High-Profile Sexual Abuse Epidemic

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I still find it troubling that this all seems to happen in a bubble, that there is nobody outside the realm of control the perpetrators have that can speak truth to power. Is everybody just a complete sycophant or are the perpetrators so sly that nobody but the victim knows anything?

The fear of reprisal and feeling of helplessness for whistleblowers is also very real. They may not experience the harassment directly but the consequences of saying something are similar.

We’ve had this happen at our place of employment where behavior was buried for years because everyone was scared what would happen to them if they were the rat. It didn’t come to light until after being purchased by a large but socially progressive company that has put things in place to give people some safety that they feel they can speak out. It’s not perfect and has a long ways to go but it’s better than most.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Jose Canseco let his view points be known on some of this today.

Thank god he could play baseball because he's a massive simpleton.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ernie

The fear of reprisal and feeling of helplessness for whistleblowers is also very real. They may not experience the harassment directly but the consequences of saying something are similar.

We’ve had this happen at our place of employment where behavior was buried for years because everyone was scared what would happen to them if they were the rat. It didn’t come to light until after being purchased by a large but socially progressive company that has put things in place to give people some safety that they feel they can speak out. It’s not perfect and has a long ways to go but it’s better than most.

Yep I have a family member who works as a nurse and was experiencing some pretty serious sexual harassment issue with one of her male co-workers who was well liked by the other men in the unit. When she reported it to HR the other male co-workers basically refused to work with her and undermined her at every opportunity. HR's response was to move her to another unit rather than punish the offenders.

[bob-loblaw]

That’s some ‘HR’ department at the NFL Network if they don’t know a female is made to work in the men’s washroom. Every executive there should be canned.

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by metallicat

Thank god he could play baseball because he's a massive simpleton.

He just killed his chances at getting any work as a baseball analyst in the foreseeable future. I loved watching Canseco play when I was a kid and don't believe he tweeted his opinion with any malice but geez, he can be such an idiot. He may now have to go back into the boxing ring for income.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...d-of-a-turn-on

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Uhhh this was your original repost.



I was merely pointing out that your perception was inaccurate. I didn't say anything about sexism.

Wow really?

You implied it by saying its harder for women to get ahead in the sports media field. I responded by saying it seems like I see more women than men anchoring sports center, it's actually 50% while you said men vastly outnumber women. They don't if you're referring to anchors because you can't expect that a woman will replace a former player/coach/personnel. This leaves mainly anchors and it's even.

I suggested it's probably not harder for a woman to get into the field than a man because it's more than likely that fewer women are interested and it's a nearly impossible field to get into for anyone.

If you're always searching for a reason that it's harder for one group to do something in society you'll find an answer whether it's true or not. Sometimes men and women gravitate towards different things and it's not that its more difficult for one group over another.

Is it more difficult for men to go to university than women? Women outnumber men in university currently. Is it more difficult for a man to become a nurse? Men are out numbered in that field. Or maybe, just maybe men and women make different choices and have different interests and skills.

[GGG]

On the nursing and teaching and post secondary in general we should be doing a better job of encouraging young men of choosing that field. Yes it is an issue. It's not the issue this thread is about though but it certainly isn't desire that has affected university enrolement or male numbers in female dominated fields it's patriarchal views and reduced expectations of boys.

[GordonBlue]

in related news, this woman's battle took 12 YEARS. not as simple as just going to HR and everything is made better.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/h...tion-1.4418651

In her claim before the commission, Tessier said when she reported the behaviour, she faced retaliation and the harassment only got worse.

"Every woman who's ever spoken out, who's ever dared to tell the truth, has been destroyed," Tessier told CBC.

Tessier said when she reported the discrimination, she was blamed.

"It's too bad that a movie star has to start the conversation and suddenly we pay attention when ordinary women for decades have been speaking out and no one's listening," said Tessier.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Wow really?

You implied it by saying its harder for women to get ahead in the sports media field. I responded by saying it seems like I see more women than men anchoring sports center, it's actually 50% while you said men vastly outnumber women.

Actually, no, you didn't specify anchors in your OP and now you're moving the goalposts. But leaving aside the ex-coaches and players, TSN's correspondents are still overwhelmingly men.

There have been examples this year even of why it's harder to be female sports journalist than a male (i.e. Cam Newton).

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by GGG

On the nursing and teaching and post secondary in general we should be doing a better job of encouraging young men of choosing that field. Yes it is an issue. It's not the issue this thread is about though but it certainly isn't desire that has affected university enrolement or male numbers in female dominated fields it's patriarchal views and reduced expectations of boys.

I didn't mention it to bring men entering female dominated fields into the discussion. I was just trying to point out that it's not always a barrier that is preventing women, minorities or whatever group you want to use, from entering fields. I was just pointing out that people are different and make different choices. Kind of just pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the the arguments. I don't think men have a harder time going into nursing just like I dont think it's harder for a Woman to be a sportsnet anchor. It's not sexism, there's less interest from one group. Mostly just wanted say that there's not always an outrageous reason that a group is less represented in certain areas.

If fewer men go to university it's lowered expectations of boys and patriarchal views, if it were fewer women it's discrimination. I think there are more women probably because they deserve it and are likely more successful in school. Maybe how we teach needs to be looked at, maybe not. I certainly don't think men have a tough time.

I'm actually in agreement with Rube Cube and Shantz for the most part there are some very gross shady things that have been going on for a long time and I'm glad to see it come out. I'm also not willing to blame everything on unfair treatment because it isn't accurate.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Actually, no, you didn't specify anchors in your OP and now you're moving the goalposts. But leaving aside the ex-coaches and players, TSN's correspondents are still overwhelmingly men.

There have been examples this year even of why it's harder to be female sports journalist than a male (i.e. Cam Newton).

I didn't specify it my original post but it's what I was referring to when I posted. Then I looked at your list. You can't seriously say it's sexist that women aren't in positions that former players and coaches of the game they are covering are in right?

I didn't say women didn’t face issues in the industry. Women face issues in the society daily.

I'm pointing out that there are fewer women going for those positions so there are likely fewer women in those positions. It's a not always a barrier. If 40% of applicants for a field are women I'd expect about 40% of the hirings would be women. That's likely what you're seeing.

Then again I don't know know for sure and neither do you so we won't get anywhere. You say women can't get ahead in the industry implying discrimination and I'm leaning towards fewer candidates applying. It's probably a bit of both, and I'm only referring to this industry. Obviously the Halifax firefighter illustrates major problems still exist in places.

In the grand scheme of things we are in agreement on all of this. Things need to change and this stuff coming out will help. I just don't think everything in society that appears unfair is due to discrimination, sexism or racism.

I going to get out of this thread. I agree with with much of what you are saying and I'm just wasting time arguing over little details that we'll never agree on

[Nyah]

Salma Hayek penned an article about her experience with Weinstein in the NYT, and it's a gut wrenching read. It really speaks to the fear women have about speaking out against abusers, that a pathological creep like Harvey Weinstein was able to get away with this for so long. It makes me angry and sad.

We are finally becoming conscious of a vice that has been socially accepted and has insulted and humiliated millions of girls like me, for in every woman there is a girl. I am inspired by those who had the courage to speak out, especially in a society that elected a president who has been accused of sexual harassment and assault by more than a dozen women and whom we have all heard make a statement about how a man in power can do anything he wants to women.

Well, not anymore.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...etType=opinion

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I still don't think it is unreasonable to question why it was that she didn't come forward. You can't get to #2 and #3 without that. And we can't even discuss it without getting called insensitive. I get the feeling a lot of guys might like to understand more, but when I feel like I'm walking on eggshells even mentioning it, how can we foster a discussion around it? So if your point is to crap on people who may be looking for understanding around it, and why it worked well in one case(that I provided) I don't think you should be beating me over the head with my questions.

Would I ever ask that directly of someone who was abused? Of course not. but it seemed a good jumping off point to know what could possible compel someone to put up with that much abuse for 3 years. Hell, you said it yourself, you wouldn't stay in the position. So why did she? What was different in the Jason Nixon case? I'd love to see more of those come to light because it tells the abuser they won't get away with it, and the abused that coming forward doesn't mean getting ignored.

Okay, you're getting somewhat close to the point.
It's okay to ask about and discuss what circumstances made her decide to stay, that's an important discussion to have.
It's also VERY important to frame those questions properly.

You said you would never ask her directly and that's my point. You're asking a question only she can answer, so if you would never ask it to her face, what value does it have?
If you can't ask the question, particularly the way you phrased it, to the victim, then you need to think about what that question, and the way it is phrased, are projecting.

I would never ask a woman in this situation"Why didn't you do something?".
I would definitely ask her "Why couldn't you do something until now?"

It may seem like a subtle difference, but it's a very important one.
The first question is asking her to explain herself. She's not likely to respond to that as it implies blame.
The second question is asking her to explain her circumstances and what was done TO her. Those are the kinds of questions that we should be asking.

Ultimately, that's my point. You may have meant to ask question #2, but you explicitly asked question #1, and when I pointed out that it's not an appropriate or relevant question you got defensive (called me a muppet) and acted like you were being attacked ("At the risk of being called a rapist").

[Fuzz]

I didn't mean to ask anything of her. It was a discussion point, here, on this forum. The value is to discuss it, and learn from it. But you felt the need to turn it into something else, and to lecture me on the appropriateness of my query, and to make it seam like I was blaming her that some dude stuck his hands down her pants.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I didn't mean to ask anything of her. It was a discussion point, here, on this forum. The value is to discuss it, and learn from it. But you felt the need to turn it into something else, and to lecture me on the appropriateness of my query, and to make it seam like I was blaming her that some dude stuck his hands down her pants.

Still don't get it?

Dude, the point is that we need to give some thought about HOW we ask these questions, because despite what our intentions are, our literal words can send a totally different message.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Still don't get it?

Dude, the point is that we need to give some thought about HOW we ask these questions, because despite what our intentions are, our literal words can send a totally different message.

This is just lame thought policing. We're talking about chatter on an internet message board that could never affect anyone involved, the only thing accomplished by tip toeing through the tulips is stunted conversation.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

in related news, this woman's battle took 12 YEARS. not as simple as just going to HR and everything is made better.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/h...tion-1.4418651

I asked a recently retired CPS about the job as my daughter has expressed an interest. He took a long time to answer and then his response was not about the job or rewards but about the terrible environment for women in the police force. Then he followed it up with "At least it is not as bad as the fire department."

Really makes you wonder how this was allowed for so long and continues to be.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Matata

This is just lame thought policing. We're talking about chatter on an internet message board that could never affect anyone involved, the only thing accomplished by tip toeing through the tulips is stunted conversation.

The problem with this sentiment is that if no one corrects us when we speak about these issues amongst friends then when we do have the chance to speak about it in a work or other environment, we sound like troglodytes. Would you rather a friend told you about the spinach in your teeth or a person at work?

And if you are in any position of power, no one is going to correct you in a professional environment and you run the risk of creating the exact environment that we are seeing now exists.

Assuming the best possible intentions of Fuzz, which I do, his question, in a work environment with a possible victim in hearing range, would stifle the likelihood of them coming forward. "Well, he just thinks it is my fault. Maybe it is." That is not acceptable.

[Otto-matic]

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...in-allegations

In a searing personal essay for The New York Times, actress Salma Hayek writes that she too has several awful stories to share about Harvey Weinstein. Not only does she claim, like dozens of other women, that Weinstein allegedly asked her for sexual favors—she also claims that he “physically dragged” her out of a party, constantly berated her, and made outrageous demands during the making of the 2002 biopic Frida. At one point, Weinstein even allegedly threatened her life.

“I will kill you, don’t think I can’t,” Hayek recalls Weinstein saying to her when she refused one of his various alleged demands.

“I felt that by now nobody would care about my pain—maybe this was an effect of the many times I was told, especially by Harvey, that I was nobody,” she writes.

While making Frida for Miramax, Weinstein became her “monster,” Hayek writes. She claims she frequently had to reject his sexual propositions, which included Weinstein asking her to take a shower with him or letting him watch her shower, asking to give her a massage, asking her to let a naked friend of his give her a massage, asking her for oral sex, and asking her to get naked with another woman.

She claims that Weinstein repeatedly berated her and Frida director Julie Taymor, and later demanded that Hayek shoehorn a full-frontal nude sex scene with another woman into the film, even though such a scene did not appear in the script. Representatives for Taymor have not responded to Vanity Fair’s request for comment.

Hayek ultimately agreed, but says she had a “nervous breakdown” on the set when it was time to shoot the scene. She was “crying and convulsing” at the thought of filming it solely to assuage Weinstein, she writes, and started throwing up—to the point that she “had to take a tranquilizer, which eventually stopped the crying but made the vomiting worse,” she writes. “As you can imagine, this was not sexy, but it was the only way I could get through the scene.”

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Matata

This is just lame thought policing. We're talking about chatter on an internet message board that could never affect anyone involved, the only thing accomplished by tip toeing through the tulips is stunted conversation.

Disagree wholeheartedly.

The problem is that steam rolling into THIS societal conversation without precise wording can have the exact opposite effect that you are trying to elicit. You need to tip toe through the tulips or rather determine the correct language to use.

Yes even on a discussion board. We need to learn HOW to phrase the questions in a sensitive manner that does not have even the appearance victim shaming. You don't learn how to phrase questions at times you deem "important" by not using the correct phrasing in the unimportant times. You can't answer 1+1 = 2 on the test if you spent your entire time practicing 1+1=3 because it wasn't important enough to learn the real way to do things before.

I also disagree that the phrasing on a message board conversation could never affect anyone. Message boards are a place where people SPECIFICALLY go to for support and information. Do you know who is browsing the thread? Do you know that there isn't a harassed person perhaps gaining some courage through supportive posts that then reads something that does appear more as a blame statement (intended or not) and loose that courage.

And goodness knows I have said a good many insensitive things in my life that were not intended that way. I'm certainly not perfect and I'm not pretending to be. But I think in this case it has been pointed out quite well that there are alternative and much better ways to phrase things. That shouldn't be fought against. It should be embraced as a learning experience.