Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Perverts On Parade

The pigs have been dropping like flies, and long past time. Not only every day, but nearly every hour, comes news of yet another powerful man brought down by allegations of sexually abusive behavior that in many cases started decades ago.

Would the New York Times have gone after Harvey Weinstein with such determination had not Donald Trump, with his own sleazy history of bad behavior toward women, been elected president? Would there have been such a deluge of victims past and present joining together and taking a stand against the physical, economic and psychic violence they've suffered?

I can hardly stand to read all the sordid details in all the sordid stories because they're bringing up such unpleasant repressed memories for me personally. I had to leave journalism for more than a decade as a result of my own experiences.

The publisher of the first newspaper I worked for attacked me the same night I won a reporting award. A bunch of us had gone out for celebratory drinks after the ceremony, and as he was dropping me off at my own car, the groping and sloppy kisses ensued. I managed to fend him off and escaped. Needless to say, my big moment of professional recognition had been forever spoiled.

After that, I noticed that I wasn't getting the same number and caliber of reporting assignments from the all-male editing desk. The silent freeze-out, the constructive eviction, had begun.

A second incident happened when I'd been transferred back to the graveyard shift,  and had gone into the tiny alcove off the main newsroom to rip out the AP wire reports. The sports editor had silently followed me,  cornered me and grabbed me with no warning. Again, I managed to fend off the attack while making no attempt to hide my disgust.

I fit the usual pattern. I only complained to the few women I worked with. Back then, in the late 70s, there were no laws against sexual harassment in the workplace. The term "sexual harassment" was not even in the lexicon yet.

And these incidents adversely affected my entire professional career. Like so many of the women who are speaking out today, I was "blackballed." When my newspaper was sold by the Gannet chain to a foreign investor, I finally left and immediately was offered another job at a local weekly paper. Everything was hunky-dory, or so I thought. 

The editor who had hired me so enthusiastically because of my excellent journalistic credentials and writing skills suddenly became distant and wouldn't name the day for me to report to work. He hemmed and he hawed, and he hawed and he hemmed, something about the budget and health insurance issues. I finally realized he was blowing me off, and I angrily told him so.

My suspicions about why the job offer was so suddenly and so passive-aggressively rescinded were confirmed a short time later. I found out from a mutual acquaintance that the sports editor who'd attacked me in the wire room had contacted his good friend, the weekly newspaper editor, and bad-mouthed me behind my back. I never learned precisely what he said, but I can imagine.

I gave up looking for another reporting job, and left the field entirely to help my husband open his medical clinic and later to raise my children. The next newspaper I worked for had a female editor and a much more sensitive and respectful group of male colleagues.

Of course, by then I was no longer a cute 20-something in a miniskirt. I was a matronly-looking woman in my 40s. And that's certainly the best part of getting older: the gropers start to leave you alone. The invisibility of the mature woman does have its perks, that's for sure.

So I feel angry and wistful at the same time as I read the stories of my modern-day reporting counterparts. With the closings of so many local newspapers and radio stations, and the consolidation of the media, it's harder than ever for talented women to not only break in, but to survive in this cutthroat competitive field.

The gruesome details of the Charlie Rose spree of both abusive verbal behavior and sexual predation were particularly galling to me. Here was a plutocrat who lived a luxury life, complete with private jets and four homes, but was too cheap to even pay some of his victims. He literally owned slaves, or as they're more euphemistically known these days, unpaid interns.

From the shattering and detail-rich Washington Post story: 
Working for the “Charlie Rose” show was a longtime dream for Reah Bravo, who in 2007 was a 29-year-old graduate student studying international affairs at Columbia University. She struggled to make ends meet during her unpaid internship, accruing credit card debt and eating free cereal in the Bloomberg food court.
One day, several months into the internship, Rose offered her a side gig at his home in Bellport on Long Island.
“Here is the deal: I’ll pay you $2,500 for the week plus all expenses for food, movies etc.,” he wrote to her on Aug. 9, 2007. “You will be there from Monday August 13-Friday afternoon, August 17. Your primary responsibilities are to organize and catalogue all my books and tapes and files ... It will help me a lot, be fun for you, and you will have a car all the time for whatever you need to do.”
As cathartic as it must be for Bravo and other women to be finally spilling their guts in public about their ordeals, the economic and emotional prices they have paid and continue to pay will last them their whole lives. Already labeled "difficult," their career opportunities will suffer, especially in the Google age. When highly credentialed young graduates are forced to enter the servant "gig" economy to make ends barely meet, the predation is not only sexual and financial. It is literally life and soul-destroying.

So I'm glad the ugly truth is coming out, at long last.

33 comments:

Mark Thomason said...

No, I don't think this would have happened without the election of Donald Trump. The intensity, even the will to see, are a function of the desire to use it to bring down Trump. It is no different than the sudden praise for the idea of unfaithful Electors and other ideas to get to the goal no matter the method.

However, they risk shooting themselves in the foot. The intense focus has started to turn up "examples" that are not. Sen. Franken "abusing" Arianna Huffington, when she and other who were there say that is not what happened, is an example that risks the Army/McCarthy moment of "at long last" and losing the credibility of the audience.

They could blow it before they ever get to their real goal, and so end up insulating Trump. I don't say that because I want it to happen, but rather because I see a risk that it is already happening.

Pearl said...

Karen: I am so sorry to read the details of what you had to go through in your early career. What a loss all around. I would suggest that you include the names in your report of the newspapers and men who behaved so rottenly to you and many others I am sure.You have nothing to lose by exposing them now.

It is overwhelming to read new well known names everyday who behaved indecently and I get suspicious whenever a progressive man's name comes up. In regard to Al Franken the immediate comments by his 'fellow' democrats to have him removed make me suspicious since they are trying to purge the Democratic party of any 'dangerous' progressives. Also his behavior, although inexcusable is not in the form of a Moore situation. The fact that his victim forgave him is meaningful and I trust he will be in the forefront of exposing the problems going on.

We can only hope that Trump will be included among the worst kind of men and their criminal behavior in more areas than one. Your column about Russiaphobia was excellent and most revealing.

Karen Garcia said...

Mark,

Agreed. As I wrote in a comment on Maureen Dowd's last column, there is hysteria in the air, and the media frenzy is a natural extension of "RussiaGate" in my view. There are risks that innocent people will get caught up in these "revelations" - so I've been careful, myself, to write about only those men who have readily admitted to the abuse, or those where an absolute preponderance of evidence (including police tapes in the case of Weinstein and the sheer number of women coming forward re Bill Cosby)justifies the coverage. There are already too many stories of allegations getting published and aired on the mere say-so of one or two people. There's bound to be a backlash against the backlash if the media isn't careful with all their click-bait.

I am reminded of the mass hysteria over the McMartin Nursery School child sex abuse scandal, in which kids who were coached by social workers ruined a whole family with accusations that turned out be bogus.

Still waiting for the secret hush-money slush fund for accusers of congress-critters to get more coverage. That one promises to be the real blockbuster, unless the political protection racket kicks into high gear. Like everything else, this "narrative" has a sell-by date.

Karen Garcia said...

Thanks, Pearl.

Both men I mentioned are dead. The publisher's name was John Prizzia and the sports editor was one Wesley "Bo" Gill. They were the nicest, most personable guys in the world, until they weren't. I was very friendly with Bo's wife (also dead now) who had once given me a kitten, so that was one more reason I didn't make a stink at the time - didn't want to cause her any pain.

Speaking of Bo, the only weird thing about him that people talked about was his addiction to covering blood and gore of all kinds. He always had the police scanner on, and was always the first on the scene of fatal accidents. He would gleefully regale the newsroom with all the gruesome details. In other words, he was a closet sadist and probable porn addict. Boy, the fond memories that are coming back with the latest Media Narrative!

Anne said...

Mark, I fully agree.

Karen, you speak the truth.

For me it's too much, too many, too painful, too personal to even begin to describe. What I thought was in the past is now in my present consciousness and I want to scream! CAPS are my screams. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

The sexual assault/harassment/aggression (what's the catch-all word?) and damage done is bad enough, but there's also the AGONIZING over whether to report, who to report to, what will happen to us for reporting, and knowing that we're likely to be DISBELIEVED even if we dare say something. And sure enough, when we do report it to save others from the same fate, we're totally EXPOSED and still not believed, so we're worse off than we just stayed silent. I'm not the silent type, but apparently I am the victim type - female.

I wish there was a hashtag that went beyond #MeToo for those of us who have suffered the abuse AND suffered again from reporting it and not being believed - #MeToox2? I've experienced both, reporting and staying silent, and I feel that reporting is worse if it results in not being believed because NOTHING CHANGES which means others will be at risk and the bastards will get away with it, again and again and again.

The final coup d'grace always seems to be the same: the career and character killing pre-emptive strike to DESTROY OUR CREDIBILITY immediately and steathily even before we have a chance to decide what to do. So even if we do report, no one will believe us and co-workers will have a heads-up to stay on the correct side of power and avoid us like the plague, so we'll be OSTRACIZED. If we decide not to report, we're still destroyed because of the pre-emptive strike and yes, BLACKBALLING.

GRRRRR! That's all I can stand to say.

Karen Garcia said...

Anne,

It really is too painful to dredge up. It still hurts, despite thinking you've been over it all this time. So many women are opening up about this crap, many decades later; I don't think the NYT had a clue over what they'd be dredging up. There is no putting the toothpaste back in this particular tube. If nothing else, it is putting both active and incipient workplace predators on high, high alert as well as forcing "lifestyle liberals" to confront their own cognitive dissonance, especially as regards the Clintons. They're parsing their words even more annoyingly than Obama did with his legal justification for droning people to death.

And what's with 88-year-old John Conyers? At least he is debunking the rumor that dirty old men are too past their primes to inflict any real and lasting damage on their subordinates.

Anonymous said...

Your editors seem quite human when you name them and describe them as full humans. I have had these types of encounters, especially when alcohol is involved, and as long as I could fend them off and they apologized (they mostly did--and profusely), I let it go. I was “laid off” once for complaining about it to my supervisor (a woman no less--“grow up honey”, she advised), so I’m not minimizing the damage, just saying that for me, the guys were usually contrite and didn’t try to get even. Once or twice, I even went along with it because I was a little attracted to them--then it was me who was embarrassed on Monday.

Once, however I was absolutely forcibly raped in a car while being driven home from a party by my best friend’s husband, no less. He just suddenly pulled the car over--it was terrifying. I’ve never said anything to her because she was my best friend, but whenever this stuff comes up, I find myself utterly raging with hate and anger. These things are different. One has no place in the workplace when it results in pesonal revenge, and needs to be dealt with. The other is a sick crime and also needs to be dealt with.

Jay–Ottawa said...

In an article at TomDispatch, Robert Lipsyte takes a different approach to reports piling on about the crimes of the Weinsteins, Roses and Moores. It’s a mea culpa.

While not a perpetrator himself, he admits he rarely confronted other men who were engaging in sexual harassment around him, whether in the high school locker room or the newsrooms where he worked. He apologizes for having served as an accomplice by doing nothing for most of his 90 years.

It takes courage, for men as well as women, to call out the football hero, the boss, the rich man, the pervert or the bully. In our bro solidarity and manly silence we usually come up wanting. The sisterhood is pretty much on its own for turning this around. Sorry.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176352/tomgram%3A_robert_lipsyte%2C_beating_back_the_bad_boys/#more

Mark Thomason said...

"I don't think the NYT had a clue over what they'd be dredging up."

I'm sure you are right. The cover up was so successful that people did not realize the scope of what was going on all around them. The NYT kicked the ant hill, and it all comes boiling out.

I wonder if the NYT would have done it if they knew who and how much they'd expose.

I wonder if any of the victims suspected how much of it happened to so many others. I wonder the extent to which the perps felt they were unique, special.

"There is no putting the toothpaste back in this particular tube."

I hope you are right. I am not certain you are right. The power of those with a need to protect, and the investment in those powerful people, might produce a surprise result.

How to prevent that? Oddly, if they "got" Trump "it would be over" and if they are still in pursuit it will still have the potential big payoff for them. Maybe we are better off if that fox stays just ahead of the hounds for a long run.

Uncle Ho said...

"Would the New York Times have gone after Harvey Weinstein with such determination had not Donald Trump, with his own sleazy history of bad behavior toward women, been elected president?"

I hope so, because there is no connection between Weinstein and Trump. BTW, did you forget that Bill Clinton was elected president, with his own sleazy history of bad behavior toward women? Sleaze that continued into the White House, with intern Monica Lewinsky? Sex in the Oval Office? Oh, wait, a BJ is not sex according to Bill "hound dog" Clinton. And what about Hillary Clinton, who enabled Bill Clinton, and defamed the many women who accused Bill of sexual assault? Hillary Clinton for president? Hell No! Please, enough with the Trump bashing.

Regarding your personal story, what do you expect when "a cute 20-something in a miniskirt" shows up for work? You wore the miniskirt to flaunt your sex appeal, and get a reaction from men, then you are offended when certain men take the bait! Bad actors all around! I would advise women to dress professionally in the workplace. That is a good start to preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.

Re "I fit the usual pattern. I only complained to the few women I worked with. Back then, in the late 70s, there were no laws against sexual harassment in the workplace. The term "sexual harassment" was not even in the lexicon yet." Assault and battery have been crimes for a long time. You should have gone to the police and reported the crimes you described. There may also have been civil liability for the assault and battery you described.

Finally, check out this short video of CBS This Morning's Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Norah O'donnell and the sex banter initiated by the ladies. Poor Charlie! (sarcasm)

https://youtu.be/1RrzxtmeIDM

Anne said...

In the many cases affecting me over a lifetime, alcohol was never involved. That's not to say that alcohol and sex weren't combined at other occasions, but those were consensual and not the issue here.

Neither did it have anything to do with being physically attractive. I've never been considered pretty nor even cute. Sexual incidents started at about 9 years old and extended to 55 years old when my hair had already turned gray which was 10 years ago. I hope that's the last.

I never wore mini-skirts at work because by that time I had already been through a lot and suspected that I was somehow too naturally sexy, like I gave off pheromones. I never accentuated my curves with my clothing nor wore anything tight to work or anywhere else for that matter. Because I carried a bit of extra weight, I usually tried to cover up any signs of fat (which wouldn't even be called fat nowadays). I always dressed professionally but never seemed to make a difference when it came to perps.

Neither did I come on to or have any friendship or even relationship with any of the perps, minus my oldest brother, the talented and brilliant first-born shining star and family favorite whom I had to constantly guard against. I barely even knew the rest of the perps, and no way was there ever a case of mistaken mutual attraction.

I'm also not even referring to brush-bys or the sudden recognition/close calls/quick escapes. The experiences I'm referring to hit the target directly, so there's no doubt about what was happening. Once again against my will, these incidents have been jogged from my memory by hearing others' stories, and 8 have come back to haunt me.

Finally, I can confidently state and firmly believe that I am not in any way responsible for the actions of self-centered, immature, insensitive people who prey on others to fulfill their drive for self-gratification and aggrandizement.

And Mark, I think you nailed it. These people do believe they're special and unique.

Karen Garcia said...

Re what Anonymous said:

I was absolutely willing to brush my two encounters off at the time. It was only when these brush-offs engendered a backlash against me professionally that their full import and impact become apparent to me. These weren't dates gone bad, or bad behavior from my male peers. This was abuse of power.

Re what "Uncle Ho" said, or should I say, scolded?

These guys were very close friends with the men in the police department in my city. Most of the cops hated my guts, not least because I'd cut my journalistic teeth covering a major corruption trial resulting in the conviction of the "Newburgh 16" - including the chief on such counts as tampering with physical evidence and bribery. Even after the department was "reformed" by bringing in an out-of-state commissioner, it was a mess. They hired one token female officer, whose professional experiences, compared to mine, were a true horror story.

Thanks so much for telling me that the length of hemlines in the 70s were the main cause of sex assaults. If only I had known, I would have shown up for work in Victorian garb or a nun's habit and kept my eyes downcast when speaking to men - even tho such "modest" clothing and demure mannerisms historically have done zilch to protect women from predators.

Re the Clintons - I've written about them and their malfeasance ad infinitum and ad nauseum. The"whataboutism" which is rampant in comment boards regarding the political ideologies of VIP offenders is getting really stale and annoying. But what about Ivan the Terrible? But what about Thomas Jefferson? What about Napoleon? What about Warren G. Harding?

Mark Thomason said...

Re: Uncle Ho -- How can anyone comment here and yet not know Karen's past expression of strong opinion on Hillary and Bill? That goes past whataboutery all the way to blowing smoke.

Uncle Ho said...

Re Karen Garcia at 12.11

Re "These guys were very close friends with the men in the police department in my city. Most of the cops hated my guts..." Did you contact an attorney? Did the police get federal funding? See the Civil Rights Act of 1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Sounds like the assault and battery on you may have also been a civil rights violation... race (Title II, Title III, Title VI), employment (Title VII), gender, sexual harassment - but I am not a lawyer.

"In 1972, Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. The Act amended Title VII and gave EEOC authority to initiate its own enforcement litigation..."

"In Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., a 1971 Supreme Court case regarding the gender provisions of the Act..."

"In the early 1980s, the EEOC and some federal courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act..."

Some journalists I know of who have written about public corruption end up having to relocate, not to the next town, but far away, like Florida to Vermont. Some such journalists get a permit and carry a handgun, and are proficient in using it... Sometimes the FBI tells a person to get a weapon for protection from corrupt local authorities.

Re "Thanks so much for telling me that the length of hemlines in the 70s were the main cause of sex assaults..." I did not tell you that the length of hemlines in the 70s were the main cause of sex assaults. You are being hysterical. I wrote, "...what do you expect when "a cute 20-something in a miniskirt" shows up for work? You wore the miniskirt to flaunt your sex appeal, and get a reaction from men, then you are offended when certain men take the bait! Bad actors all around! I would advise women to dress professionally in the workplace. That is a good start to preventing sexual harassment in the workplace."

Re: "If only I had known, I would have shown up for work in Victorian garb or a nun's habit". More hysterics. Victorian garb or a nun's habit are not professional dress for the workplace. (unless you are a nun for a habit).

Re: "eyes downcast when speaking to men". I would suggest looking directly at a man when speaking to him, in a frank, business-like way, not in a flirtatious, or come-hither way.

Re: "such "modest" clothing and demure mannerisms historically have done zilch to protect women from predators." How do you know this, historically?

FYI, it does not take much effort to get the (wrong) attention of certain men. A miniskirt will get the (wrong) attention of certain men. Studies show ordinary-looking women get hit on the most, because men think they have a better chance with them than with an attractive woman. Certain things outside the norm get the (wrong) attention of certain men, maybe a tramp-stamp tattoo, illegal drug use, telling dirty jokes at work, touching men with their hands as part of communicating, the list is long and varied...

Re Hillary Clinton and Harvey Weinstein. HRC was a candidate for president in 2016 who accepted money from Weinstein, in addition to facilitating a serial sexual predator, her husband.

Re "But what about Ivan the Terrible?" Ivan was not candidate for president in 2016 who accepted money from Weinstein.

Re "But what about Thomas Jefferson?" Jefferson was not candidate for president in 2016 who accepted money from Weinstein.

Re "What about Napoleon?" Napoleon was not candidate for president in 2016 who accepted money from Weinstein.

Re "What about Warren G. Harding?" Harding was not candidate for president in 2016 who accepted money from Weinstein.

Kat said...

Hey HO!
trigger warning: contains Trump Bashing


https://www.truthdig.com/cartoons/grope-therapy/

Karen Garcia said...

Ho,

Um... you sorta proved my point. Since Ivan the Terrible wasn't a candidate for US public office, then he absolutely cannot be part of the artificially narrowed conversation. I actually wrote a post awhile back, comparing Ivan and Trump. Both were concurrently diehard beauty contest operators and abusers of women - which was all of a piece with their clinical paranoia and demagoguery and abuse of all kinds of oppressed people.

Again... I didn't pursue criminal charges against my own abusers because I didn't and still don't think that sloppy come-ons amount to a crime anywhere near as serious as rape or attempted rape. Both men backed off when I vehemently expressed myself. I did speak to some lawyer acquaintances much later, who advised me, whether rightly or wrongly I don't know, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that I'd be professionally blackballed as a direct result of the rebuffed advances.

Since you asked, some facts about rape in the good old olden days when Amurika was great again:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/gender-race-and-rape-during-the-civil-war/283754/

Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta go sweat over a hot stove in preparation for Thanksgiving. I'll be back sometime tonight or maybe early tomorrow. Happy Holiday!

Anne said...

@Uncle Ho

Have you ever filed a lawsuit against a powerful institution? Well, I've done it against the Federal Government, and I learned there is no justice. Justice is for the rich and powerful. It's a losing proposition unless you have at least 20 years and a minimum of hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay your lawyers, then if you happen to win, they get most of it.

First the case gets dragged out endlessly due to billable hours for both sides. When your case finally gets heard, even if you win, you can still lose because they can afford to endlessly APPEAL. If you lose, you'll never be able to appeal because the first trial will bankrupt you.

Congress has even written loopholes for cases against the Federal Government. This is unreal, but it happened to me, so I know this happens. When you win an EEO judgment from an Administrative Law judge against the Feds, they actually get the option to (1) agree with the judge and pay the award (as if), or (2) disagree and not pay, end of story. I would have had to file an appeal in another court in order to collect my thousands in winnings, as ass-backwards as that is. That just shows one reality of the rigged and corrupt 'justice' system.

Oh, and the coup d'grace - witnesses will LIE through their teeth under oath for their employer because they know who holds power over their jobs. They will deliberately tear your character apart with smears, and that false testimony becomes part of the official record which, especially when cited by the judge as a basis for his ruling, is WRITTEN IN STONE ON THE INTERNET FOREVER for all prospective employers to see.

They might as well just put a bullet through your head.

The Joker said...

Without minimizing what was done to you and others by sexual predators, I think you're focusing on a particular subset of a much greater issue, that of power dynamics. Thinking small balkanizes resistance.

It's not just about Charlie Rose showing off his prize Rosebush. The greater issue, what should be a central issue of resistance, is that power should never be used for exploitation or domination, whether of sexual, economic, psychological,  political, military, geographical or ecological form. Sexual abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse, inadequate wages or hazardous working conditions, extreme inequality, outright slavery, racism, imperialism, warfare, severe damage to the natural world -- all are abuses of power.

We need formal structures designed to prevent abuse of power, in ALL its varied manifestations. Until then, we need broad resistance. Don't be fooled by the recent prominence (and some measure of success) of the public shaming of sexual predators. When it succeeds, at best it's only tardy and very incomplete justice. More important, though, is that public shaming hardly ever elicits even the slightest embarrassment when attempted against most of the other, non-sexual, forms that abuse of power may take, and the prospect of shaming does virtually nothing to deter most abuses of power.

Erik Roth said...


Regarding the pompous, unctuous "Uncle Ho" (ironically showing up at Thanksgiving) --

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
~ George Bernard Shaw

But I will say flat out that dressing attractively is NOT "flaunting" sex appeal, nor "asking for it" as that gerund presumably implies, therefore excusing whatever ensues.

“Of all the evils for which man has made himself responsible, none is so degrading, so shocking or so brutal as his abuse of the better half of humanity, the female sex.”
~ Mahatma Gandhi

Now hear (and watch) this:
John & Yoko on Dick Cavett ~ "Woman is the Nigger of the World" ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5lMxWWK218

Mark Thomason said...

"it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that I'd be professionally blackballed as a direct result of the rebuffed advances"

Facts, provable facts, are something a lawyer can't know until he digs. Actually it is normally a good investigator who does the digging. It is only hard to prove if you don't come up with the right witness, easy if you do.

I recall a red light / green light case, one of the ultimate challenges of proof, that became a slam dunk when my investigator found three religious leaders who had been on that corner watching the whole thing, walking the same path they took every day at that time. He just went back at the same time to see who came by.

I recall a she said / no the other said case, with a young girl who heard it all and did the 9-year old tape recorder thing to the judge. End of case.

Did you know police at a scene keep notebooks, and they do not put everything from their notebooks into their reports? Then they forget, but most save their notebooks for years.

I had a juror call me in tears about something "just not right" that happened in a jury room. You can't prove that, the jury room is sacrosanct, unless of course you can. It all depends. I did, that once.

Never advise someone to give up because proof is too hard, until you dig in and find out what there is to find out. You can't know.

I don't mean to second guess your decision. I mean to tell women not to assume they can't prove what happened, or can't prove damages. You can't know that until you try. You need not go all the way, you can run it up the flagpole and see who salutes, then re-evaluate costs and benefits.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Shame on you, Joker. You say you don’t want to minimize what so many women have suffered; then you promptly minimize it. For you, sexual violation gets buried as one more element in a long list of injustices adding up to your all-inclusive and borderless “abuses of power.” Troll card 37, right?

You want us all to focus endlessly on something super comprehensive, which we’ll call the War Against the Abuse of Power (WAAP). Talk about whataboutery. Your big reform idea is in competition with Einstein’s search for a unified theory of the universe. When you cook dinner, do you put all the ingredients in the blender before serving?

Victims of injustice and dear comrades, transcend the specific parochial concerns that affect your particular situation and experiences. Don’t focus on small, achievable goals. “Thinking small balkanizes resistance.”

Pray tell, what philosopher, political scientist or practitioner of practical politics came up with that line? Now you tell me what great soul said the following: “Doing everything at once accomplishes zilch.” (my translation)

Good luck with drumming up broad resistance of the masses under your great big WAAP umbrella. “We need formal structures designed to prevent abuse of power, in ALL its manifestations. Until then, we need broad resistance.” Such abstractions are sure to cause excitement in the streets and the salons of intellectuals. But tell me again, exactly which structures do we tear down Monday morning in order to raise what kind of formal structures that aren’t already in place?

Stick around while you pick another card; or skim through Sardonicky’s archive. You’ll find that Karen Garcia has jousted with every abuse of power on your list. She just isn’t the spinning centrifuge going nowhere you would have us be.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Am I just imagining that the male contributors here with their bags full of generalizations sound so much different from contributors who are women, each with specific tales drawn from lived experience?

Karen Garcia said...

Thanks, Jay, for acknowledging the "lived experience" of the women commenters. When a person is victimized, "rationality" and a logical perspective can take years, if ever, to develop. Abusers know this. That's why I think that the recent #MeToo movement's therapeutic benefits far outweigh the real danger of a potential witch hunt. After awhile, you develop a sense of which women are sincere, and which are not. First red flag: an immediate demand for monetary damages. Second red flag: a dearth of women coming forward to accuse one particular man. Third red flag: lack of detail in the accusations. The more vivid the description in terms of time, place, witnesses and ability to remember specific conversations verbatim, the better. For example, Juanita Broaddrick never could have made up Bill Clinton telling her "You'd better put some ice on that" after he bit her lip during the rape.

Uncle Ho said...

Some of you may not know that "Uncle Ho" is the nickname U.S. troops and others gave to Ho Chi Minh, see the link

Women might want to have plans in place to deal with workplace sexual harassment. In my opinion the plan should include:

1. How will you protect yourself from a potential perpetrator? Will you carry a weapon such as pepper spray, a stun gun, a knife, or a firearm?
2. How will you respond in the moment to the initial unwanted sexual contact? What will your response be to unwanted words? To unwanted, intentional touching? How will you respond to unwanted displays of masturbation or nudity?
3. Consider having a support group in place beforehand. Will your group meet and role-play?
4. Make a list of the authorities you might contact for workplace sexual harassment. Call them beforehand to gauge their response, and see what training or programs are available.
5. Gather the names of a few attorneys you could call for workplace sexual harassment.
6. What medical treatment would you consider for workplace sexual harassment, including psychological counseling?
7. Consider keeping a journal if you are sexually harassed at work. People often find writing is cathartic. The journal can also serve as a written record of events.

Re Mark Thomason at 2:02 PM. I mostly recall Karen called the election for Hillary Clinton a month before election day.

Re Anne at 4:29 PM. Congratulations, you fought the good fight. I believe you have a special place in the hereafter (if there is one). You speak the truth. The United States has a failed legal system. In my opinion, judges are domestic terrorists as defined by 18 U.S.C. sec. 2331(5). Our failed legal system has paved the way to the U.S.A. as a failed state.

The United States raked 18th out of 113 countries on Rule of Law, see the World Justice Project,

https://worldjusticeproject.org/ and the Rule of Law index for 2016.

https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-rule-law-index-2016

The 2016 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index Measures How Rule of Law Is Experienced by the General Public Worldwide. The U.S.A. ranked 18th out of 113 countries

https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/ROLIndex_2016_US_eng%20%282%29.pdf

I believe that ranking was a gift, when you consider the World Justice Project was founded by William H. Neukom in 2006 as a presidential initiative of the American Bar Association.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Justice_Project

Singer Taylor Swift fought sexual harassment in a four year lawsuit with a man who grabbed her ass at a meet-and-greet. Swift was represented by Venable LLP, see the press release

https://www.venable.com/venable-successfully-defends-taylor-swift-in-case-against-former-radio-host-08-17-2017/

Photo of DJ David Mueller grabbing Swift’s ass.
http://www.tmz.com/2016/11/12/taylor-swift-butt-grab-dj-lawsuit-photo/

Taylor Swift’s statement following her trial win:

"I want to thank Judge William J. Martinez and the jury for their careful consideration," Swift said in her statement. "My attorneys Doug Baldridge, Danielle Foley, Jay Schaudies and Katie Wright for fighting for me and anyone who feels silenced by a sexual assault, and especially anyone who offered their support throughout this four-year ordeal and two-year long trial process."

"I acknowledge the privilege that I benefit from in life, in society and in my ability to shoulder the enormous cost of defending myself in a trial like this. My hope is to help those whose voices should also be heard. Therefore, I will be making donations in the near future to multiple organizations that help sexual assault victims defend themselves."

http://www.oxygen.com/blogs/taylor-swift-releases-powerful-statement-following-groping-trial-victory

Re Mark Thomason at 10:33 PM. You speak the truth. But Karen is not interested in doing the hard work you describe. She is a complainer, not a person of action.

Uncle Ho said...

Re The Joker at 4.38 PM. "We need formal structures designed to prevent abuse of power,..." Yes, that is what we need. "Until then, we need broad resistance." No. Until then, we need formal structures designed to prevent abuse of power. Work to start or improve formal structures designed to prevent abuse of power. So called resistance is a waste of effort, in my view.

Re Karen at 3:24 PM and generally. You and many others, including people at the NYT, suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Your comment to me at 3:24 PM is mostly non-responsive and further dialog would be pointless. Abbreviated from the LA Times, which has a photo of Trump as Hitler, a comparison you have made:

1. In the first stage of the disease, victims lose all sense of proportion.

2. The mid-level stages of TDS have a profound effect on the victim’s vocabulary: Sufferers speak a distinctive language consisting solely of hyperbole.

3. As TDS progresses, the afflicted lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality.

4. In the advanced stages of the disease, the afflicted lose touch with reality. Opinion is unmoored from fact. Life resembles a dark fairy tale in which the villain – Trump – is an amalgam of all the worst tyrants in history, (such as Ivan the Terrible, LOL!)

In fact, Trump is just a wealthy, entitled, Republican asshole.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raimondo-trump-derangement-syndrome-20161226-story.html

Anonymous said...

check your spam filter

Anne said...

Job references are also a big factor in one's decision as how to handle workplace sexual aggression. The perp immediately gains the upper hand even though he usually already has one hand over you by his status. So then he gets both hands on you, figuratively and literally. Written references can be worded so vaguely or carefully that they require a phone call to clarify, which means anything can be said during that conversation. Phone calls are the safest way for bosses to disparage someone.

And going back to the legal route, it's not up to us whether a case gets prosecuted. Even with sufficient evidence, if prosecuting the perp puts the brand or reputation of a bu$ine$$ or member of the good ol' boys club at risk, it won't go anywhere. There are so many variables that go into prosecutorial discretion, and much of it is politics, including sexual politics. Women are too often still considered second class citizens, especially by men in authority. They will, however, advise you 'feel free' to file a civil case at your own expense, the downsides of which I have already discussed.

Sexual aggression is effectively a power play, whether consciously intended to be or not. It gives the perp complete control over someone who might otherwise be strong enough to oppose him, putting her in an untenable bind. So perps are not selecting for some kind of weakness (both physical attractiveness and unattractiveness, according to some morons) but rather preempting strength they perceive as a potential threat and effectively doubling both their power and their pleasure.

Jay–Ottawa said...

TROLL ALERT! PLEASE, LET’S STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS.

Tips for recognizing troll commentary:

1. initially seems to be on your side then turns the tables
2. undue length intended to swamp the board
3. serial attacks against the management from a rare visitor
4. often resorts to bullet points (cough)
5. inclusion of out-of-context quotes intended to discredit*
6. off the wall moniker that appears suddenly and then vanishes
7. distorts the moderator’s approach and tone to the issue or
8. leads us miles off topic
9. bloats and deadens exchanges, instead of stimulating ideas

*Requires many hours searching through the archives or keeping book. This means you’re dealing with a paid pro.

I leave it to others to correct or add to the list.

general Jinjur said...

otoh, jay, I see a lot of comments on many sites that meeting with disagreement from or objection by others are followed up with accusations that the commenters are Russian... some people have strong opinions, agree or disagree.

meanwhile my Thanksgiving has begun with watching The Exorcist. yes, I'm known for my cheery disposition. I hadn't noticed, but should have given the historical religious demeaning of women, that apparently blatty believes that Satan enjoys sexually humiliating women while merely screwing with men's minds ...

Uncle Ho said...

This is a correction/clarification to my post at 9:28 AM, adding the word "certain". In my opinion, "certain" judges are domestic terrorists as defined by 18 U.S.C. sec. 2331(5).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

This is due to their membership in so-called "integrated" state bar associations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_association#Mandatory.2C_integrated.2C_or_unified_bar_associations

The United States Supreme Court unanimously held in Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 US 1 (1990), adopting in effect the prescient minority Justices' dissents in Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820 (1961), that integrated state bars must not venture into political and ideological waters but stick with the narrow, legitimate functions of integrated state bars. To do otherwise these bars would become, as Justice Douglas pointed out in Lathrop, "goose-stepping brigades" that serve neither the public nor the profession.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/496/1.html

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/367/820.html

As a young, handsome, innocent, man twenty-one years old, I was sexually harassed by a female co-worker in her 50’s, an overweight, unattractive Germanic woman, who repeatedly propositioned me to come to her home and paint her bedroom. Back then I was a card-carrying member of the United Steelworkers, and this harassment continued for a week or two in front of other steelworkers while on the job. Fortunately the perpetrator had no power over me, and her harassment was limited to verbal. I believe, but am not certain, that some of the older men I worked with confronted her, and the harassment stopped.

I have also been subject to disability-based harassment, by equals, and superiors, while on the job, and in the government.

Still no comment @ 11:15 AM about video of CBS This Morning's Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Norah O'donnell and the sex banter initiated by the ladies.

https://youtu.be/1RrzxtmeIDM

And yes, I am a fan of Taylor Swift. One of Tay Tay’s finest performances was "Live On The Seine" @ Paris, FRANCE

https://youtu.be/8W_278Mc0Lo

Jay, Shake it Off, baby!
https://youtu.be/nfWlot6h_JM

Elizabeth -- Marysville said...

10. Commentary drips with condescension


#Metoo. Earliest one I remember was when I was 10: a complete stranger, on an air force base, in broad daylight. Second one was age 17, in Venice: a morbidly obese male pushed himself up against me from behind as I was standing in a circle of tourists watching a painter. I looked at him with disgust and jumped out of the way. He did it again.

This #Metoo is about sexual assault, but it doesn't even include the assaults that happen BECAUSE we are female. Hospital work is rife with women-hating male doctors who abuse nurses verbally all the time. The first time I was ever *physically* assaulted in a hospital setting was by an ER doctor who pushed me off a patient I was attempting to give CPR. The patient died a couple of hours later in ICU. The doctor got a slap on the hand.

Jay–Ottawa said...

@ anonymous

"check your spam filter"

Could be the moderator's spam filter, but maybe it's this passage just above the empty comment box:

Those wishing to post anonymously are asked to use the "Name/Url" option and choose a handle or initials.. Too many "Anonymous" posters have been creating too much confusion. Therefore, all future submissions posted under "Anonymous" will be rejected. Thanks for your cooperation.

The Joker said...

@Jay-Ottawa
No, I'm not minimizing the impact on real people from the instances of sexual abuse that have recently occupied the news. By all means, take down the sexual predators.
But I will point out that between the focus on that and the focus on Russian subversion, the many traditional progressive issues that were quite visible during the first six months of Trump have almost disappeared from the public consciousness. The rich and powerful may not have planned the current sexual abuse uproar, but I'll bet they're more than happy to sacrifice Charlie Rose, Harvey Weinstein, and a few others in return for getting the public's mind off of the wide variety of other progressive issues and any broader, unified critique that could help that public truly understand the state of this country, the means of oppression, and yes, "unify" opposition to the status quo.
So keep on opposing any "grand unification", whether it be of "formal structures" or of "resistance". Keep doing the progressive "identity politics". That sure has worked well during the past several decades (for the reactionaries, that is, not for progressives).