Auston Matthews charged with disorderly conduct

[Cecil Terwilliger]

To all the people accusing this woman of seeking a payday, on Leafs Lunch with Dreger and Andi Petrillo they reported that the woman was going to let it go and just wanted an apology. That is until Matthews dbag father got involved and denied the entire incident. That’s when she decided to escalate it.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Matata

This women was spooked for all of 10 seconds before realizing it was a famous millionaire harassing her, at which point she realized that if she cried foul hard enough that she could get a big enough payout that she could quit her godawful night time security job and significantly improve her quality of life.

Matthews is going to eat #### for this for a long, long time: legal battles, payouts, national embarrassment, the endless jeering of opposing teams fans. I'm not worried for a second that Matthews is getting off scot-free. I'll even go far enough to say the punishment he receives will far out strip the punishment he deserves for his shenanigans.

How's that for empathy?

Famous? The average joe down there doesn't have a clue who he is

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

To all the people accusing this woman of seeking a payday, on Leafs Lunch with Dreger and Andi Petrillo they reported that the woman was going to let it go and just wanted an apology. That is until Matthews dbag father got involved and denied the entire incident. That’s when she decided to escalate it.

Exactly. His whole d bag behavior would have gone unnoticed by the world at large had he handles this with some degree of responsibility. Now he gets to lie in the bed he (and his family apparently) made.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by RichKlit

So your a hypocrite? Do I have that right?

“I’m not here to derail the thread but let me bring this up multiple times”

Cali made a dumb comment. Report it or move on instead of baiting him into some debate about rig workers. This thread is already ridiculous enough without starting an irrelevant side-debate.

[RichKlit]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“I’m not here to derail the thread but let me bring this up multiple times”

Cali made a dumb comment. Report it or move on instead of baiting him into some debate about rig workers. This thread is already ridiculous enough without starting an irrelevant side-debate.

HAHAHA coming from you that's priceless.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by RichKlit

HAHAHA coming from you that's priceless.

Can we assume that you are done with this now?

Move along.

[RichKlit]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Can we assume that you are done with this now?

Move along.

I posted twice. Relax.

[TheScorpion]

Somebody rename RichKlit "New Coke" as he's clearly keeping a Tab on PepsiFree.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by FireFly

As a female, being approached by any strange group of men at 2 AM is frightening regardless of whether they are drunk or not. Regardless of whether I'm alone or not. Just so everybody here is clear on that. Under no circumstances would any female ever feel secure when faced by 3 strange men at 2 AM. In a car, outside of a car, there are no circumstances that it doesn't put you on edge.

I don't have a hard time recognizing that most women are more fearful than most men at night alone. But if this is really a universal fear that affects all women, shouldn't we reconsider allowing women to take jobs such as police officers and front-line military personnel?

Why would someone in charge of assigning security guards for night shifts ever hire a woman, and expose her to more anxiety and danger than her male counterparts?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't have a hard time recognizing that most women are more fearful than most men at night alone. But if this is really a universal fear that affects all women, shouldn't we reconsider allowing women to take jobs such as police officers and front-line military personnel?

Why would someone in charge of assigning security guards for night shifts ever hire a woman, and expose her to more anxiety and danger than her male counterparts?

Oh boy.
So because women have a legitimate reason to be afraid of men - that should prevent them from having those types of jobs?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by thescorpion

somebody rename richklit "new coke" as he's clearly keeping a tab on pepsifree.

r-d-r-r.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't have a hard time recognizing that most women are more fearful than most men at night alone. But if this is really a universal fear that affects all women, shouldn't we reconsider allowing women to take jobs such as police officers and front-line military personnel?

Why would someone in charge of assigning security guards for night shifts ever hire a woman, and expose her to more anxiety and danger than her male counterparts?

It would be absurd to assume all women have a universal fear of men.

But aggressive men, late at night, who are in a group and are drunk? Yeah that checks enough boxes to be totally understandable.

Given this woman’s PTSD history, perhaps being a night time security guard isn’t the most suitable career but that’s ignoring the limited career options for vets with mental health issues. Not everyone can just choose to not do a job they aren’t suitable for. She maybe needs to pay her rent and eat like everyone else. What other career opportunities are readily available for this woman?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by ST20

The punishment fit the crime but the excessive comments on assault and blanket comments that imply ladies are fragile and need YOUR protection is a little much. Go speak to your wife, girlfriend or daughters. I guarantee you, they face things a million times things worst than this on one Saturday night out. And yes most of these incidents on a Saturday night out would fit the term assault. Would I be pissed that this specific incident happened to my wife? Yes. Do I think this specific incident, where no one was assaulted, requires a deeper analysis of society and a women's place in it? NO. There are far too many real women's issues to focus your time on than trying to make something more of a famous hockey player being an idiot.

Not sure anyone is really saying any of this? The word assault has been thrown around a few times, mostly in statistics of how frequently women experience it. Assault has also been said a few times 'inaccurately' - though I think that has a lot to do with us having only a few words available (harassment, assault, and rape) to describe a broad range of realities. The fact that 'rape' is often euphamized down to the broader 'sexual assault' doesn't help matters.

The divergence here is that it's totally understandable (and IMO reasonable) that the security guard thought she was about to be raped...because that is just about the only logical reason a man or group of men would try to 'sneak' into an occupied car at 2am. I can also see how the bros thought they were just harassing her (not sexually harassing). To be clear, I think it's indisputable that they intended to make her [a little bit] uncomfortable, but they were too stupid to recognize how their actions would inevitably be received.

So where does that leave us? In what other cases do you we use a wrongdoer's lack of malicious intent to excuse the actual consequences of their actions for other people? Is this not exactly the right time to be discussing the issues of gender dynamics? Too often, men are unaware of, or simply don't care about how our words/actions make women feel. It's certainly not a matter of women needing thicker skin - they've proven a pretty impressive ability to put up with bull####. Actually putting ourselves in this security guard's shoes would be a good start - even if it was only 10 seconds worth of fear, it sounds friggin awful - but it's not really enough, because we can't fully relate to the power imbalance or history of preceding experiences (even women who haven't directly experienced full blown creepiness themselves feel it through their friends who have).

I don't actually know what the answer is, but I think a lot of people could stand to do a little critical thinking. Is there actually a war on men right now? Or are we finally being collectively called out for our long history of collective BS? I can acknowledge that women continue to suffer from mens' malice and ignorance without feeling ashamed of my gender.

Even if you are unable to or don't want to empathize with this women, why not limit your comment to "Matthews is a moron." Period. End of sentence. No need for a "but, it's just typical drunk boy stuff" or "she's out for money", etc. Better yet, why not say nothing at all? Because these comments only prove one thing - that you're a jackass that can't begin to imagine how life happens differently for different people.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Somebody rename RichKlit "New Coke" as he's clearly keeping a Tab on PepsiFree.

Bonus points for including "Tab" in there

[genetic_phreek]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't have a hard time recognizing that most women are more fearful than most men at night alone. But if this is really a universal fear that affects all women, shouldn't we reconsider allowing women to take jobs such as police officers and front-line military personnel?

Why would someone in charge of assigning security guards for night shifts ever hire a woman, and expose her to more anxiety and danger than her male counterparts?

The only thing that should be reconsidered is how we conduct ourselves as a society.

I don't think anyone male or female wants to deal with drunk hooligans late at night but sometimes it pays the bills.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Somebody rename RichKlit "New Coke" as he's clearly keeping a Tab on PepsiFree.

Move along RichKlit, that's my job.

[ST20]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Not sure anyone is really saying any of this? The word assault has been thrown around a few times, mostly in statistics of how frequently women experience it. Assault has also been said a few times 'inaccurately' - though I think that has a lot to do with us having only a few words available (harassment, assault, and rape) to describe a broad range of realities. The fact that 'rape' is often euphamized down to the broader 'sexual assault' doesn't help matters.



The divergence here is that it's totally understandable (and IMO reasonable) that the security guard thought she was about to be raped...because that is just about the only logical reason a man or group of men would try to 'sneak' into an occupied car at 2am. I can also see how the bros thought they were just harassing her (not sexually harassing). To be clear, I think it's indisputable that they intended to make her [a little bit] uncomfortable, but they were too stupid to recognize how their actions would inevitably be received.



So where does that leave us? In what other cases do you we use a wrongdoer's lack of malicious intent to excuse the actual consequences of their actions for other people? Is this not exactly the right time to be discussing the issues of gender dynamics? Too often, men are unaware of, or simply don't care about how our words/actions make women feel. It's certainly not a matter of women needing thicker skin - they've proven a pretty impressive ability to put up with bull####. Actually putting ourselves in this security guard's shoes would be a good start - even if it was only 10 seconds worth of fear, it sounds friggin awful - but it's not really enough, because we can't fully relate to the power imbalance or history of preceding experiences (even women who haven't directly experienced full blown creepiness themselves feel it through their friends who have).



I don't actually know what the answer is, but I think a lot of people could stand to do a little critical thinking. Is there actually a war on men right now? Or are we finally being collectively called out for our long history of collective BS? I can acknowledge that women continue to suffer from mens' malice and ignorance without feeling ashamed of my gender.



Even if you are unable to or don't want to empathize with this women, why not limit your comment to "Matthews is a moron." Period. End of sentence. No need for a "but, it's just typical drunk boy stuff" or "she's out for money", etc. Better yet, why not say nothing at all? Because these comments only prove one thing - that you're a jackass that can't begin to imagine how life happens differently for different people.

You say nobody is throwing around sexual assault and then in the next paragraph you talk about rape. To my knowledge and I could be wrong she didn't talk about rape in her report.

I respect your thought process but I'll respectfully disagree with your assessment of the severity of this situation. I'll leave at this as this thread has gotten out of hand for my liking. Feel free to assume that I'm a jackass.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk

[sempuki]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't have a hard time recognizing that most women are more fearful than most men at night alone. But if this is really a universal fear that affects all women, shouldn't we reconsider allowing women to take jobs such as police officers and front-line military personnel?

Why would someone in charge of assigning security guards for night shifts ever hire a woman, and expose her to more anxiety and danger than her male counterparts?

Or maybe men (the statistical kind -- not all individuals clearly) should just quit being so rapey?

I'm sure women in military are prepared for the danger if being shot by an enemy. I think it's the being raped by their comrades that they have a problem with. Just sayin.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...pe-us-military

Being a security guard is not as safe as a crossing guard, but it's hardly open invitation for harassment. She reported the crime, and that's the same as what any man would do.

[bigtmac19]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Not sure anyone is really saying any of this? The word assault has been thrown around a few times, mostly in statistics of how frequently women experience it. Assault has also been said a few times 'inaccurately' - though I think that has a lot to do with us having only a few words available (harassment, assault, and rape) to describe a broad range of realities. The fact that 'rape' is often euphamized down to the broader 'sexual assault' doesn't help matters.



The divergence here is that it's totally understandable (and IMO reasonable) that the security guard thought she was about to be raped...because that is just about the only logical reason a man or group of men would try to 'sneak' into an occupied car at 2am. I can also see how the bros thought they were just harassing her (not sexually harassing). To be clear, I think it's indisputable that they intended to make her [a little bit] uncomfortable, but they were too stupid to recognize how their actions would inevitably be received.



So where does that leave us? In what other cases do you we use a wrongdoer's lack of malicious intent to excuse the actual consequences of their actions for other people? Is this not exactly the right time to be discussing the issues of gender dynamics? Too often, men are unaware of, or simply don't care about how our words/actions make women feel. It's certainly not a matter of women needing thicker skin - they've proven a pretty impressive ability to put up with bull####. Actually putting ourselves in this security guard's shoes would be a good start - even if it was only 10 seconds worth of fear, it sounds friggin awful - but it's not really enough, because we can't fully relate to the power imbalance or history of preceding experiences (even women who haven't directly experienced full blown creepiness themselves feel it through their friends who have).



I don't actually know what the answer is, but I think a lot of people could stand to do a little critical thinking. Is there actually a war on men right now? Or are we finally being collectively called out for our long history of collective BS? I can acknowledge that women continue to suffer from mens' malice and ignorance without feeling ashamed of my gender.



Even if you are unable to or don't want to empathize with this women, why not limit your comment to "Matthews is a moron." Period. End of sentence. No need for a "but, it's just typical drunk boy stuff" or "she's out for money", etc. Better yet, why not say nothing at all? Because these comments only prove one thing - that you're a jackass that can't begin to imagine how life happens differently for different people.

Thank you!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Oh boy.
So because women have a legitimate reason to be afraid of men - that should prevent them from having those types of jobs?

The logical consequence of the believing all women have this fear (which is the assertion I'm responding to) is that it would impact their suitability for some jobs. Which is why our grandparents didn't want women to be police officers or serve in the military - to protect them.

It's impossible to simultaneously hold these beliefs: all women are more fearful of being confronted by strangers in the night than men; women are just as well suited as men to jobs that involve being confronted by strangers at might. That's like saying people who are afraid of the water are just as qualified to be lifeguards as people who aren't.

But it seems clear to me that, either by innate disposition or through training, some women aren't fearful of being confronted by men at night. Or at least any more fearful than most men are. A job that selects candidates on the basis of being able to keep a cool and confident head when confronted by potentially malicious strangers at night will likely have more men than women, but it won't be strictly male.