Article: Photographer Accuses Miguel Sano Of Assault

[Craig Arko]

 

 

I'd venture to say that a whole lot of different types of behavior have manifested themselves by that age.

 

The saying "in order to reform a man, you must begin with his grandfather^*" comes to mind in this situation as well.

 

* _{Actually the attribution I found to Victor Hugo used the word "grandmother", but that sounds a little too pointed in this context.}

 

In bonobo society that (Hugo's) would be a true statement.

[nicksaviking]

Alcohol is an unfortunate part of this equation as well.  That's not an excuse, just a reality.

 

We keep trying to simplify this, but that's really naive IMO.  If the bar for being tarred, feathered, and banished to some island is to have, at any point just one time, said something taken as inappropriate.....few of us will survive such a test.  We have all looked the other way when someone said it too, which doesn't seem much better.  Or we ourselves have done it through some combination of stupidity, awkwardness, drunkeness, poor phrasing, poor taste, misread signals, or any number of other things that happen.  

 

Humans are complicated beings and when you throw in the complications of sex, emotion, language, office politics, being young, being poorly parented, or any other number of factors.....well, I think I feel safe saying this isn't "simple".

 

That isn't to say we shrug our shoulders and move on.  Far from it, it's precisely because it's so complicated that it will take extra time and effort to improve.  Pretending it's simple only makes solving it more cumbersome.  And, as I said at the beginning, it isn't the blurring that what was said wasn't wrong.  It can be wrong, but that person who is wrong for being awkward deserves a different response than the person who forces you to have sex with them to keep your job.  That can't be blurred and frequently is in this conversation.

 

Totally disagree; in the case of sexual harassment it is simple. Intimating or expressing the wish for sexual encounters, jokes or comments toward an unwanted party is sexual harassment, if you don't know if it's unwanted, assume it is.

 

Awkward pick up guy can say, your dress looks nice. Awkward pick up guy cannot say your dress would look nice crumbled up in a ball on my bedroom floor.

 

Sorry, we used to think it was funny, but it's a new world and changing the very day, men better get used to it.

[PseudoSABR]

 

This author has a rather interesting series on the matter, and I think many of the concerns she raises are applicable in some of the "me too" cases.  Whether you agree or not, they seem to be worth considering.

For another take on due process and sexual assault standards both on campus and off, there's this. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Rather than him proving your point, I think you've merely demonstrated the lengths you'll go to construe any reasonable distinction between non-harassment and harassment.  

 

"Hello"? Why can't they come to work without you greeting them? "How are you?" Why can't they come to work without you prying about the internal emotional state?  

 

Give me a break.

 

Not really.  How many links would you like from feminists decrying the male tendency to comment on their appearance at work?

 

If you do a few quick google searches you'll see I literally have dozens of them at my disposal.  

 

Do I think it's "sexual harassment" in every instance.  Probably not.  Do I think it toes an awfully fuzzy line between appropriate and inappropriate?  Hell yes.  Which goes against this bizarre notion of how "simple" the distinctions are.

 

To put it in Carole's terms: "I like your dress/pants/blouse" is frequently nothing more than a masquerade.

Edited January 9, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[one_eyed_jack]

This is a good piece that articulates a lot of the concerns I have about where the #metoo movement is going with its "reflexive and unnuanced sense of outrage", even though I am wholly supportive of the main underlying issue that prompted its creation.

 

Worth a read.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

Not really.  How many links would you like from feminists decrying the male tendency to comment on their appearance at work?

 

If you do a few quick google searches you'll see I literally have dozens of them at my disposal.  

 

Do I think it's "sexual harassment" in every instance.  Probably not.  Do I think it toes an awfully fuzzy line between appropriate and inappropriate?  Hell yes.  Which goes against this bizarre notion of how "simple" the distinctions are.

What is your point again? (That because it's not simple every time, why even have a policy at all? Or because one hypothetical might be ambiguous, false accusation will be rampant, and we must protect the powerful men?!)   It can absolutely be harassment to comment on appearance, but the comment nick proffered, standing by itself, no reasonable person will believe constitutes harassment.  However, if such comments are always made by the alleged harasser, and always directed at the alleged victim, and are combined with other advances, sure. 

 

There's some gray area, but only often in terms of what we pre-select as what might constitute harassment, but when it comes to an actual harassment allegation, there will be real facts and history and culture that help us determine whether or not its harassment.  And the determination in the vast majority of cases will, indeed, be pretty simple.  

 

The thing is, dudes that sexually harass women will try to toe the line and keep doing what they are doing--it's their intent that in problematic, along with their behavior and what they say.   If it's ambiguous, its worthy of an investigation.  And the ambiguity may indeed work against men, as the opposite fosters the very culture we are trying to change. 

 

Typically, sexual harassment doesn't result in someone losing their job.  Esp. the 'that's a nice dress' variety.   Companies have process for dealing with first, second, third allegations about the same person.  Will such process stop all false-accusations from having some appreciable affect? No.  But it will have the affect of stemming the systematic sexual harassment that does take place. 

 

 

All that said, there's plenty of comments and behaviors that perhaps don't rise to level of sexual harassment but are nonetheless sexists and would have the potential to make women feel uncomfortable.    Awkward dude should ask himself, would I make this same comment to a male coworker? If the answer is no, that's a clue.  If the answer is yes, it still may not be cool.   There's nothing wrong with putting a burden on dudes to shape their behavior; in fact, that's the whole point.

Edited January 9, 2018 by PseudoSABR

[TheLeviathan]

 

There's some gray area

 

That's my point.  That it's rarely "simple".  I'm not talking about formal sexual harassment proceedings in a court or a company.  Please read context.

 

This conversation started when Carole responded to my suggestion that sometimes interactions are not meant to cause harm, but stem from a host of human reasons from being awkward, to emotional, to stupid, to drunk, to misreading signals, to just plain poor phrasing.  We shouldn't blur all interactions where one party feels something inappropriate happened into one big pile that we tar, feather, and banish.  None of those reasons make the person inherently awful.  And few of us would be safe from condemnation if such a standard was leveled against us all.

 

Nick, in an effort to prove how easy it is to avoid being inappropriate used one of the most common masquerades in the workplace to make a sexual comment come off as a compliment.  Should we tar, feather, and banish Nick?  Probably not.  I'd vote no, but I'm the one trying to have nuance here, so I'm not sure I get a vote.  

 

Yes, many creeps masquerade their comments behind awkwardness.  They also masquerade them behind compliments.  Figuring out whether someone is a creep or just had a bad moment is important. Otherwise all we'll generate out of this is confusion, when we should be striving to act better as human beings.  (And especially as men)

Edited January 9, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[ashbury]

Do I think it's "sexual harassment" in every instance.  Probably not.  Do I think it toes an awfully fuzzy line between appropriate and inappropriate?  Hell yes.  Which goes against this bizarre notion of how "simple" the distinctions are.

I'm often asked by people, "I just want to know where the line is." Or "I just want to know what the limits are." Here is the answer: We are in a very nebulous and dynamic environment. We are figuring out our policy for maintaining civil discussion as we go along. There are people with different opinions. Every time each of those people checks in, they're in a different state of mind.So there is no line. There is no limit. There are a lot of them, and they're always changing and that's the way it has to be. So just stay the hell away from it. And frankly, that shouldn't be so hard. -- lightly paraphrased from a smart guy back in 2013

[PseudoSABR]

 

That's my point.  That it's rarely "simple". 

I'd counter with: it's rarely gray.  In any employment/student misconduct situation there are cases that fall in the gray area.  I don't think sexual harassment presents any more gray area than say plagiarism.  In fact plagiarism is a good touchstone, in that educational institutions need to make it a priority to educate students about what plagiarism is and where there's any confusion on your part, don't do it.   As ashbury indicates, the solution to not getting in trouble for sexual harassment is exceedingly simple: stay away from the line/the gray area.  

 

If you suspect your compliment to a coworker might be sexual harassment, don't say "Damn girl, that dress looks good on you!"  If you don't think it could be construed as sexual harassment, go ahead and say, "That's a cool dress, Rita!"   Of course things like word-choice, intent, and relationship of the sayer and sayee all matter.  That's why no work place or school has an one-allegation and you're done rule.   Again, hypotheticals are obviously more gray than any actual allegation; so let's avoid parsing them. 

Edited January 9, 2018 by PseudoSABR

[TheLeviathan]

 

  Again, hypotheticals are obviously more gray than any actual allegation; so let's avoid parsing them. 

 

In your zeal to line up with your tribe you removed all context from the discussion.  I didn't parse them.  Carole did.  I basically said "word-choice, intent, relationship (and many other factors) matter" and we shouldn't blur the lines between all interactions so we lose sight of that.  Carole then responded that many men masquerade behind those very same things in order to harass and assault.  And they do.  What she said isn't false.  And neither is what I said - sometimes awkward is a ruse, sometimes it's just plain awkward.  Sometimes "Nice dress today Rita" is a compliment.  Sometimes it's a masquerade for some creep.  

 

 What's the solution for this mish-mash?  Outlaw awkwardness?  Script conversations?  Are people allowed to make mistakes?  I don't deny Carole's point at all, that's a true thing.  But why is that a rebuttal to what I said?  What are we supposed to do with it?  Shame the awkward?  Who is in charge of educating people on reading social ques?  

 

I made the point that not every interaction where one party feels offended, or that something inappropriate was done, is an example of something (like harassment or assault) that we should eviscerate the person for.  Many of those interactions are simply mistakes, personality conflicts, etc..  The mistakes that happen all the time when humans interact with each other. 

 

We can't get better at our interactions if every clumsy or poor interaction is treated as some heinous act.  Human interactions are complicated.  They are not simple. Can you work to avoid the line?  Absolutely.  Do you cross it with some people with absolutely no ill intent to do so?  Absolutely.  Then we apologize for it, work to be better about it, and move on.  But if we don't allow people to recognize some of these issues are just mistakes, help them atone, and improve.....what the hell is the point of this?  

Edited January 9, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[PseudoSABR]

We're now just arriving at a cultural moment were sexual harassment is not the norm.  I think it's a knee-jerk reaction to start worrying about the sexual-harassment Gestapo. 

 

Again, I don't know of any sexual harassment policy that has a one-allegation and your done rule.  Most policies have the flexibility to forgive and redress mistake.  But for more severe conduct--like a mistake in sexual consent--isn't forgivable, like a mistake in giving an unsolicited compliment is; the policies should, and I believe do, account for the distinction.  Largely lack of enforcement and unwillingness for victims come forward have been the factors that left sexual harassment unaddressed.

 

It's on the awkward people to get up to speed on what's appropriate, not on us.  I was awkward, but I had no problem discerning what might be inappropriate and in fact, steered well clear of any gray area (part of my awkwardness).   If awkward guys have a harder time getting dates as a result of sexual harassment policies--well, so be it; our society can live with it.  Again, there won't be any severe consequences if the mistake is honest, minor, and they learn from it.

 

(And honestly, you're better than painting my argument as an insincere charade to be part of some partisan group. You're saying context will make the distinction more gray; I'm saying it will make the distinction of whether there is sexual harassment more clear and simpler.)

Edited January 9, 2018 by PseudoSABR

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not worried about company policies.  They have far less bite than social media.  

 

Awkward people cannot "get up to speed" if one offense leads to their cultural/social evisceration.  Again, we should be careful not to blur lines when we talk about these things.  Real change will happen with nuance, re-education, and a dedicated effort to become better, not with zeal to sound like we're on the right side.

Edited January 9, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[PseudoSABR]

 

 Awkward people cannot "get up to speed" if one offense leads to their cultural/social evisceration.

Good thing that's not happening in any "official" sense; as for it happening on social media--well, awkward pick-up lines are are hardly the only way to get eviscerated. 

 

If by nuance you mean grandfathering in old bad habits, some how exempting the awkward--well, no, I don't think that's any kind of solution.  But if you mean nuance by looking at each situation case-by-case within its context, absolutely, and no one is pushing back against it. 

 

What I'm pushing back against is the notion that its too much to ask for men to discern what is or is not appropriate.  Where there is grey area (what little there really is), men should seek clarification and weigh on the side of caution.  I imagine there's all kinds of tactics that HR people, educators, sociologists have come up with to aid men in making that determination.  What I don't want is to drag our feet on this issue in defense of the jerk who holds himself out as the awkward guy.

[Sam Morley]

 

 

 

It's on the awkward people to get up to speed on what's appropriate, not on us.  

 

Yes. And if they choose not to get up to speed on their own, the consequences they experience, as a result for not, can do it for them.

 

And for this person who hypothetically toes the line between complimenting and harassing, I think 'awkward' is too lenient a characterization.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

 

What I'm pushing back against is the notion that its too much to ask for men to discern what is or is not appropriate.  

 

Who said it was?  That's your strawman.  Perhaps you'll stop knocking it down now?

 

But if you mean nuance by looking at each situation case-by-case within its context, absolutely, and no one is pushing back against it.

 

 

Someone literally pushed back against that not 15 posts ago.  Which has led to your ongoing series of strawmen.  

 

"Official" approaches to this issue have been largely ineffective, which is in part what has evoked this response.  Yes, they offer punitive measures but they are slow, difficult, and don't really solve problems.  Someone found officially guilty of sexual harassment in the work place just takes their terrible behavior to the next stop.  Nothing changes.

 

Social media has proven to be far more effective.  But like anything powerful, it's ability to be constructive vs. destructive is in the hands of the user. (or users in this case, which perhaps makes it even more dangerous, much less the element of anonymity)  Social media is not known for it's propensity to consider context and situational, case-by-case information, yet we are driving the change through that medium.

 

Hence my post.  And I'll repeat my original caution - we have to be careful not to blur lines and keep perspective.  Habits won't change by eviscerating people - unofficially or officially.  Habits change through re-education and pushing people to better themselves.  Not destroying them.  

 

It also doesn't help to zealously pile on to anyone who wants a nuanced position on this.  One would think liberals, of all walks of people, would have learned a few lessons lately about the danger of aggressive group think.

[Sam Morley]

 

 

 

"Official" approaches to this issue have been largely ineffective, which is in part what has evoked this response.  Yes, they offer punitive measures but they are slow, difficult, and don't really solve problems.  Someone found officially guilty of sexual harassment in the work place just takes their terrible behavior to the next stop.  Nothing changes.

 

 

 

 

I might agree with this, specifically with the disappointment in official measures to affect large scale change. Although, I think it's complicated to measure the effects of official approaches collectively over time on the way society at large perceives the issue. How do we know whether or not official punitive measures in cases of sexual harassment, collectively, over time, have contributed to our general awareness of the problem, and to the preemptive correction of behavior by many? I would say that it is also possible that official ineffectiveness may be due to a lack of strength on the part of society and its institutions in regards to the problem of sexual harassment. And that as awareness of it and intolerance for it increase, generally, the strength of those punitive actions will increase and their effects will be more powerful.

 

On a smaller scale, I dispute the notion that official, punitive actions against actors of sexual harassment does not solve problems. If you are a person responsible for the maintenance of a professional and safe work environment and the actions of someone under your supervision are detrimental to that by way of sexual harassment, then you have a problem. Removing that person, by firing them, solves that problem. You might be passing that problem on to someone else, but you've served the environment for which you're responsible.

 

The way I see it, contributing to solving the larger problem of sexual harassment is a secondary responsibility of official punitive actions. It's secondary to the responsibility of ending the endurance of those immediately affected by the harassment.

 

I say that the manner in which (and the extent to which) official approaches, punitive approaches, are ineffective is in failure of execution. I think, ideally, a combination of punitive action and restorative action is best. The punitive action is for the immediate well being of the acute victim(s), and for that of potential victims- for society in general, and it is for justice. The restorative action is for the hopeful education and growth of the perpetrator, to the benefit of society. I think we have to accomplish the primary responsibility before moving on to focus on the secondary.

[TheLeviathan]

 

On a smaller scale, I dispute the notion that official, punitive actions against actors of sexual harassment does not solve problems. If you are a person responsible for the maintenance of a professional and safe work environment and the actions of someone under your supervision are detrimental to that by way of sexual harassment, then you have a problem. Removing that person, by firing them, solves that problem. You might be passing that problem on to someone else, but you've served the environment for which you're responsible.

 

I don't disagree with you, I'm not advocating official actions aren't taken.  We need official actions by businesses and the justice system. But there is also a larger call for more unofficial actions and it's to that call that I was responding.

 

We should be careful to take a nuanced approach to that.  Not every inappropriate interaction rises to the levels we're talking about and it's important to remember how complex our interactions can be.  There are layers of emotions, thoughts, intent, and other things at work.  I liken it a lot to the wave of "anti-bullying" that happened 5-6 years back.  It's a more than worthy cause that absolutely needed attention, but in our zeal to combat that problem we start crying "bully" at everything.  It's taken years of work to try and stem that tide in school systems.  Did good things come out of it?  Absolutely.  Did a ton of confusion and hysteria lead to a really problematic situation in schools?  hell yes.  And it lingers today.  It took schools fighting upstream against a lot of criticism to convince parents and others that not every fight, or instance where someone is called stupid rises to bullying.  Schools laid out better policies and criteria (nuanced) and fought for them against criticism.  

 

I get that some are too hurt personally to be anything but over-zealous.  I get that.  But for those of us taht can be more measured, we need to be.  It's how the best solutions arise.  And I'm interested in the best solutions, because sexual assault and harassment need to end.  We can be better and we need to be.  I'm not an "ends justify the means" guy though.  If the ends matter enough - we need to find the means to do it without compromising other values.

[bunsen82]

We are getting close to the two week mark with no further allegations.  Not to say someone may be remaining quiet or that the investigation has not found others with complaints, that are not public - but I felt the biggest negative factor for Sano for extremely severe punishment and for the Twins best option to just get rid of him for pennies on the dollar is if a pattern emerges of similar behavior.  So far crickets.

Edited January 10, 2018 by bunsen82

[Sam Morley]

 

We are getting close to the two week mark with no further allegations.  Not to say someone may be remaining quiet or that the investigation has not found others with complaints, that are not public - but I felt the biggest negative factor for Sano for extremely severe punishment and for the Twins best option to just get rid of him for pennies on the dollar is if a pattern emerges of similar behavior.  So far crickets.

 

Can you clarify what you're saying in this post? It sounds like you're saying that one sexual assault is not enough to warrant serious consequences. 

[Sam Morley]

 

I don't disagree with you, I'm not advocating official actions aren't taken.  We need official actions by businesses and the justice system. But there is also a larger call for more unofficial actions and it's to that call that I was responding.

 

We should be careful to take a nuanced approach to that.  Not every inappropriate interaction rises to the levels we're talking about and it's important to remember how complex our interactions can be.  There are layers of emotions, thoughts, intent, and other things at work.  I liken it a lot to the wave of "anti-bullying" that happened 5-6 years back.  It's a more than worthy cause that absolutely needed attention, but in our zeal to combat that problem we start crying "bully" at everything.  It's taken years of work to try and stem that tide in school systems.  Did good things come out of it?  Absolutely.  Did a ton of confusion and hysteria lead to a really problematic situation in schools?  hell yes.  And it lingers today.  It took schools fighting upstream against a lot of criticism to convince parents and others that not every fight, or instance where someone is called stupid rises to bullying.  Schools laid out better policies and criteria (nuanced) and fought for them against criticism.  

 

I get that some are too hurt personally to be anything but over-zealous.  I get that.  But for those of us taht can be more measured, we need to be.  It's how the best solutions arise.  And I'm interested in the best solutions, because sexual assault and harassment need to end.  We can be better and we need to be.  I'm not an "ends justify the means" guy though.  If the ends matter enough - we need to find the means to do it without compromising other values.

 

I think ultimately, ideally, recognizing nuance is important in responding to conflict between people. I think the trouble with a nuanced approach to how we respond to sexual harassment, at this point in time, is whether or not entrusted officials and institutions are capable of using a nuanced approach honestly. I don't think history is in their favor, and I think there is a likelihood of continued indifference under the shelter of nuance and subjectivity. I think that for a period of time, an aggressive, heavy handed approach is necessary just to get us back to the point of having the luxury of considering nuance. 

 

The analogy of bullying at schools is interesting. I think behavioral issues with children should be handled with understanding. It's hard to compare behavioral issues and consequences for children with those of adults. Adults are held to a different standard of behavioral expectations.

 

Here's an analogy that speaks to my point, I think. In this analogy, the principle of states' rights is as to the ideal of the nuanced approach. They are as to each other in that I would say they are both very good ideals. States and smaller levels of government are ideally free to govern and legislate as they see best for their specific regional/community needs/issues. Freedom and autonomy are better than their opposite and it makes clear sense that those who best know the needs of their community are those who live in it. An honest nuanced approach is similar in that it allows for more flexibility/freedom in how to achieve resolution, and it makes sense its capacity to be balanced and fair to both sides of a conflict. 

 

But for decades, the principle of states' rights was used to allow southern states and communities to maintain segregation of schools along racial demographic lines (among many other grievous institutions of Jim Crow). It took the full force of the federal government to end official school segregation, and in many instances it took the military presence of the national guard escorting children to their new schools. This analogy is not about saying institutional racism is as to institutional indifference to sexual harassment/violence nor is it about saying x degree of racism is as to x degree of sexism, though I think it could be extended to do those things. It could even be extended to recognize the call for nuance/understanding/patience by southern apologists in the face of unfettered injustice. What it is about, or what it leads me to say is that if the federal government had not so strongly intervened (with legislation, executive order, court order, and military force) southern schools would still be officially segregated today. I will extend the analogy by observing that the extent to which schools across the nation are still hobbled by segregation, due to sinister districting and busing policy tricks, is relative to a dearth of relentlessness by society in the pursuit of rightness. I mean, we should be even more aggressive.

 

To apply it back to the topic at hand, I think it will take relentlessness and doggedness- on behalf of everyone who cares- to root out and confront sexism imbedded in its more nuanced, subtle, and 'gray' manifestations (as it will with racism). I think this includes both official and unofficial confrontations. Dealing with and confronting bad behavior, subtle or overt, willful or ignorant, usually takes some courage. If you decide to do it, there's some amount of getting mentally 'pumped' before diving in. It seems like being calm, measured, and understanding in such instances is probably best most of the time, but for those who do not achieve it, it's their behavior for which leniency and understanding are called.

 

To boil all this down, concisely, I think that the major risk of approaching confrontation of sexual harassment/violence (officially and/or unofficially) with sensitivity to nuance is an overall failure to reduce incidence of sexual harassment/violence. Maybe you don't see this risk, or don't perceive it to be as great as I do. What do you think the risk of approaching confrontation of sexual harassment/violence with little sensitivity to nuance is?

 

[mlhouse]

Good discussion.  

 

Here are a couple of my points, reiterating what some other folks have said.

 

1.  The dictionary definition of sexual harassment is immaterial.  For it to be true harassment there needs to be true harm.  Someone shouting words at you does not cause true harm.

 

2.  I agree we have approaching some real serious territory were "sexual harrassment" encompasses everythign a man does.  

 

3.  One of the problems with this issue is its disproportionality.  A woman can falsely charge a man of rape or sexual harassment, and if she if found to be lying little is ever done.  At teh same time, those false charges can completely destroy a man's life with little way of being compensated for such false claims. 

 

4.  This also enters into all kinds of areas of relations between the sexes.  While I do not condone a man hitting a woman, and a man who hits a woman needs to be punished in some ways, often it is the woman who instigates the violence.  Look at the Ray Rice video.  I get it, Ray Rice should have never hit his wife ever.  But look at the start of the video.  His wife is the agressor.  HIs wife is physically assaulting him.  Look at the video of former FSU QB DeAndre Johnson (make sure you look at the long version of this).  Again, the woman instigated the violence, holding her fist up to him as he tried to move through a crowd.  She then kicked him and threw a punch.  I agree that Johnson overreacted, but WHY SHOULD A WOMAN BE ABLE TO INSTIGATE VIOLENCE AGAINST A MAN AND IF THE MAN OVERREACTS SHE IS SOME PURE VICTIM WHO NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG?  If the "victim" is a man, we say he got what he deserved.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

 What do you think the risk of approaching confrontation of sexual harassment/violence with little sensitivity to nuance is?

 

It is so tone deaf to the reality of how people deal with one another it will be brushed off as a farce or a fad.  It will be so onerous, so unwilling to compromise, and so reluctant to include context that it will be viewed as an irrational overreach.

 

And, I'd suggest, we're already well down that road unfortunately.  And a genuine opportunity will have fallen to the way side in favor of righteous indignation.  In the mean time, a real issue, with real need of change, will blow in the wind.  Or worse....if you decide to socially eviscerate every poor soul who makes an unwitting mistake...you'll engender more than just indifference.  You'll strengthen the resolve of your opponents and you'll give them legitimacy to stand on.

 

Our political system is at a constant impasse, incapable of achieving real successes, in part because of our inability to include nuance in our discussions.  Nuance allows for debate and discussion.  It acknowledges that we agree on something (the overall goal) but we're working together towards a good solution.  Instead, so many have taken up the mantle of some kind of "purity" on every damn issue.  You're either all in, in a certain way, or you're a dirty, miserable (fill in whatever derogatory right/left term you like).  

 

Meanwhile, while those who attack anyone who doesn't pass their purity test....nothing gets done.  Perhaps if nuance was more welcome, so too would discussion and compromise.  But I'm not holding my breath.

Edited January 12, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[ashbury]

1.  The dictionary definition of sexual harassment is immaterial.  For it to be true harassment there needs to be true harm.  Someone shouting words at you does not cause true harm.

I'd suggest "death by a thousand cuts" as a useful metaphor - if it were just one guy shouting words one time, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also, when someone experiences harm, it's surely infuriating to be told it's not "true" enough. Remember the senate candidate not long ago who came to grief when he tried to parse exactly what kind of rape was "legitimate"? Bottom line, empathy is a good trait to have.

 

PS, please don't shout via ALL CAPS.

[bunsen82]

 

Can you clarify what you're saying in this post? It sounds like you're saying that one sexual assault is not enough to warrant serious consequences. 

 

 

Not what I am saying at all.  I know as much as what happened in that hallway as you do, which is nothing.  What I do know is how the media and twitter world work.  Look at Cosby, Lauer, Weinstein, it wasn't the first or second claim, it was the third fourth and fifth claim, that all together began to create an accurate portrayal.  Although with Lauer some text messages and photos also brought him down.  They create validity and ultimately support each others claim.  I can gaurantee reporters have been looking all around to find another individual that has had a similar experience, we have an article backing up asking all the other players if they were aware of any other abuse situations.  They stated they were unaware but, an anonymous person claimed he was a time bomb.  

 

To me it sounds like you already think he is guilty of sexual assault.   First off I don't think the facts of this case support sexual assault if the one version is even completely true.  Assault yes, if it is all true.  I am on the record though stating it is very possible some embellishments may have occurred, we already don't know how long this occurred even though the initial claim was 10 minutes, she has backtracked on that claim when questioned.  That single fact can make this a completely different story, while at the same time I support that she was felt intimidated, hurt and scared.    

 

All I am saying for the Twins sake, also for Sano, the longer this goes without further issues, the more support would go to his claim, that this did not happen in the way described.  I am sure he will have some training, but I am sure he will take this as a lesson learned, I would also hope he has matured some in the last few years.  

 

Every single one of us as likely done something wrong to a friend, a loved one, or against the law.  We all make mistakes.  You just hope they aren't mistakes that you can't bounce back from.   Up to this point, this version of events isn't one that I would throw Sano out with the bathwater.  He needs to learn how to treat women with respect, for his sake and the women he is around I hope he does.  He also needs to learn how to not put himself in compromising situations where someone could interpret a situation in a way he did not intend.   

[PseudoSABR]

 

Good discussion.  

 

Here are a couple of my points, reiterating what some other folks have said.

 

1.  The dictionary definition of sexual harassment is immaterial.  For it to be true harassment there needs to be true harm.  Someone shouting words at you does not cause true harm.

 

2.  I agree we have approaching some real serious territory were "sexual harrassment" encompasses everythign a man does.  

 

3.  One of the problems with this issue is its disproportionality.  A woman can falsely charge a man of rape or sexual harassment, and if she if found to be lying little is ever done.  At teh same time, those false charges can completely destroy a man's life with little way of being compensated for such false claims. 

 

4.  This also enters into all kinds of areas of relations between the sexes.  While I do not condone a man hitting a woman, and a man who hits a woman needs to be punished in some ways, often it is the woman who instigates the violence.  Look at the Ray Rice video.  I get it, Ray Rice should have never hit his wife ever.  But look at the start of the video.  His wife is the agressor.  HIs wife is physically assaulting him.  Look at the video of former FSU QB DeAndre Johnson (make sure you look at the long version of this).  Again, the woman instigated the violence, holding her fist up to him as he tried to move through a crowd.  She then kicked him and threw a punch.  I agree that Johnson overreacted, but WHY SHOULD A WOMAN BE ABLE TO INSTIGATE VIOLENCE AGAINST A MAN AND IF THE MAN OVERREACTS SHE IS SOME PURE VICTIM WHO NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG?  If the "victim" is a man, we say he got what he deserved.  

In criminal law, women are held accountable for the very actions you take issue with.  If they commit an assault, they get charged with it, all the time.   And if Ray Rice's wife were a professional athlete or a celebrity, her actions would have come under scrutiny as well (but hardly what ever she did to be the first aggressor condones being knocked out cold. Come on, man).

 

The "true" harm standard you advocate for is problematic on so many levels.  Yes yelling at someone in sexual or sexist way is sexual harassment.  It is not assault, but it is harassment.  How the heck are we suppose to measure 'true' harm when the harm is psychological, social, and systemic?  

 

Whatever disproportionality manifests through false accusation is far, far outweighed by the disproportionate number of men in positions of power.  Perhaps, it's the power dynamic at play, rather than some innate bias against men. 

[mlhouse]

 

In criminal law, women are held accountable for the very actions you take issue with.  If they commit an assault, they get charged with it, all the time.   And if Ray Rice's wife were a professional athlete or a celebrity, her actions would have come under scrutiny as well (but hardly what ever she did to be the first aggressor condones being knocked out cold. Come on, man).

 

The "true" harm standard you advocate for is problematic on so many levels.  Yes yelling at someone in sexual or sexist way is sexual harassment.  It is not assault, but it is harassment.  How the heck are we suppose to measure 'true' harm when the harm is psychological, social, and systemic?  

 

Whatever disproportionality manifests through false accusation is far, far outweighed by the disproportionate number of men in positions of power.  Perhaps, it's the power dynamic at play, rather than some innate bias against men. 

 

The judicial system must measure harm.  If there is no harm, there is no "crime".  Someone yelling at you does not cause you harm.

 

And, again, while I do not claim that someone deserves anything, when a woman instigates violence she walks away, and if the man retaliates she is the victim. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

The judicial system must measure harm.  If there is no harm, there is no "crime".  Someone yelling at you does not cause you harm.

 

And, again, while I do not claim that someone deserves anything, when a woman instigates violence she walks away, and if the man retaliates she is the victim. 

A crime is what we say a crime is (defined by our legislatures or our congress).  There need not be any harm.  Intent matters, but not harm.  (For instance, sleeping with a consenting minor is a crime, smoking pot is a crime, speeding is a crime; show me the harm.).  In terms of suing some one under tort law (civil law), yes there needs to be a harm, but that harm can indeed be psychological and emotional.  You can sue some one for intent to emotionally inflect harm.  Really.

 

Harassment may not be a crime (yet), but it is something that workplaces and schools seek to root out.  Harassment does not equal assault.  Stop using the assault standard to judge harassment.

 

If the person who retaliates does so in outsized measure they deserve more punishment.   Self-defense is a defense to criminal and civil liability, but it must be reasonable given the actions of the instigator.   If a women slaps you, you do not get to cold-cock her.   If a women draws a gun on you, you do get to use life threatening force to defend yourself (but that's never the example.)

 

I'm glad you are engaging in this conversation, but I do suggest you study the law more, and the real experience of women-victims of violence.  I don't believe you've done either. 

[TFRazor]

 

 

I'm glad you are engaging in this conversation, but I do suggest you study the law more, and the real experience of women-victims of violence.  I don't believe you've done either. 

 

I would only ask that you be really careful ending posts with paragraphs like that. Up until this point all of your points and opinions seemed reasonable. When you drop something like this though it just smacks of a lack of foresight. After all, they may be a lawyer who works on things like this every day. They may know multiple women who have been through terrible things. Unless you know for a fact that they don't, please just try to sound less dismissive of their opinion. Which in the end has as just as much value as your own.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I would only ask that you be really careful ending posts with paragraphs like that. Up until this point all of your points and opinions seemed reasonable. When you drop something like this though it just smacks of a lack of foresight. After all, they may be a lawyer who works on things like this every day. They may know multiple women who have been through terrible things. Unless you know for a fact that they don't, please just try to sound less dismissive of their opinion. Which in the end has as just as much value as your own.

Generally, such advice is warranted.  But sometimes it's clear a person hasn't done the necessary research to entitle them to their opinion, and they ought to be called out on it.  Not doing your homework is pretty unforgivable.   (And they need not be a lawyer to do research; nor does being a lawyer entitle them to not do research, or have the correct opinion).   

[mlhouse]

 

A crime is what we say a crime is (defined by our legislatures or our congress).  There need not be any harm.  Intent matters, but not harm.  (For instance, sleeping with a consenting minor is a crime, smoking pot is a crime, speeding is a crime; show me the harm.).  In terms of suing some one under tort law (civil law), yes there needs to be a harm, but that harm can indeed be psychological and emotional.  You can sue some one for intent to emotionally inflect harm.  Really.

 

Harassment may not be a crime (yet), but it is something that workplaces and schools seek to root out.  Harassment does not equal assault.  Stop using the assault standard to judge harassment.

 

If the person who retaliates does so in outsized measure they deserve more punishment.   Self-defense is a defense to criminal and civil liability, but it must be reasonable given the actions of the instigator.   If a women slaps you, you do not get to cold-cock her.   If a women draws a gun on you, you do get to use life threatening force to defend yourself (but that's never the example.)

 

I'm glad you are engaging in this conversation, but I do suggest you study the law more, and the real experience of women-victims of violence.  I don't believe you've done either. 

 

And if you sued someone because they shouted "Show me your XXxX" your case would be thrown out of court in 15 seconds.  

 

YOu don't think sex with a minor causes harm?   Speeding is a crime against public safety, that is the crime.  

 

My suggestion is that before you tell someone to "study law more", you know what you are talking about.