Trump may face a reckoning in case brought by female accuser

[Dill]

(12-12-2017, 04:34 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: But my point is that so much is happening with only accusations. I think you picked up on that, Matt, when you mentioned preponderance level. It doesn't seem like they are at that level in a lot of these cases.

Also I don't feel there is the need to have the same pro-active and aggressive reaction to sexual harassment cases that you have in sexual assault cases. The latter is a physical crime upon another person's person akin to rape. The former is comments or attitudes which could hurt or degrade someone. There is a difference. That doesn't mean I believe sexual harassment complaints need to be ignored. Far from it. But as I mentioned before, a lot of sexual harassment cases are "he said, she said" situations without witnesses or evidence. In those circumstances, I'm not sure why you would choose to totally believe ne side or another and act on it without some deliberation and consideration for each side.

I think accusations should be heard and checked out by appropriate authorities, though not necessarily publicized without meeting some bar of credibility.

Your post speaks to a concern of mine about what follows when people start talking about ZERO TOLERANCE and refusing to distinguish between the myriad possible offenses ranging from repeated water cooler jokes/harassment to actually grabbing a woman Trump style, which is sexual assault.  

 I can understand why people don't want to be bothered with fine distinctions when it comes to Congressmen. One party will quickly accuse the other of double standards. But under ZT regimes, the definition/criterion of "fair punishment" quickly shifts from whether the punishment is appropriate to the level of offense to whether everyone is getting the same, regardless.   ZT will more likely create backlash than solve the problem.

(12-12-2017, 06:10 PM)Benton Wrote: In the case of public officials, people say "Well, obviously it's motivated, they didn't come forward until now. If it bothered them, they would've done something."

Well, coming forward that person is doing something. And maybe they waited because, at the time, it didn't matter. If Bill an attorney in town grabs a client's backside on his way into court, there's not a lot of recourse; but the client has some recourse if Bill — years later — is suddenly a political candidate where public opinion matters. On the other hand, the person may just be coming forward because she doesn't like Bill.

So, since there's not a lot of good answers after the accusation is made, we should probably work on our approach to gender expectations and acceptable behavior. When we accept people saying vulgar things about women by justifying it as "locker room talk" then we make unacceptable behavior acceptable. When we say "oh, it's not a big deal, he was just being funny" or "it's not a big deal, everybody sleeps with teens" then we're making it acceptable.

Maybe it's a good thing the two parties decided to politicize the issue, because maybe we'll finally start talking about how we raise kids and what kind of values we're teaching.

According to people who work with rape victims and battered women, it is pretty common that victims do not come forward.  But once they get the sense they are supported, going public becomes more likely. I think that is part of the reason why we now see so many women coming forward.

I totally agree with you about considering how all this looks to children. Reality show values have come to reign in our politics now.  At the level of civil society is really where we need to address the issue of harassment/assault--parents, schools, churches, coworkers, and Hollywood should be calling out the small stuff in everyday life rather than signalling permission by remaining silent. Toxic workplaces--and politicians--are an unsurprising consequence if we don't take on that responsibility.