#metoo and the impact of rape culture

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > #metoo and the impact of rape culture

navigation: Sep 30, 2009

Fallen Hamprince posted:

And obviously �beyond a reasonable doubt� is not a reasonable standard of evidence for �should this person hold the most powerful elected office in existence�.

Heya; I'm getting a bit lost in this thread, sorry to single you out specifically but you brought up a bunch of the stuff I'm confused about. I'm glad you've been citing sources here since that's always helpful, but the context around how that material is used for discussion is important too and that's where I get lost.

Based on that, I was hoping you could talk a bit about :

If Reade did somehow grift her way past the bachelor degree requirements for her graduate degree, how specifically should that influence this discussion? From prior discussions with other folks, in my experience it has generally been "sounds like she was a liar once, which means she might not deserve the benefit of the doubt in the rest of this"; do you agree with that? Not saying you mean that, but like I mentioned I've run into others having that mindset.
When evaluating an abuse story, is it important that the details remain consistent in discussions spread over decades? Does a victim telling someone that they were abused in one way and then later describing different, more invasive and more disturbing details to another person later imply that both stories are false? Related to that, there's a variety of research on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory; are you familiar with the neurological factors at play here?
What other context does the Larry King call make sense in? You've mentioned it essentially not being a smoking gun due to it being ambiguous, but what would be the alternative picture here? You linked to staffer statements about her having trouble performing her work, but the call specifically mentioned not wanting to embarrass the senator in the press. Is the idea that there was some other kind of toxic environment there that she felt affected by but didn't want to speak of? I'm not sure what other kinds of problems make sense in that "don't want to embarrass" context.

I'm interested in others thoughts on those questions too, but since you've seeded these subtopics into the thread (at least in my reading of it) it seems like understanding your context around that material is important for understanding this discussion.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2021 23:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 17:14

navigation: Sep 30, 2009

7c Nickel posted:

At one point she claimed the FBI secretly contacted her to tell her they thought her ex might be a serial killer. Now I can't prove a negative, but it seems unlikely they would tell her this even if it was true.

From here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/politics/tara-reade-joe-biden.html

quote:

Ms. Reade would go on, actually, to describe him as a potential murderer. Mr. Dronen�s probation officer, she told her friend Wendy Dale, with whom she briefly worked on a biographical project a few years later, had warned her that her life was in danger, and that she should flee the state and change her identity. (The probation officer declined to comment.) Later, Ms. Reade would write that she learned her ex-husband�s �DNA was collected by the F.B.I. for two missing women�s cases.�

Apparently because of his record with Ms. Reade, Mr. Dronen was in fact among scores of local men questioned in the disappearance of two local women, two people familiar with the investigation said. But within weeks in 1999, the police had traced the women�s murders to a convicted serial killer, Rex Allan Krebs; a senior investigator said DNA was used only sparingly and was not collected by the F.B.I.

I don't think she said that the FBI went out of their way to contact her and her hearing about him getting questioned could've happened another way, especially with the mention of her being in contact with the probation officer. Dronen might not even have been secretive about it; I can see someone complaining to others about a chapter of their past coming back to them like that, we can't really know. And then going from "was questioned/considered" to "had DNA taken" doesn't seem like a weird leap to me especially with how popular DNA was getting in the true crime zeitgeist over recent decades.

Nearby that bit the article has an example of the bad-faith framing she received in the media; a flat recital of an opinion of "look at how DRAMATIC this woman is being about her confessed abuser maybe hurting their child"

quote:

On the night of Feb. 21, 1996, Ms. Reade said in a court document, Mr. Dronen �slammed me up against the wall with such force that my neck, arms, shoulder and back are bruised. He punched my stomach and upper chest with a closed fist.�

Public divorce records show that Mr. Dronen admitted to spousal abuse, and that Ms. Reade got a temporary restraining order.

During an ensuing custody battle, Ms. Reade said she feared Mr. Dronen would beat their daughter if left alone with her for too long.

An official evaluation attributed Mr. Dronen�s eruptive anger to a tumultuous childhood, but suggested that Ms. Reade was exaggerating the threat, describing her as having �personality characteristics that predispose her to dramatically respond to a variety of situations.� Ms. Reade�s fear for her daughter, the evaluator wrote, was based less on a realistic assessment of risk than on her �unresolved anger towards her ex-husband.�

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 01:28

navigation: Sep 30, 2009

I'd like to try to tackle what I see as the core world view difference that comes up when discussing Reade and Biden.

For the sake of this, assume that the rapist in question is unrepentant; rehabilitation is a separate topic. And no debate around the validity of any particular accusation; we base this on your personal take of what you think has occurred. I don't understand the people that genuinely don't believe Reade, but they at least don't have the dissonance that I'm going to attempt to describe.

For each of these, we ask ourselves whether the 'you' is supporting rape and/or rape culture. I really hate treating this topic this coldly, but I don't know of another way to convey this.

If you knowingly provide material support (transportation, shelter, etc) that you believe directly enables a rape.
If you believe you observe someone providing material support that enables a rape and you do nothing.
If you socially (words/etc) directly encourage a rape.
If you believe you observe someone directly encouraging a rape and do nothing.
If you provide material support to someone you believe is a rapist.
If you continue to socially associate with someone you believe is a rapist.
If you socially advocate for someone you believe is a rapist to continue to belong to a particular social group or organization.
If you singularly oversee an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.
If you "middle manage" in an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.
If you labor and/or otherwise routinely materially support an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.
If you advocate for and encourage positive social evaluations of an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.
If you choose to interact in a self-beneficial way with an organization that you believe takes actions to materially or socially support a person that you believe is a rapist.

I'd say that last one is voting for Biden, if you believe Reade and you believe Biden becoming president benefits you and the world. Somewhere along this chain of indirection, some people decide that the action is diffuse enough such that it no longer contributes to rape culture. I don't understand where that can happen.

I know that our actions against or for large systems are small motes of dust in the wind, but those actions still have tiny consequences and meaning. Most people when you start talking like that can acknowledge these tiny consequences and make cost/benefit trade offs. If you're a leftist, that's what you're doing every day when you choose to go to work or buy a thing in capitalism. But the people that assert that they are not even making that calculus and that they can do self-beneficial transactions with a bad individual or organization and round any small negative impact they cause to the world down to zero (usually because they ideally would not want to cause it) are the ones that are most frustrating to interact with.

I haven't spoken at all about intention here, only actions; that is another potential worldview difference worth noting, since folks taking these actions often don't intend for the bad impact to occur. I don't really care about intentions though, since they don't affect the world and humans are hardwired to fill those in after their actions are already taken anyways.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 04:00

navigation: Sep 30, 2009

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

Well, since you put in the effort to make this post (which I appreciate), allow me to respond. Regarding item 12, suppose you work for an organization and the CEO is one day accused of having raped someone. Do you quit immediately and on the spot, knowing that every minute of your continual employment will benefit the organization, and by proxy, the CEO? What if it's not just the CEO who is an accused rapist, but a significant portion of leadership? What if you're someone who lives paycheck to paycheck and you and your family's survival depends on you remaining employed?

You might wonder how that applies to the Biden vs. Reade situation. You might say, "well, TWT, surely you did have a choice, which was to not vote for Biden, and that it wasn't a matter of literal survival?" And you're right: for me personally, it wasn't. I can't say the same about my social circle however. For example, I have multiple friends who are DACA recipients, and I knew that their status would continue to be in question if Trump won another term. Another friend is undergoing leukemia therapy, and Trump had tried, and would continue to try, to take away her healthcare. Yet another friend is Yemeni, and her family, back in Yemen, is being crushed by the Saudis, whom Trump supported unequivocally. And more broadly, I genuinely did not think that the country would survive another four years of Trump. So I held my nose and voted for Biden in the general, despite knowing that there is a non-zero chance he sexually assaulted someone in the past. Similarly, no one I know was happy to have to decide between Biden and Trump (and no, don't give me the "you could have voted for Howie" talk), but at the end of the day they did what they thought was right within the larger calculus of their circumstances and that of their social circles.

Speaking more broadly, these situations are rarely black and white. It is not "support rape culture vs. don't support rape culture." The vast majority of the time, people have to operate in murky gray areas, with imperfect information and conflicting priorities, and have to make the choice that they think is the most optimal one, either for themselves or their communities or both. Demanding that they instead put their foot town and make major sacrifices by picking a side and radically changing their behaviors based on that decision will only make you frustrated, because they won't do it. And labeling them "such-and-such apologist" and vehemently arguing that their behaviors are contributing to such-and-such culture will only make it harder for you to win them over � and you absolutely do need to win them over if you want to actually make actual progress.

I know a lot of folks are aggressive on the "you should basically always take the action that does the least amount of evil unless you really really can't" thing, but I didn't intend to argue for that. I agree that all the aspects of survival you mentioned are (appropriately) the most important things in our minds as we go about trying to choose what we do in life. And I certainly think it is uh, extremely reasonable, to imagine Trump winning and things getting (more) horrific for many people.

With the CEO/company thing, the distinction I intend to draw is not between the person that leaves vs the person that stays. It's between the person that is there reluctantly (whether they eventually 'escape' or not) compared to the person that tells themselves it doesn't matter at all whether they are there or not. The latter person will have more comfort but I argue is more disconnected from reality. I don't actually mean to argue that we all need to fully feel reality all the time either; it'd be hard to make it through a day. But when it comes up, you should be able to acknowledge your impact even if it is painful and even if you did it for good reasons.

I don't blame or judge Biden voters as a whole. I've had conversations with people who believe Reade but voted for Biden about the horrific pain that being faced with that choice caused them; it is pretty monstrous to be in that context and then lecture someone. It should never be presented as black and white, yeah. But I don't think it is appropriate to shield people from the ways they can and do influence culture, especially if it is only to win their support for a cause? Like for the other side, sure I want to win people over and have them never vote republican again, but I don't ever want to pretend that Trump voters aren't responsible for Trump's impact on our country.

One aspect of Trump vs Biden was "person who explicitly acknowledges sexually assaulting someone" vs "person with sketchy history and a credible allegation". If we agree on that, I find it hard to understand how participating in that can be argued to not be supporting rape culture, even if I understand why people did it. Many survivors saw this play out and saw the vast amount of support and protection that both of these men received from voters and from the powerful. That sends a message and we all have to acknowledge that (and our part in it) before we can ever move forward.

navigation fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Feb 8, 2021

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 06:24

navigation: Sep 30, 2009

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

At this point I feel there's little value continuing this discussion and I've explained my view more than once. If you disagree with it by all means then do so.

Agreed on this; to wrap this up, for posterity I'll quote the things you've said in this thread. I deeply hope that you aren't ever in a conversation with a survivor and end up lecturing them on the nuances of "actual sexual harassment" and "actual criminal acts" and how the lack of meeting that bar causes "mob rule".

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

Franken was in tour in Iraq motivating the troops and this was supposed to have been joke. Granted, it's still harassment, poor taste, etc. but remember this the perfect combination of young men, a former comedian and in the early 2000s. And to top it off, Tweeden had done similar raunchy skits. She even accepted Franken's apology.

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

I'm not surprised a former SNL comedian made a really dumb decision to make a crude joke to a bunch of young soldiers in a war zone in the 2000s.

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

Given the circumstances surrounding the story I don't think he should have been pushed out by Democratic leaders.

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

... someone acting inappropriately during lewd comedy skit that's then shared delivered via highly partisan conservative talk radio might generate some skepticism.

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

There's a difference between actual sexual harassment vs. actors participating a raunchy skit that went past someone's personal boundaries. Is it stupid and offensive? Yes. Is it a criminal act? I don't believe so.

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

If we can't tell the difference between an actual criminal sex act vs. someone crossing another persons personal boundaries with something like a inappropriate lewd joke we are in a ton of trouble as a society.

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

Not true. Kissing was a part of the skit but I will say that Franken took it way too far but again is it a a criminal sexual act? I don't believe so.

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

Kissing was a part of the skit to which Tweeden choose to participate. I don't know if anyone has ever kissed you before sometimes people kiss with tongue and grab their partners head. Obviously, Franken took this way too far and but it doesn't appear he was intentionally trying to violate her boundaries but made a really stupid mistake one that he should have absolutely have known better especially for such an experienced actor. They literally teach "Sex Consent Courses" in acting school for this very reason so they everyone is aware of other people's boundaries. I don't believe accidentally crossing those boundaries rises to a criminal sex act but it still isn't acceptable conduct.

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

People are turning the Al Franken sandal from a molehill into a mountain.

And to be clear, here's the actual reality that you're talking about :

quote:

A Los Angeles radio anchor accuses Franken of forcibly kissing her while they were rehearsing during a 2006 USO tour. KABC anchor Leeann Tweeden also made public a photo that shows Franken smiling, with his hands over her chest as if to grope her, as she slept. Franken, who was a comedian at the time, released a statement saying he remembered the alleged kiss differently and he felt �disgusted with myself� over the photo.

quote:

Lindsay Menz told CNN that Franken put his hand on her buttocks in 2010 while posing for a picture at the Minnesota State Fair. Franken was a senator at the time. He told CNN in a statement that he didn�t remember taking the photo, but he feels badly that she felt disrespected.

quote:

Two women who remained anonymous allege that Franken touched their buttocks during events for his first campaign for Senate. The women told the Huffington Post that the events happened in Minneapolis in 2007 and 2008. Franken says in a statement: �It�s difficult to respond to anonymous accusers, and I don�t remember those campaign events.�

quote:

A fifth woman comes forward with an allegation. Army veteran Stephanie Kemplin, of Maineville, Ohio, tells CNN that Franken groped her during a USO Christmas tour in the Middle East in 2003. Kemplin, who was deployed to Kuwait at the time, said Franken cupped her right breast when she stood next to him for a photo. Franken�s office released a statement saying the senator takes thousands of photos and has never intentionally engaged in this kind of conduct.

quote:

A woman identified only as a former elected official in New England tells Jezebel that Franken attempted to give her a �wet, open-mouthed kiss� onstage at an event in 2006. The woman said she appeared on Franken�s radio show Air America and after the interview, she tried to shake his hand but he took it and leaned in for a kiss. She said she turned her head and he kissed her on the cheek.

quote:

A seventh woman accuses Franken of sexual misconduct. According to Politico, the woman, a former Democratic congressional aide, said Franken tried to kiss her after a taping of his radio show in 2006. The woman, who wasn�t identified, says that after her boss left and she was collecting her belongings, Franken tried to kiss her, saying: �It�s my right as an entertainer.� Franken categorically denies the allegation, saying the idea he would claim such conduct as a right as an entertainer was �preposterous.�

# ¿ Apr 11, 2021 23:14

navigation: Sep 30, 2009

some plague rats posted:

I mean he's been doing exactly that for about three pages now, so,

True; that's a misstep on my part, apologies.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2021 23:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 17:14

navigation: Sep 30, 2009

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

I wouldn't have the same conversation I am having here with a survivor of sexual because the context and circumstance would be entirely different. And I wouldn't bring up that conversation on a online comedy forum even in the debate section either nor it is nuance.

You simply aren't following the conversation at hand either and it appears you are coming right at the end of it. I responded specifically to a poster that said I am evil because I believe we should have some kind of process to determine if a sex politician scandal is true and if it rises to the level of them being removed from office along with additional changes to governance of the office and potential criminal charges.

EDIT - And yes, it turns out Al Franken has done many other terrible things but the topic at hand wasn't those things but solely the events at the USO Tour.

You simply aren't understanding how endlessly debating what "actual sexual harassment" or "actual criminal" behavior is explicitly damages the process of holding powerful abusers accountable and is almost always performed by people that want to protect those abusers.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2021 23:34

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > #metoo and the impact of rape culture