Rose, Conyers....the list continues to grow

[Dill]

(11-22-2017, 07:23 PM)jason Wrote: Outside of context clues, I'm really not 100% sure what "rape culture" means. I just kinda assumed it was a phrase made up by the women's studies intellectual types to describe the natural phenomenon that you are speaking of. I just used it because I've heard the term thrown around and mocked from time to time. But you and I are on the same page here.

When coined, the term referred to institutional/cultural norms that encouraged authorities to doubt victims of sexual violence and make it hard for them to bring charges.  Date rape vis a vis police and legal indifference was the first issue, then this migrated into universities and the workplace, where management indifference became the target.  A "rape culture" exists when victims of sexual violence are encouraged to shut up or otherwise lack support and can't get a fair hearing. Victim blaming is an aspect of this.

The final section of this 1994 essay by Diane Herman gives a good summary of what the term is supposed to mean. The blame is placed not on men per se and not on "nature," but on the gender roles given for both men and women.
http://homepage.smc.edu/delpiccolo_guido/Soc1/soc1readings/rape%20culture_final.pdf

People thought the problem was being dealt with, as many schools and workplaces were requiring workshops and sensitivitiy training and changes their rules and norms for reporting assault. Every city has rape crises centers and every college has counselors and advocates for rape survivors

Then Trump was elected, and that older culture now seems to be re-sanctioned from the highest office in the land.  I suspect that the wave of accusation we are currently experiencing may in part be backlash to this. Formerly silent women have been moved by desperation and the example of others to come forward.

[Vlad]

 
Next liberal reprobate up...Matt Lauer.

http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/matt-lauer-accused-sexual-harassment-multiple-women-1202625959/


This holier than thou liberal hypocrite grilled Bill O'Reilly about his sexcapades during an interview,... knowing he himself was guilty of the same shit.

In addition, this holier than thou liberal reprobate during an interview with Mike Pence asked him questions about Trump and his alleged record with women....fully aware of his own guilt.

[GMDino]

I do so enjoy people playing off the sexual assault/harassment problem as purely a liberal/conservative political problem.

Shows some true colors when it comes to the issue.

Thank you.

[Belsnickel]

(11-30-2017, 11:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: I do so enjoy people playing off the sexual assault/harassment problem as purely a liberal/conservative political problem.

Shows some true colors when it comes to the issue.

Thank you.

Tribalism at its worst.

[GMDino]

(11-30-2017, 11:18 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Tribalism at its worst.

And I get it.  It's fun to poke fun at Trump and Moore and Laurer because of their political beliefs and hypocrisy.

But those who ONLY want to blame one side of the other are just showing their lack of care for the issue.

[Belsnickel]

(11-30-2017, 11:30 AM)GMDino Wrote: And I get it.  It's fun to poke fun at Trump and Moore and Laurer because of their political beliefs and hypocrisy.

But those who ONLY want to blame one side of the other are just showing their lack of care for the issue.

Yup, and it's not just folks on the right ignoring Moore, Trump, O'Reilly, etc. There are plenty on the left that want to excuse Franken, Conyers, Lauer, etc. It's pretty disgusting.

I told a local person in our city's Democratic committee that I work with them and vote Dem because I am liberal, not because I am a Democrat. I won't put up with the tribalist shit, period.

[Goalpost]

I know there is a slush fund, tax payer funded, in the House to provide for payoffs; hush money, to victims. Now I am hearing that the Senate has one also. Curious what names are going to be uncovered because I think the names are going to come out.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-30-2017, 03:20 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I know there is a slush fund, tax payer funded, in the House to provide for payoffs; hush money, to victims.  Now I am hearing that the Senate has one also.  Curious what names are going to be uncovered because I think the names are going to come out.

It will be interesting to see how that plays out.  I bet more than a few, as Conyers [I think] characterized one as essentially a severance payment.  I don't know the percentages, but discrimination and workers comp claims seem to be fairly common in cases of termination (and most are probably BS, hence the low settlements).

[Belsnickel]

(11-30-2017, 03:20 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I know there is a slush fund, tax payer funded, in the House to provide for payoffs; hush money, to victims. Now I am hearing that the Senate has one also. Curious what names are going to be uncovered because I think the names are going to come out.

I know that it is a drop in the bucket compared to other uses of taxpayer money that I disagree with, but this sort of thing has always infuriated me. The way lawmakers use these funds is despicable.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-30-2017, 03:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know that it is a drop in the bucket compared to other uses of taxpayer money that I disagree with, but this sort of thing has always infuriated me. The way lawmakers use these funds is despicable.

Is it though?  If you consider the size and scope of federal government, is it really out-of-line with companies large and small that have to occasionally settle similar suits?

Again, I have no idea of the actual numbers, but I would guess 3 out of 4 wrongful termination suits are BS.  And everyone gets them - again, no idea but if I were to guess I'd peg it @ 15% file suit after being terminated.

The other side of the coin is that some companies probably also abuse "termination for cause" to avoid paying certain benefits.  So some of these cases are probably brought, legitimately, simply as leverage to keep benefits earned and avoid that dreaded "terminated for cause" on your employment history.

[Belsnickel]

(11-30-2017, 04:02 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Is it though?  If you consider the size and scope of federal government, is it really out-of-line with companies large and small that have to occasionally settle similar suits?

Again, I have no idea of the actual numbers, but I would guess 3 out of 4 wrongful termination suits are BS.  And everyone gets them - again, no idea but if I were to guess I'd peg it @ 15% file suit after being terminated.

The other side of the coin is that some companies probably also abuse "termination for cause" to avoid paying certain benefits.  So some of these cases are probably brought, legitimately, simply as leverage to keep benefits earned and avoid that dreaded "terminated for cause" on your employment history.

I have an issue with public sector entities engaging in this practice. What companies choose to do in the private sector when it comes to these sorts of things is up to them, but I expect more from the public sector. I know my expectations aren't realistic most of the time, but an effort to improve things is needed. I do feel, however, that if a staffer has an issue like we have seen come to light, especially if it involves an elected official, the funds should come from that official and not government funds. Whether they pay it from their own pockets or use campaign funds, don't care, but it shouldn't be government revenues. My issue, even though I dislike the payoffs in general, is more about the source of the funds.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-30-2017, 04:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Whether they pay it from their own pockets or use campaign funds, don't care, but it shouldn't be government revenues. My issue, even though I dislike the payoffs in general, is more about the source of the funds.

But in some, if not many cases, it IS very much a function of govt work.  People get justifiably terminated, and sometimes they sue.  Why would you think govt employees are any different from the private sector?  I'd like transparency to see the payouts, but my suspicion is the vast majority are reasonable settlements (as opposed to "hush-money") that would hardly be indicative of any wrongdoing.

There is a HUGE difference between a $30k settlement that is simply cost-effective over litigating vs. a $250k settlement for a suit that probably had strong merit/evidence.

Some guidelines need to be established - I believe you can also be personally sued, and in that scenario I agree it should not come out of taxpayer funds (although indemnity of legal costs probably should).

But if people are going to sue the deeper-pockets of state/federal govt, then it's really the state/federal govt to litigate or settle as they see fit.  And that has to come from taxpayer dollars.

[Belsnickel]

(11-30-2017, 05:20 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: But in some, if not many cases, it IS very much a function of govt work.  People get justifiably terminated, and sometimes they sue.  Why would you think govt employees are any different from the private sector?  I'd like transparency to see the payouts, but my suspicion is the vast majority are reasonable settlements (as opposed to "hush-money") that would hardly be indicative of any wrongdoing.

There is a HUGE difference between a $30k settlement that is simply cost-effective over litigating vs. a $250k settlement for a suit that probably had strong merit/evidence.

Some guidelines need to be established - I believe you can also be personally sued, and in that scenario I agree it should not come out of taxpayer funds (although indemnity of legal costs probably should).

But if people are going to sue the deeper-pockets of state/federal govt, then it's really the state/federal govt to litigate or settle as they see fit.  And that has to come from taxpayer dollars.

I disagree when it comes to elected officials. Elected officials are a different beast in government work and the staffers that work directly for them are also treated differently from an HR perspective than the rank and file bureaucrat. The political positions like that carry a much different air to them and this is why I feel like the way things are treated within those offices should be different than we see with regular employers.

While they are public employees, each lawmaker is essentially an employer, not merely a manager or supervisor, when it comes to their office. Because of this autonomy, I feel like if something happens within their offices it is they, and not the Congressional budget, that should take the hit.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-30-2017, 05:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: While they are public employees, each lawmaker is essentially an employer, not merely a manager or supervisor, when it comes to their office. Because of this autonomy, I feel like if something happens within their offices it is they, and not the Congressional budget, that should take the hit.

I'd argue the congressman is actually an exec/manager (whatever you want to call them, but NOT an owner/employer) that works FOR the people.  He would be indemnified just like any other manager would be by the owner and shareholders.

I'll agree about the transparency so the taxpayer can remove them from office if they so choose, but doing work on behalf of the taxpayer clearly means the liability accrues to the taxpayer.

[Bengalzona]

(11-22-2017, 02:11 AM)Vlad Wrote: Charlie Rose, Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Louis C.K., John Conyers, Kevin Spacey, Glenn Thrush, Mark Halperin,Dustin Hoffman, Jeffrey Tambor.

I wonder how many on the list are accused of assaulting minors?

Or maybe we just gloss over the definition of adult and minor now for political convenience.

[Belsnickel]

(11-30-2017, 05:56 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'd argue the congressman is actually an exec/manager (whatever you want to call them, but NOT an owner/employer) that works FOR the people.  He would be indemnified just like any other manager would be by the owner and shareholders.

I'll agree about the transparency so the taxpayer can remove them from office if they so choose, but doing work on behalf of the taxpayer clearly means the liability accrues to the taxpayer.

See, you have to go and make a good point. I will counter, however, with the idea of sovereign immunity. The taxpayers, the federal government, cannot be sued under this doctrine. There is the Federal Tort Claims Act to waive this doctrine on a limited basis, but I would argue that in cases such as this should not have this immunity waived and lawmakers should be treated as individuals in these claims.

[GMDino]

(11-30-2017, 05:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree when it comes to elected officials. Elected officials are a different beast in government work and the staffers that work directly for them are also treated differently from an HR perspective than the rank and file bureaucrat. The political positions like that carry a much different air to them and this is why I feel like the way things are treated within those offices should be different than we see with regular employers.

While they are public employees, each lawmaker is essentially an employer, not merely a manager or supervisor, when it comes to their office. Because of this autonomy, I feel like if something happens within their offices it is they, and not the Congressional budget, that should take the hit.

Something along those lines...

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/01/blake-farenthold-taxpayer-funds-sexual-harassment-274458

[*bfine32*]

I'm not a fan of racebaiting; however, I must admit a spokesman made a solid point yesterday. What is the difference between Franken and Conyers and why is Pelosci stated only one of them should step down?

[*jason*]

(12-01-2017, 06:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not a fan of racebaiting; however, I must admit a spokesman made a solid point yesterday. What is the difference between Franken and Conyers and why is Pelosci stated only one of them should step down?

My guess would be that Franken is a Senator, while Conyers, like Pelosi, is in the House. They should probably both step aside.

[Belsnickel]

(12-01-2017, 06:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not a fan of racebaiting; however, I must admit a spokesman made a solid point yesterday. What is the difference between Franken and Conyers and why is Pelosci stated only one of them should step down?

(12-01-2017, 06:31 PM)jason Wrote: My guess would be that Franken is a Senator, while Conyers, like Pelosi, is in the House. They should probably both step aside.

That would be my guess. It's much more common for folks to comment of people from their own chamber.