.