So I brought it on myself for posting here. I should have known better. It’s my fault. 
Very astute and creditable comments, both, and I agree completely. Whether Carlson’s suit impacts the culture at Fox remains to be seen, but it’s an uphill battle. Ailes’ unconscionable debauchery and Rupert Murdoch’s complete lack of ethics are well matched, and even if Carlson prevails, the result will likely be yet another monetary settlement with no admission of guilt.
The situation takes an interesting turn.
Are you trying to defend Ailes?
I don’t see anything there except Ailes managing the running of a TV network. You can be a television executive and an asshole all at the same time. The alleged sexual quid pro quo occurred at just about the same time as that memo – I would guess shortly afterwards – at the very time that Carlson was being bumped around through different shows and timeslots and might have been particularly vulnerable to an offer of “let me make things easier for you”. According to the suit, it was during the subsequent nine months leading up to her firing that her life was hell. One reasonable-sounding memo does not exonerate an inveterate sexual predator against which there is a mountain of allegations from many different people.
I singled out a specific person that happened to be a woman. My attacks would be the same if it were a man. I’m only a misogynist if I attack her for being a woman. To me, that’s the big difference.
Well, I would urge you to divorce yourself from the actual person who happens to be a woman, and simply think of the victim as a person who spent their career supporting something bad, only to have that organization turn on them. It doesn’t matter that she’s a woman. If Ailes was gay and he harassed a man, I’d say the same thing.
I am stubborn, yes, maybe too much for my own good. To even have a chance of doing what you’re saying I would have to have all of the questions and examples I posed answered fully to my satisfaction. There are certain things I can’t wrap my head around and just accept. If I had a satisfactory answer, I’d begrudgingly change, but not until I’ve heard something I accept to be logical
Are you saying regardless of the person, male or female, the act is the one that creates the mysogyny? I mean, if we’re talking about a gay Ailes harassing a man, how could it be misogyny, there are no women involved!
I believe the influence of Fox has contributed lots of physical harm through rape culture, perhaps not directly, but to the general climate of hate and ignorance that has ended up hurting a lot of people. Unfortunately it’d be impossible to measure that, but the rape culture that you are concerned about is promoted every time someone at Fox dismisses a woman’s accusations, or misogyny is increased when people attack Sandra Fluke, or say that women should be against abortion because of some convoluted reason. I see that as a damning enough to be glad some of those same people are now suffering because of that culture. Sure, the people you listed are worse individually, but one rapist isn’t usually colluding with another, they aren’t having meeting to decide on a strategy to elect more rapists. Fox News’ contributions helped create the Tea Party and make it viable, they are partly to blame for everything these Tea Partiers do, including the likes of Todd Akin
I’m talking about the face characters, the people with shows, the people who anchor programs for 30 or 60 mins who act as a mouthpiece for Fox. It doesn’t matter what their reasons are, evil deeds done for the right reason still result in evil. They are equally despicable if they don’t hold those views but say them for greed
You can have ratings and money without being as evil as Fox News.
How is she not like them?
Wrong comparison. I try to defend women elsewhere. I try to stand up for them against others like the MRA types. I don’t merely have black friends, the example would go, I defend them against racists and understand why they are right and the racists are wrong.
The difference with Carlson is that she isn’t an innocent victim, she was a gleeful participant in the slut-shaming culture and misogyny that was rampant at Fox News. She did it to herself.
In this case, its much more specific than that. She was a willing participant. Saying “properly behaved” makes it sound like my respect is conditional upon them acting like women from the 50’s: conservatively dressed, don’t speak out, allow the man to take the lead, take care of the kids, have dinner ready, etc. I only blame her because of one thing: she happily enriched herself attacking other women. In effect, she herself was a target victim of her own attacks, only she thought that as a face character working for Fox, she was immune to those attacks. Now that its backfired, she wants us to pretend her past never happened. Fuck that shit, it happened and it was on camera
You implied she deserved to be sexually harassed. That’s misogynistic. It’d be misandristic (if that’s a word) if you implied that a man deserved to be sexually harassed.
It doesn’t matter who it is – it’s always wrong to blame a sexual transgression victim, or imply that they deserve it. It’s misogynistic if it’s a woman, and misandristic if it’s a man. It can be both/either.
“Turning on them” is not the same as sexual harassment. That’s the difference.
In fact, I’ll go even further, and say that considering the history of sweeping sexual harassment/assault/rape under the rug in our society, blaming anyone at all, man or woman or other, or implying that anyone at all deserves such treatment, is misogynistic and wrong. It’s just normalizing and accepting that sweeping this stuff under the rug is sometimes okay, and it’s never okay. Not for a Fox News anchor or anyone else.
I’ve done the best I can in answering your questions. I’d be happy to try again.
Misanthropy doesn’t excuse misogyny, and that’s what you’re doing. Hypotheticals about misandry don’t excuse misogyny, and that’s also what you’re doing.
Blaming the victim, or saying they deserve it, is always wrong, and never okay. Doing it when it’s a woman is always misogynistic.
You are helping, in a tiny way, the forces of misogyny. Don’t do that!
Why would you guess that, when the linked article explicitly says the opposite of your guess?
Let’s be fair, I didn’t make up the sexual harassment, it happened, so instead of saying she deserves so-and-so punishment, I just used whatever happened to her. Its not an attack on her for being a woman. If the situation was she was attacked by Ailes and punched, I’d say she deserved it. If he had throw a baseball at her head, I would say the same thing. The sexual harassment doesn’t matter as much as I think she deserved to be hurt by Ailes in whatever manner he did it in.
If I had said something like “instead of being hit by Ailes, she deserved to be sexually harassed because that’s what men do to uppity women”, then that would be misogynist.
What I’m trying to ask is, is it misogynist/misandristic because it dealt with sex? Because we can imagine Ailes doing something else. Maybe he punched her. Maybe he stole from her. Maybe he set her house on fire. Would you say I’m misogynist if Ailes had instead chopped off her finger with a butcher’s knife?
You’re right, the organization turning on the employee is not the same as sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is just one of a myriad of things that could have happened. Let’s say Ailes had a punishment wheel he’d spin to see what revenge he’d dole out on employees he didn’t like, and it ranged from sexual harassment, to stealing from them, to physical violence. You seem to be saying that if the wheel falls on sexual harassment, its misogyny, but if it falls on something else, its not.
I don’t disagree. Generally, someone who sexually harasses or rapes someone is doing it out of some sexist notion of power and perversion. But I don’t agree that is an exact description of what happened here.
Ok, well, I asked Guinastasia how Carlson isn’t like Eva Braun. Disregarding the severity of Fox News vs. genocide, why aren’t the two similar?
I asked above if some non-sexual punishment happened to Carlson, would it still be sexist to consider her partially at fault and deserving? And switch the genders around, if a man just wants to degrade and humiliate some other man, using some kind of sexual assault, is it misandric or is the perpetrator just an asshole and it doesn’t matter what method was used?
Its sort of like hate crimes. I understand the need for such legislation, but it doesn’t mean every time a gay guy is attacked, its a homophobic hate crime. Legally, I think there are some requirements that you prove the attack is motivated by hate rather than just a random attack. Like if a robber happens to rob a gay guy’s house, that’s not a hate crime, just a robbery. I believe Ailes is an odious human being, if it wasn’t asking for sex, it would have been something else she would be asked to do, and if so, it matters little that THIS time it was about sex, its much more relevant that Ailes is just a terrible person. So why can’t you see this situation that way?
That’s all for now I suppose
That’s a dismissal and minimization of sexual harassment – that you still put it into the same kind of category as getting hit with a baseball or punched or whatever.
The continuum of rape is fundamentally different, and treating it the same is wrong.
You’re continuing with this by treating sexual harassment as just another transgression. It’s not. Historically they’ve been treated so incredibly differently by society, and still are to a very major degree.
It’s your dismissal and minimization that is misogynistic, and you’re still doing it.
I don’t know why exactly Ailes harassed Carlson (and others, it appears), but I think it’s likely power and perversion had something to do with it.
But I’m criticizing you – your dismissal and minimization and victim blaming are misogynistic.
I don’t get this comparison – one was the consensual lover of a genocidal dictator, and the other was the non-consensual victim of a sexual harasser.
But I don’t even get how a similarity enters into this discussion. Are you saying that Eva Braun deserves sexual harassment? If that’s what you’re saying, then it’s another misogynistic sentiment – it’s still conflating sexual harassment with justice, and sexual harassment (or anything on the continuum of rape) never have anything to do with justice or appropriate retribution.
I think I answered this. Victim blaming is always wrong. Misogyny and sexism enter into it, IMO, when a historically dismissed and ignored mistreatment is involved (e.g. domestic violence, sexual abuse/harassment). It’s also always wrong to sexually abuse a man or anyone – I think the ubiquity of prison-rape-jokes, and prison rape minimization, for example, is one of the rare examples of a very common misandry in our society. And the perpetrator is always an asshole.
The situation I see, that I’m judging, is about you. You are dismissing/minimizing Carlson’s sexual harassment; you are assigning blame to her; and you are implying that she deserves such treatment. Those are the misogynistic sentiments – sexual mistreatment on the continuum of rape must never be dismissed or minimized, under any circumstances; victims of it must never be blamed, under any circumstances; and victims never deserve it, under any circumstances. To do these things for any victim, even a man, further empowers the misogynists who seek to continue the minimization and dismissal of rape and sexual assault – if it’s okay for one, then it’s okay for some. And if it’s okay for some, then misogynists can find ways to twist justification for their victims, and even make their victims believe that they deserved it or earned it somehow.
You’re doing this, even if it’s just a miniscule amount. Is it really worth whatever point you’re trying to make to provide this tiny bit of aid to misogynists? Are you okay with, ten years from now, some idiot misogynist ginning up this old bit of internet commentary and paraphrasing it to his abused girlfriend to convince her that she deserved her mistreatment?
Sure, maybe this isn’t that likely. But that’s the downside, and there’s no upside. Why would you want even the slightest chance of helping the misogynists? Why not live your life in a way that you can say that you’ll never take action, if you can avoid it (and you can most certainly avoid it here if you choose!), that has even the tiniest chance of helping misogynists?
There is nothing logical when you consider that homocidal dictators and serial killers are just as bad as journalists on a sleazy news channel. That’s in another dimension all together. It’s like people who compare Obama to Hitler, or claim that Hillary will be a socialist dictator. It’s completely, utterly insane.
Most “SJWs”, at least the ones usually defined nowadays as SJWs are fucking morons.
Disregarding the size of the Pacific Ocean versus a glass of water, why don’t blue whales live in my drinking glasses?
Disregarding the difference in distance between the nearest grocery store and Mars, why don’t I stop and pick up some Mars rocks while I’m getting the coffee filters and rye bread?
Disregarding the weight difference between my house and a housecat, why bother selling this house if we want to move? Why not just pick it up and take it with us?
You’re getting more stupid by the day. Step away from the keyboard, sexist pig.
I apologize if this has already been posted, but I found this supercut of Gretchen on air interesting. She did call out sexist bullshit when directed at her, at least sometimes. I don’t watch Fox News so I do not know how accurate this representation of her is.
I don’t see it as similar, I agree with you that sexual harassment and minimizing it is not at all like minimizing being hit in the face. But for Carlson, she was a party to that. She worked for an organization as a face character where it would be impossible for her to not know the kind of harm she was putting out. Every time Hannity or O’Reilly or even her cohosts said something sexist, dismissed women’s complaints, or suggested directly or indirectly that they shouldn’t be in control of their own bodies or jobs, she was contributing to herself getting harassed. If she was forceful in denouncing them, if she became the face of anti-Fox chauvinism like Colmes tried to be as the liberal of the network, then I’d grant that she did do enough to not warrant it turning back on her. Its insincere for her to now claim that label where she’s standing up for women, or have you guys defend her in the name of defending women, when nothing in her behavior has ever been supportive of that
What I want is for people to sincerely hold a viewpoint without using it as a tool to get what they want. Carlson is reaping the benefits of feminism because we’re having this conversation, but if tomorrow she settles the lawsuit with Ailes and goes back to Fox, or gets her own show on another network and never acknowledges the harm she was a party to while with Fox and goes on spouting bullshit, I think most of you defending her now would feel betrayed. It is ok to demand someone to be held accountable for their viewpoints and make a sincere repudiation before we defend them. You don’t have to agree that she deserves it, but you don’t have to defend her either. If this topic had died on the first page because nobody rushed to defend her and have this argument, it would be less tragic than for no one to ask if Carlson, since the lawsuit, ever expressed any regret for her role at Fox.
Again, if he harassed a man, is he misandristic? Or would we just say he’s a generic asshole? Let’s not even say harassed, let’s say he punched Shepard Smith for not being sufficiently conservative. Is that an attack on just Smith, or on men as a whole? At what point does sexually harassing Carlson become not just an attack on Carlson, but on all women and supportive of rape culture? Where’s that line? What if Carlson had weak bones and he pushed her down some stairs, breaking her legs, is that misogynistic because he attacked a women, or is that general assholish because he didn’t use sex?
If using sex to attack women is misogynistic, why is it not misandristic if someone used sex to attack a man?
You got your understanding wrong, or at least I should say, different from how I understand it. Eva Braun is the consensual lover of a genocidal dictator LIKE Gretchen Carlson was the consensual mouthpiece of a evil propagandist. The harm, in this case the sexual harassment to Carlson, is comparable not to Braun’s role, because you’re comparing different things. Rather, its like this: Eva Braun deserved to die in suicide with Hitler LIKE Carlson deserved to be harassed by Ailes.
I think Eva Braun deserves whatever bad thing happened to her, including sexual harassment or being shot in a face as the Soviets were closing in on Berlin. I don’t conflate ONLY sexual harassment with justice, I am saying she deserves anything that punishes her, in whatever form it takes. If she was shot, she deserved it. If she was hanged, she deserved it. If she was sexually harassed, she deserved it. Sexual harassment is a tool, in this case, to punish her, just as a bullet or a hangman’s noose would be
How can you say that so definitively? If you run down the stairs, are you not deserving of falling? If you play Russian roulette, are you not deserving of being shot? If you eat fire, are you not deserving of being burned? There are a million things where if you do X, then Z is likely to happen and you probably deserve it
To me, the difference is that generally, one should be able to do things like get a job at a male-dominated field, wear a skirt, drink, share a cab with a stranger, etc. with the expectation that you won’t be harmed. But working at Fox as a face is like running down the stairs or setting yourself on fire: you should not have an expectation not to be harassed if you’re a woman. Frankly, I look at Fox and the GOP itself and wonder how women, minorities, LGBT, or non-Christians can support them after all they’ve said and done. I guess like that one guy posted, some of them are really rich and want to stay that way more than having self-respect.
I don’t disagree that women are historically marginalized in many ways, but why can you not separate the individual from the group? If a gay man is attacked, its not always homophobia. If a minority gets robbed, its not always racism. Why, in this case, when a woman is harassed, its sexism? Can’t it just be Ailes being a dick?
Again, this is a tiny corner of the internet. I’ve acknowledge my role and how it would change if I were more influential. But you attribute too much power to me if you think anything I’m saying here has a significant effect to anyone. Not that influence dictates whether the argument is right or wrong, I just think you shouldn’t worry too much about what other people should think about this thread
I really don’t think the chance of that is significant enough to worry about. However, you bring up a different argument, which I think is more valid than the other ones. If you’re saying to me we shouldn’t have this discussion because somewhere down the line, it might cause real harm, well, I find that more convincing than saying Carlson should be off the hook. But its too late already, its out there and the mods don’t delete uncomfortable discussions.
I can think of an upside. Just like not all attacks on a minority is racism, not all attacks on women is sexual harassment. If people can see the logic of that, maybe it’ll get people to think more rationally on other things
Oh wow, total and complete mistake there. Nowhere did I ever, nor will I ever, say they are “just as bad”. I clearly and specifically said its the similarity I’m comparing and not the severity. You need to go back and reread that part because that completely went over your head.
Similarity, not severity.
Just like the big bang is like a nuclear explosion, only like a trillion times bigger. That’s similar because they’re both explosions of a type. The scale is different though, nobody comparing scale
What Braun did laying with dogs and getting fleas is similar to Carlson working at Fox.
And yet I would defend them to the detriment of my “misogynist” label here. I think going overboard a bit in wanting equality is ok, so if these so-called SJWs are a little too riled up, its fine. I want marginalized groups to have a loud voice, but as I’ve tried to express in this topic, I’m not willing to do it illogically.
Probably because its not salt water and it doesn’t have the krill necessary to feed it
Because you’re not rich enough to afford the ride there
The house would be fragile and might break apart, plus your new home may not have the room for another house. Plus zoning issues
Your examples are shit and you’re too angry to post coherently, come back after you get those coffee filters
I have no idea why, but this just about had me cleaning Mountain Dew off of my monitor.
Carry on.
I’m not defending any behavior of hers at Fox – I don’t care about any of that, with regards to my criticism of you. I’m criticizing you because it doesn’t matter what someone does – no one deserves sexual mistreatment of any kind, and implying that someone does is wrong. Implying that a woman does is misogynistic.
Criticize Carlson all you want about her behavior and work on Fox – just don’t connect it to these allegations or some notion of justice. They have nothing to do with each other and never can. I won’t feel betrayed if she wins this lawsuit and then goes on to work for Fox again because my opinion of her as a person have absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of her lawsuit, or sexual harassment in general.
For example “Carlson is a terrible person because she aided and abetted sexism on a daily basis while working for Fox News, but no one deserves sexual harassment or other sexual mistreatment of any kind” would be a strong criticism of Carlson that isn’t misogynistic. But you didn’t do that – you jumped to asserting that she deserves it, and implied that this was just. And that’s where the misogyny – your misogyny – came in.
This (my criticism) isn’t about Ailes, it’s about you and what you’ve said.
Bullshit and misogynistic comparison, because you’re saying that someone can ever deserve sexual harassment. No one deserves such treatment – it doesn’t fall into the category of “things that a person can deserve”. No one, not even a rapist, deserves to be raped. And no one, not even a sexual harasser, deserves to be sexually harassed.
That you are mentally able to associate sexual mistreatment with justice, for anyone at all, is extremely problematic, and when associated with women, misogynistic. Further, associating these things helps sexual abusers and harassers. It doesn’t matter if your misogyny is paired with misandry and misanthropy, misogyny is still misogyny. Racism isn’t excused by hating everyone, and misogyny isn’t excused by hating everyone either.
That you can conflate sexual harassment of a woman with justice in any way whatsoever is misogynistic, full stop. It’s not a tool of punishment, it’s a tool of dehumanizing and objectifying women. Dehumanization and objectification are never valid or just punishments, no matter who is involved. To conflate the two is not only wrong, but helps abusers and harassers.
I’m talking strictly about sexual mistreatment – it’s always 100% wrong to blame the victims of sexual harassment, abuse, and rape.
Sexual harassment (and other sexual transgressions) are in a different category. It’s not possible to sexually harass a woman in a non-misogynistic way, any more than it’s possible to rape a woman in a non-misogynistic way. The acts are inherently misogynistic. Doing the same for a man may be inherently misandristic, or maybe not (I haven’t read or heard that much about misandry, since it’s such a miniscule force in our society compared to misogyny).
But, again, my criticism is about you and what you’ve said, not about Ailes.
I’m most interested in what you think, and why you’re so determined to have this option of misogyny available to you. Further answered below, about “upside”.
It’s not too late – you could always come to recognize that you’ve said something misogynistic and correct yourself. That might not mitigate all the potential harm, just like me trying to not say or do racist things doesn’t necessarily mitigate all the potential harm I did as a younger man when I said racist things, but it’s absolutely necessary to improving as a person, just as it was to me.
Sexual attacks are different.
That’s the fundamental thing you don’t get, it seems to me – you think that sexual harassment, abuse, and rape can be put in the same category as other transgressions (assault, theft, murder, etc.).
They can’t. They are fundamentally different, and they always have been. Especially with regards to women. That you don’t recognize this is a sign of the deep tendrils that rape culture sends out and digs in – that some or even most folks, especially most men, can still find it within them to minimize sexual mistreatment, blame victims of sexual mistreatment, or treat it like other crimes.
The reason they’re fundamentally different goes into the history of the overwhelming majority of their occurrence among humans – disempowering women, punishing women, terrorizing women, objectifying women, dehumanizing women, etc. We can’t say the same thing about any other category of violence or transgressions. As long as you don’t recognize the fundamental difference, and as long as you believe that any sexual transgression can be associated with justice in any way, then you’re still clinging to misogyny.
Hey Guys, you just gotta read this by Michael Miner of the Chicago Reader.
I am sure **Yogsothoth **will be along to say that “Susan” deserved it for being a Goldwater girl.
Fantastic link by Little Pig. Recommended. With that out of the way, here’s a roundup of inferior stuff.
The New York Times interviews Gretchen Carlson. Gretchen Carlson, Former Fox Anchor, Speaks Publicly About Sexual Harassment Lawsuit - The New York Times
She is lawyered up. She says her motives are, “To stand up for what happened to me and what was the truth.”
Anonymous Fox News Insider says Megan Kelly is being selfish for not speaking up on behalf of the Jabba the Harrasser. I say horseshit. Kelly spoke of requests by top level executives to pirouette in front of them in around 2009. That wasn’t mentioned in the article. Colleagues Mad That Megyn Kelly Isn’t Speaking Up for Roger Ailes
Ailes’ lawyers want the case tried under arbitration. Snort. Roger Ailes Is Desperate To Silence Gretchen Carlson | HuffPost Impact
Under the arbitration framework, there would be a strict nondisclosure agreement, in the form of “An extaordinary overbroad gag order”.
NYT on the proposed move to arbitration: Gretchen Carlson’s Fox News Contract Could Shroud Her Case in Secrecy - The New York Times
Bill O’Reilly loves Roger Ailes. Ew! The Daily Mail has been all over this story: Bill O'Reilly defends his Fox News boss and raves about their relationship | Daily Mail Online
<HA-HA!>
I expect his severance package will be mid 7 figures.