"Avoid women at all costs"- new Wall Street rule

[OldLady]

Pretty much every major company in the world is based here in my state. And as an aside, I've been a corporate/business interiors guy for over 20 years. Though, I've stepped out of actual field work since about 5 years ago.

Here's the thing. You wanna be the guy with the tool belt and the blueprints. Okay? You'll get action all day long.

Plus you're a honey.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Not at all.

I respect women and I love, adore and treat my wife like she is the single most important person in the world because to me, she is. But I do not trust a person simply because he or she is a woman or a man. I don't trust anyone and treat everyone with the exact same level of respect and trust. You obviously put more faith in a person b for no other reason than she is a woman

That you will not even entertain the fact that some women have falsely accused men of rape , lied about being on birth control, made false harassment allegations, etc tells me you cannot be taken seriously.

I will not condone the intent of this thread. If you have such a problem with trust, why is it that you have no problem believing a man who says "Aw, I never said that" or "I would never do that!" when a woman calls him out?
The intent of this thread is to silence women and you can go fuck yourself.

That doesn't appear to be the intent of this thread to me. Instead, the intent seems to be to point that false allegations have led many men who don't do things wrong to think twice about trusting women. And the reason for this is not because of the women who make false allegations, but because of the people who defend the women who make false allegations.

Do you not have any brothers, or sons, or grandsons, or even friends who are single men? If so, you do them a huge disservice when you defend the principle of guilty until proven innocent when it comes to sexual misconduct allegations.

I've never defended the principle of guilty until proven innocent; I have never agreed with the way the allegations against the famous are getting out there and causing them to lose their jobs due to bad publicity. It isn't metoo that is publicizing this stuff, is it? It's the reporters whose job it is to cover the court beat--they see the name in the civil complaint and run it up the flagpole. Or a reporter gets a tip from PBS about allegations against Keillor...or from the Hill about a Senator.... We don't need to know any of this--including all the nonsense with Stormy Daniels--until it has been adjudicated or thrown out or settled. That's my opinion. Like the stuff about the owner of Fox--Ayles, was it--we just heard he was out. HR and legal teams were up to their eyeballs in it, no doubt, and it wasn't done willy nilly in 24 hours, but that's the way it should be done. After the fact.

I agree, but that's not the way it is done because the American idiot insists otherwise. How many Americans that absolutely have no idea what did or did not happen 30 something years ago with Kav and Ford declared him damn near if not in actuality a rapist based on NOTHING more than her allegations?? Those idiots are why things like this are news.

That is the point of this thread, and certainly of my posts in this thread. You say you are against such behaviors , and I take you at your word, yet you don't speak out against them, maybe if you did, and other liberals did, things would change. Conservatives screaming "this isn't fair, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?" Isn't going to change any liberals who are willing to throw out all sense of fairness to "get" a conservative. Fair minded liberals must do that. In this particular case all the better if it's fair minded female liberals who stand up and say "enough, this isn't right" and perhaps when enough young ladies realize "hey we're not getting asked out on dates and such because of this crap" things will change.

And of course you could apply this principle to oh so many topics.

Actually, I didn't take "innocent until proven guilty" to be the point of this thread. It has pretty much run to the theme of women are liars, lying in wait to ruin them.

The Kavanaugh circus was 99.9% pure politics and NONE of us know what happened there thirty years ago. I said that repeatedly during the days we debated it here. I defended Ford's right to be HEARD though and it seemed to me her accusations were no weaker than Kavanaugh's defense. A great many people said a great deal of very ugly things in both directions. That is not a good case to allude to, because like you said, it had too much to do with whether they wanted to see him in the Supreme Court.

I do not think it will happen that young ladies are not asked out on dates and such. Human nature does not change. How men treat women certainly can though, when it comes to simple courtesy.

I , obviously, wasn't hear during the Kav stuff and I'm not going to search through old threads, so I'll take your word for what you said. However, I will say this.

No, that woman should NOT have had a right to "tell her story" A woman, or anyone else for that matter, should be required to show at least a modicum of evidence beyond "her story" before such allegations are made in any form that could be made public. Look at the way this guy was relentlessy hammered simply because one woman said something happened. And we see it all the time.

Call me an asshole if you wish, but these women who make allegations that they can't even provide a single shred of evidence to support should be silenced. I don't care if it' against a Republican, a Democrat, or a Communist, or a Martian. No man should be subject to such a spectacle based on a woman's testimony alone. I don't care if 100 women claim something happened common sense tells us if 100 women were sexually mistreated by a man there should be some witness or other piece of evidence to corroborate at least one of the stories.

Then when you add in all the dirty tricks other people are willing to use in conjunction with unsubstantiated claims, you quickly have a situation where men become in affect a second class citizen who isn't afforded the basic of civil rights.

 

[OldLady]

I will not condone the intent of this thread. If you have such a problem with trust, why is it that you have no problem believing a man who says "Aw, I never said that" or "I would never do that!" when a woman calls him out?
The intent of this thread is to silence women and you can go fuck yourself.

That doesn't appear to be the intent of this thread to me. Instead, the intent seems to be to point that false allegations have led many men who don't do things wrong to think twice about trusting women. And the reason for this is not because of the women who make false allegations, but because of the people who defend the women who make false allegations.

Do you not have any brothers, or sons, or grandsons, or even friends who are single men? If so, you do them a huge disservice when you defend the principle of guilty until proven innocent when it comes to sexual misconduct allegations.

I've never defended the principle of guilty until proven innocent; I have never agreed with the way the allegations against the famous are getting out there and causing them to lose their jobs due to bad publicity. It isn't metoo that is publicizing this stuff, is it? It's the reporters whose job it is to cover the court beat--they see the name in the civil complaint and run it up the flagpole. Or a reporter gets a tip from PBS about allegations against Keillor...or from the Hill about a Senator.... We don't need to know any of this--including all the nonsense with Stormy Daniels--until it has been adjudicated or thrown out or settled. That's my opinion. Like the stuff about the owner of Fox--Ayles, was it--we just heard he was out. HR and legal teams were up to their eyeballs in it, no doubt, and it wasn't done willy nilly in 24 hours, but that's the way it should be done. After the fact.

I agree, but that's not the way it is done because the American idiot insists otherwise. How many Americans that absolutely have no idea what did or did not happen 30 something years ago with Kav and Ford declared him damn near if not in actuality a rapist based on NOTHING more than her allegations?? Those idiots are why things like this are news.

That is the point of this thread, and certainly of my posts in this thread. You say you are against such behaviors , and I take you at your word, yet you don't speak out against them, maybe if you did, and other liberals did, things would change. Conservatives screaming "this isn't fair, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?" Isn't going to change any liberals who are willing to throw out all sense of fairness to "get" a conservative. Fair minded liberals must do that. In this particular case all the better if it's fair minded female liberals who stand up and say "enough, this isn't right" and perhaps when enough young ladies realize "hey we're not getting asked out on dates and such because of this crap" things will change.

And of course you could apply this principle to oh so many topics.

Actually, I didn't take "innocent until proven guilty" to be the point of this thread. It has pretty much run to the theme of women are liars, lying in wait to ruin them.

The Kavanaugh circus was 99.9% pure politics and NONE of us know what happened there thirty years ago. I said that repeatedly during the days we debated it here. I defended Ford's right to be HEARD though and it seemed to me her accusations were no weaker than Kavanaugh's defense. A great many people said a great deal of very ugly things in both directions. That is not a good case to allude to, because like you said, it had too much to do with whether they wanted to see him in the Supreme Court.

I do not think it will happen that young ladies are not asked out on dates and such. Human nature does not change. How men treat women certainly can though, when it comes to simple courtesy.

I , obviously, wasn't hear during the Kav stuff and I'm not going to search through old threads, so I'll take your word for what you said. However, I will say this.

No, that woman should NOT have had a right to "tell her story" A woman, or anyone else for that matter, should be required to show at least a modicum of evidence beyond "her story" before such allegations are made in any form that could be made public. Look at the way this guy was relentlessy hammered simply because one woman said something happened. And we see it all the time.

Call me an asshole if you wish, but these women who make allegations that they can't even provide a single shred of evidence to support should be silenced. I don't care if it' against a Republican, a Democrat, or a Communist, or a Martian. No man should be subject to such a spectacle based on a woman's testimony alone. I don't care if 100 women claim something happened common sense tells us if 100 women were sexually mistreated by a man there should be some witness or other piece of evidence to corroborate at least one of the stories.

Then when you add in all the dirty tricks other people are willing to use in conjunction with unsubstantiated claims, you quickly have a situation where men become in affect a second class citizen who isn't afforded the basic of civil rights.

I'm not going to get into the Kavanaugh/Ford thing again. I did it for long enough.

What I am interested in is, what kind of evidence do you expect there to be? As far as sexual harassment, it is going to be her word against his, and the strongest support would be other women who had been treated similarly. Patterns matter. Without that, what kind of evidence should there be, say... against a Harvey Weinstein?

 

[DandyDonovan]

That doesn't appear to be the intent of this thread to me. Instead, the intent seems to be to point that false allegations have led many men who don't do things wrong to think twice about trusting women. And the reason for this is not because of the women who make false allegations, but because of the people who defend the women who make false allegations.

Do you not have any brothers, or sons, or grandsons, or even friends who are single men? If so, you do them a huge disservice when you defend the principle of guilty until proven innocent when it comes to sexual misconduct allegations.

I've never defended the principle of guilty until proven innocent; I have never agreed with the way the allegations against the famous are getting out there and causing them to lose their jobs due to bad publicity. It isn't metoo that is publicizing this stuff, is it? It's the reporters whose job it is to cover the court beat--they see the name in the civil complaint and run it up the flagpole. Or a reporter gets a tip from PBS about allegations against Keillor...or from the Hill about a Senator.... We don't need to know any of this--including all the nonsense with Stormy Daniels--until it has been adjudicated or thrown out or settled. That's my opinion. Like the stuff about the owner of Fox--Ayles, was it--we just heard he was out. HR and legal teams were up to their eyeballs in it, no doubt, and it wasn't done willy nilly in 24 hours, but that's the way it should be done. After the fact.

I agree, but that's not the way it is done because the American idiot insists otherwise. How many Americans that absolutely have no idea what did or did not happen 30 something years ago with Kav and Ford declared him damn near if not in actuality a rapist based on NOTHING more than her allegations?? Those idiots are why things like this are news.

That is the point of this thread, and certainly of my posts in this thread. You say you are against such behaviors , and I take you at your word, yet you don't speak out against them, maybe if you did, and other liberals did, things would change. Conservatives screaming "this isn't fair, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?" Isn't going to change any liberals who are willing to throw out all sense of fairness to "get" a conservative. Fair minded liberals must do that. In this particular case all the better if it's fair minded female liberals who stand up and say "enough, this isn't right" and perhaps when enough young ladies realize "hey we're not getting asked out on dates and such because of this crap" things will change.

And of course you could apply this principle to oh so many topics.

Actually, I didn't take "innocent until proven guilty" to be the point of this thread. It has pretty much run to the theme of women are liars, lying in wait to ruin them.

The Kavanaugh circus was 99.9% pure politics and NONE of us know what happened there thirty years ago. I said that repeatedly during the days we debated it here. I defended Ford's right to be HEARD though and it seemed to me her accusations were no weaker than Kavanaugh's defense. A great many people said a great deal of very ugly things in both directions. That is not a good case to allude to, because like you said, it had too much to do with whether they wanted to see him in the Supreme Court.

I do not think it will happen that young ladies are not asked out on dates and such. Human nature does not change. How men treat women certainly can though, when it comes to simple courtesy.

I , obviously, wasn't hear during the Kav stuff and I'm not going to search through old threads, so I'll take your word for what you said. However, I will say this.

No, that woman should NOT have had a right to "tell her story" A woman, or anyone else for that matter, should be required to show at least a modicum of evidence beyond "her story" before such allegations are made in any form that could be made public. Look at the way this guy was relentlessy hammered simply because one woman said something happened. And we see it all the time.

Call me an asshole if you wish, but these women who make allegations that they can't even provide a single shred of evidence to support should be silenced. I don't care if it' against a Republican, a Democrat, or a Communist, or a Martian. No man should be subject to such a spectacle based on a woman's testimony alone. I don't care if 100 women claim something happened common sense tells us if 100 women were sexually mistreated by a man there should be some witness or other piece of evidence to corroborate at least one of the stories.

Then when you add in all the dirty tricks other people are willing to use in conjunction with unsubstantiated claims, you quickly have a situation where men become in affect a second class citizen who isn't afforded the basic of civil rights.

I'm not going to get into the Kavanaugh/Ford thing again. I did it for long enough.

What I am interested in is, what kind of evidence do you expect there to be? As far as sexual harassment, it is going to be her word against his, and the strongest support would be other women who had been treated similarly. Patterns matter. Without that, what kind of evidence should there be, say... against a Harvey Weinstein?

In the case of Harvey Weinstein I look at that two ways.


First the majority of women who claim anything was done to them are women who obviously chose to get with him to further their careers. Now , maybe they did so because they felt their careers were over if they didn't . That's legitimate. BUT they still had the choice. And it just shouldn't be illegal for a man to say agree to put a woman in his movies in exchange for sex. Her body her choice I thought?

However there are a few that claim that they didn't consent, and in at least a couple of those cases there is physical evidence, in one case including an audio recording of HW admitting to the assault. That in turn makes other claims more credible. I mean if he admitted to sexually assaulting one woman then it's entirely believable and indeed likely that she isn't the only one.

Same with Bill Cosby, there were witnesses and other evidence besides she said on a couple of the women so that makes the others more believable.

But if you just have 10 women making a claim and not one of them have any evidence to prove they are telling the truth, does it make any difference that there are 10 of them rather than just 1? Especially in today's high stakes politics, how hard do you really think it to find 10 women willing to lie about a man for whatever reason given the big money these campaigns have to throw around?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

That doesn't appear to be the intent of this thread to me. Instead, the intent seems to be to point that false allegations have led many men who don't do things wrong to think twice about trusting women. And the reason for this is not because of the women who make false allegations, but because of the people who defend the women who make false allegations.

Do you not have any brothers, or sons, or grandsons, or even friends who are single men? If so, you do them a huge disservice when you defend the principle of guilty until proven innocent when it comes to sexual misconduct allegations.

I've never defended the principle of guilty until proven innocent; I have never agreed with the way the allegations against the famous are getting out there and causing them to lose their jobs due to bad publicity. It isn't metoo that is publicizing this stuff, is it? It's the reporters whose job it is to cover the court beat--they see the name in the civil complaint and run it up the flagpole. Or a reporter gets a tip from PBS about allegations against Keillor...or from the Hill about a Senator.... We don't need to know any of this--including all the nonsense with Stormy Daniels--until it has been adjudicated or thrown out or settled. That's my opinion. Like the stuff about the owner of Fox--Ayles, was it--we just heard he was out. HR and legal teams were up to their eyeballs in it, no doubt, and it wasn't done willy nilly in 24 hours, but that's the way it should be done. After the fact.

I agree, but that's not the way it is done because the American idiot insists otherwise. How many Americans that absolutely have no idea what did or did not happen 30 something years ago with Kav and Ford declared him damn near if not in actuality a rapist based on NOTHING more than her allegations?? Those idiots are why things like this are news.

That is the point of this thread, and certainly of my posts in this thread. You say you are against such behaviors , and I take you at your word, yet you don't speak out against them, maybe if you did, and other liberals did, things would change. Conservatives screaming "this isn't fair, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?" Isn't going to change any liberals who are willing to throw out all sense of fairness to "get" a conservative. Fair minded liberals must do that. In this particular case all the better if it's fair minded female liberals who stand up and say "enough, this isn't right" and perhaps when enough young ladies realize "hey we're not getting asked out on dates and such because of this crap" things will change.

And of course you could apply this principle to oh so many topics.

Actually, I didn't take "innocent until proven guilty" to be the point of this thread. It has pretty much run to the theme of women are liars, lying in wait to ruin them.

The Kavanaugh circus was 99.9% pure politics and NONE of us know what happened there thirty years ago. I said that repeatedly during the days we debated it here. I defended Ford's right to be HEARD though and it seemed to me her accusations were no weaker than Kavanaugh's defense. A great many people said a great deal of very ugly things in both directions. That is not a good case to allude to, because like you said, it had too much to do with whether they wanted to see him in the Supreme Court.

I do not think it will happen that young ladies are not asked out on dates and such. Human nature does not change. How men treat women certainly can though, when it comes to simple courtesy.

I , obviously, wasn't hear during the Kav stuff and I'm not going to search through old threads, so I'll take your word for what you said. However, I will say this.

No, that woman should NOT have had a right to "tell her story" A woman, or anyone else for that matter, should be required to show at least a modicum of evidence beyond "her story" before such allegations are made in any form that could be made public. Look at the way this guy was relentlessy hammered simply because one woman said something happened. And we see it all the time.

Call me an asshole if you wish, but these women who make allegations that they can't even provide a single shred of evidence to support should be silenced. I don't care if it' against a Republican, a Democrat, or a Communist, or a Martian. No man should be subject to such a spectacle based on a woman's testimony alone. I don't care if 100 women claim something happened common sense tells us if 100 women were sexually mistreated by a man there should be some witness or other piece of evidence to corroborate at least one of the stories.

Then when you add in all the dirty tricks other people are willing to use in conjunction with unsubstantiated claims, you quickly have a situation where men become in affect a second class citizen who isn't afforded the basic of civil rights.

I'm not going to get into the Kavanaugh/Ford thing again. I did it for long enough.

What I am interested in is, what kind of evidence do you expect there to be? As far as sexual harassment, it is going to be her word against his, and the strongest support would be other women who had been treated similarly. Patterns matter. Without that, what kind of evidence should there be, say... against a Harvey Weinstein?

Harvey Weinstein wasn't even a secret! Women knew to offer him sex and he would wrangle a part for them. Many many did.

Then it became his fault.

 

[DandyDonovan]

I've never defended the principle of guilty until proven innocent; I have never agreed with the way the allegations against the famous are getting out there and causing them to lose their jobs due to bad publicity. It isn't metoo that is publicizing this stuff, is it? It's the reporters whose job it is to cover the court beat--they see the name in the civil complaint and run it up the flagpole. Or a reporter gets a tip from PBS about allegations against Keillor...or from the Hill about a Senator.... We don't need to know any of this--including all the nonsense with Stormy Daniels--until it has been adjudicated or thrown out or settled. That's my opinion. Like the stuff about the owner of Fox--Ayles, was it--we just heard he was out. HR and legal teams were up to their eyeballs in it, no doubt, and it wasn't done willy nilly in 24 hours, but that's the way it should be done. After the fact.

I agree, but that's not the way it is done because the American idiot insists otherwise. How many Americans that absolutely have no idea what did or did not happen 30 something years ago with Kav and Ford declared him damn near if not in actuality a rapist based on NOTHING more than her allegations?? Those idiots are why things like this are news.

That is the point of this thread, and certainly of my posts in this thread. You say you are against such behaviors , and I take you at your word, yet you don't speak out against them, maybe if you did, and other liberals did, things would change. Conservatives screaming "this isn't fair, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?" Isn't going to change any liberals who are willing to throw out all sense of fairness to "get" a conservative. Fair minded liberals must do that. In this particular case all the better if it's fair minded female liberals who stand up and say "enough, this isn't right" and perhaps when enough young ladies realize "hey we're not getting asked out on dates and such because of this crap" things will change.

And of course you could apply this principle to oh so many topics.

Actually, I didn't take "innocent until proven guilty" to be the point of this thread. It has pretty much run to the theme of women are liars, lying in wait to ruin them.

The Kavanaugh circus was 99.9% pure politics and NONE of us know what happened there thirty years ago. I said that repeatedly during the days we debated it here. I defended Ford's right to be HEARD though and it seemed to me her accusations were no weaker than Kavanaugh's defense. A great many people said a great deal of very ugly things in both directions. That is not a good case to allude to, because like you said, it had too much to do with whether they wanted to see him in the Supreme Court.

I do not think it will happen that young ladies are not asked out on dates and such. Human nature does not change. How men treat women certainly can though, when it comes to simple courtesy.

I , obviously, wasn't hear during the Kav stuff and I'm not going to search through old threads, so I'll take your word for what you said. However, I will say this.

No, that woman should NOT have had a right to "tell her story" A woman, or anyone else for that matter, should be required to show at least a modicum of evidence beyond "her story" before such allegations are made in any form that could be made public. Look at the way this guy was relentlessy hammered simply because one woman said something happened. And we see it all the time.

Call me an asshole if you wish, but these women who make allegations that they can't even provide a single shred of evidence to support should be silenced. I don't care if it' against a Republican, a Democrat, or a Communist, or a Martian. No man should be subject to such a spectacle based on a woman's testimony alone. I don't care if 100 women claim something happened common sense tells us if 100 women were sexually mistreated by a man there should be some witness or other piece of evidence to corroborate at least one of the stories.

Then when you add in all the dirty tricks other people are willing to use in conjunction with unsubstantiated claims, you quickly have a situation where men become in affect a second class citizen who isn't afforded the basic of civil rights.

I'm not going to get into the Kavanaugh/Ford thing again. I did it for long enough.

What I am interested in is, what kind of evidence do you expect there to be? As far as sexual harassment, it is going to be her word against his, and the strongest support would be other women who had been treated similarly. Patterns matter. Without that, what kind of evidence should there be, say... against a Harvey Weinstein?

Harvey Weinstein wasn't even a secret! Women knew to offer him sex and he would wrangle a part for them. Many many did.

Then it became his fault.

Apparently he also raped a few. That was his fault.

 

[OldLady]

I've never defended the principle of guilty until proven innocent; I have never agreed with the way the allegations against the famous are getting out there and causing them to lose their jobs due to bad publicity. It isn't metoo that is publicizing this stuff, is it? It's the reporters whose job it is to cover the court beat--they see the name in the civil complaint and run it up the flagpole. Or a reporter gets a tip from PBS about allegations against Keillor...or from the Hill about a Senator.... We don't need to know any of this--including all the nonsense with Stormy Daniels--until it has been adjudicated or thrown out or settled. That's my opinion. Like the stuff about the owner of Fox--Ayles, was it--we just heard he was out. HR and legal teams were up to their eyeballs in it, no doubt, and it wasn't done willy nilly in 24 hours, but that's the way it should be done. After the fact.

I agree, but that's not the way it is done because the American idiot insists otherwise. How many Americans that absolutely have no idea what did or did not happen 30 something years ago with Kav and Ford declared him damn near if not in actuality a rapist based on NOTHING more than her allegations?? Those idiots are why things like this are news.

That is the point of this thread, and certainly of my posts in this thread. You say you are against such behaviors , and I take you at your word, yet you don't speak out against them, maybe if you did, and other liberals did, things would change. Conservatives screaming "this isn't fair, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?" Isn't going to change any liberals who are willing to throw out all sense of fairness to "get" a conservative. Fair minded liberals must do that. In this particular case all the better if it's fair minded female liberals who stand up and say "enough, this isn't right" and perhaps when enough young ladies realize "hey we're not getting asked out on dates and such because of this crap" things will change.

And of course you could apply this principle to oh so many topics.

Actually, I didn't take "innocent until proven guilty" to be the point of this thread. It has pretty much run to the theme of women are liars, lying in wait to ruin them.

The Kavanaugh circus was 99.9% pure politics and NONE of us know what happened there thirty years ago. I said that repeatedly during the days we debated it here. I defended Ford's right to be HEARD though and it seemed to me her accusations were no weaker than Kavanaugh's defense. A great many people said a great deal of very ugly things in both directions. That is not a good case to allude to, because like you said, it had too much to do with whether they wanted to see him in the Supreme Court.

I do not think it will happen that young ladies are not asked out on dates and such. Human nature does not change. How men treat women certainly can though, when it comes to simple courtesy.

I , obviously, wasn't hear during the Kav stuff and I'm not going to search through old threads, so I'll take your word for what you said. However, I will say this.

No, that woman should NOT have had a right to "tell her story" A woman, or anyone else for that matter, should be required to show at least a modicum of evidence beyond "her story" before such allegations are made in any form that could be made public. Look at the way this guy was relentlessy hammered simply because one woman said something happened. And we see it all the time.

Call me an asshole if you wish, but these women who make allegations that they can't even provide a single shred of evidence to support should be silenced. I don't care if it' against a Republican, a Democrat, or a Communist, or a Martian. No man should be subject to such a spectacle based on a woman's testimony alone. I don't care if 100 women claim something happened common sense tells us if 100 women were sexually mistreated by a man there should be some witness or other piece of evidence to corroborate at least one of the stories.

Then when you add in all the dirty tricks other people are willing to use in conjunction with unsubstantiated claims, you quickly have a situation where men become in affect a second class citizen who isn't afforded the basic of civil rights.

I'm not going to get into the Kavanaugh/Ford thing again. I did it for long enough.

What I am interested in is, what kind of evidence do you expect there to be? As far as sexual harassment, it is going to be her word against his, and the strongest support would be other women who had been treated similarly. Patterns matter. Without that, what kind of evidence should there be, say... against a Harvey Weinstein?

In the case of Harvey Weinstein I look at that two ways.


First the majority of women who claim anything was done to them are women who obviously chose to get with him to further their careers. Now , maybe they did so because they felt their careers were over if they didn't . That's legitimate. BUT they still had the choice. And it just shouldn't be illegal for a man to say agree to put a woman in his movies in exchange for sex. Her body her choice I thought?

However there are a few that claim that they didn't consent, and in at least a couple of those cases there is physical evidence, in one case including an audio recording of HW admitting to the assault. That in turn makes other claims more credible. I mean if he admitted to sexually assaulting one woman then it's entirely believable and indeed likely that she isn't the only one.

Same with Bill Cosby, there were witnesses and other evidence besides she said on a couple of the women so that makes the others more believable.

But if you just have 10 women making a claim and not one of them have any evidence to prove they are telling the truth, does it make any difference that there are 10 of them rather than just 1? Especially in today's high stakes politics, how hard do you really think it to find 10 women willing to lie about a man for whatever reason given the big money these campaigns have to throw around?

You need to stick to one hypothetical or another. First you're talking about Harvey Weinstein and suddenly you're talking about high stakes politics.

But yes, if you have 10 women independently reporting similar behaviors, you have a good idea it's true. That is how most old pedophile accusations are "proven" as well.

 

[OldLady]

I've never defended the principle of guilty until proven innocent; I have never agreed with the way the allegations against the famous are getting out there and causing them to lose their jobs due to bad publicity. It isn't metoo that is publicizing this stuff, is it? It's the reporters whose job it is to cover the court beat--they see the name in the civil complaint and run it up the flagpole. Or a reporter gets a tip from PBS about allegations against Keillor...or from the Hill about a Senator.... We don't need to know any of this--including all the nonsense with Stormy Daniels--until it has been adjudicated or thrown out or settled. That's my opinion. Like the stuff about the owner of Fox--Ayles, was it--we just heard he was out. HR and legal teams were up to their eyeballs in it, no doubt, and it wasn't done willy nilly in 24 hours, but that's the way it should be done. After the fact.

I agree, but that's not the way it is done because the American idiot insists otherwise. How many Americans that absolutely have no idea what did or did not happen 30 something years ago with Kav and Ford declared him damn near if not in actuality a rapist based on NOTHING more than her allegations?? Those idiots are why things like this are news.

That is the point of this thread, and certainly of my posts in this thread. You say you are against such behaviors , and I take you at your word, yet you don't speak out against them, maybe if you did, and other liberals did, things would change. Conservatives screaming "this isn't fair, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?" Isn't going to change any liberals who are willing to throw out all sense of fairness to "get" a conservative. Fair minded liberals must do that. In this particular case all the better if it's fair minded female liberals who stand up and say "enough, this isn't right" and perhaps when enough young ladies realize "hey we're not getting asked out on dates and such because of this crap" things will change.

And of course you could apply this principle to oh so many topics.

Actually, I didn't take "innocent until proven guilty" to be the point of this thread. It has pretty much run to the theme of women are liars, lying in wait to ruin them.

The Kavanaugh circus was 99.9% pure politics and NONE of us know what happened there thirty years ago. I said that repeatedly during the days we debated it here. I defended Ford's right to be HEARD though and it seemed to me her accusations were no weaker than Kavanaugh's defense. A great many people said a great deal of very ugly things in both directions. That is not a good case to allude to, because like you said, it had too much to do with whether they wanted to see him in the Supreme Court.

I do not think it will happen that young ladies are not asked out on dates and such. Human nature does not change. How men treat women certainly can though, when it comes to simple courtesy.

I , obviously, wasn't hear during the Kav stuff and I'm not going to search through old threads, so I'll take your word for what you said. However, I will say this.

No, that woman should NOT have had a right to "tell her story" A woman, or anyone else for that matter, should be required to show at least a modicum of evidence beyond "her story" before such allegations are made in any form that could be made public. Look at the way this guy was relentlessy hammered simply because one woman said something happened. And we see it all the time.

Call me an asshole if you wish, but these women who make allegations that they can't even provide a single shred of evidence to support should be silenced. I don't care if it' against a Republican, a Democrat, or a Communist, or a Martian. No man should be subject to such a spectacle based on a woman's testimony alone. I don't care if 100 women claim something happened common sense tells us if 100 women were sexually mistreated by a man there should be some witness or other piece of evidence to corroborate at least one of the stories.

Then when you add in all the dirty tricks other people are willing to use in conjunction with unsubstantiated claims, you quickly have a situation where men become in affect a second class citizen who isn't afforded the basic of civil rights.

I'm not going to get into the Kavanaugh/Ford thing again. I did it for long enough.

What I am interested in is, what kind of evidence do you expect there to be? As far as sexual harassment, it is going to be her word against his, and the strongest support would be other women who had been treated similarly. Patterns matter. Without that, what kind of evidence should there be, say... against a Harvey Weinstein?

Harvey Weinstein wasn't even a secret! Women knew to offer him sex and he would wrangle a part for them. Many many did.

Then it became his fault.

The ones who purposely used him haven't made reports.
I can't believe you are .... never mind. It's you. Of course you are supporting him.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Men today should and are engaging in protective behavior. They avoid women at work. They are videotaping consents prior to dates and keeping careful detailed diaries with supporting texts and emails.

 

[bodecea]

I've never defended the principle of guilty until proven innocent; I have never agreed with the way the allegations against the famous are getting out there and causing them to lose their jobs due to bad publicity. It isn't metoo that is publicizing this stuff, is it? It's the reporters whose job it is to cover the court beat--they see the name in the civil complaint and run it up the flagpole. Or a reporter gets a tip from PBS about allegations against Keillor...or from the Hill about a Senator.... We don't need to know any of this--including all the nonsense with Stormy Daniels--until it has been adjudicated or thrown out or settled. That's my opinion. Like the stuff about the owner of Fox--Ayles, was it--we just heard he was out. HR and legal teams were up to their eyeballs in it, no doubt, and it wasn't done willy nilly in 24 hours, but that's the way it should be done. After the fact.

I agree, but that's not the way it is done because the American idiot insists otherwise. How many Americans that absolutely have no idea what did or did not happen 30 something years ago with Kav and Ford declared him damn near if not in actuality a rapist based on NOTHING more than her allegations?? Those idiots are why things like this are news.

That is the point of this thread, and certainly of my posts in this thread. You say you are against such behaviors , and I take you at your word, yet you don't speak out against them, maybe if you did, and other liberals did, things would change. Conservatives screaming "this isn't fair, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?" Isn't going to change any liberals who are willing to throw out all sense of fairness to "get" a conservative. Fair minded liberals must do that. In this particular case all the better if it's fair minded female liberals who stand up and say "enough, this isn't right" and perhaps when enough young ladies realize "hey we're not getting asked out on dates and such because of this crap" things will change.

And of course you could apply this principle to oh so many topics.

Actually, I didn't take "innocent until proven guilty" to be the point of this thread. It has pretty much run to the theme of women are liars, lying in wait to ruin them.

The Kavanaugh circus was 99.9% pure politics and NONE of us know what happened there thirty years ago. I said that repeatedly during the days we debated it here. I defended Ford's right to be HEARD though and it seemed to me her accusations were no weaker than Kavanaugh's defense. A great many people said a great deal of very ugly things in both directions. That is not a good case to allude to, because like you said, it had too much to do with whether they wanted to see him in the Supreme Court.

I do not think it will happen that young ladies are not asked out on dates and such. Human nature does not change. How men treat women certainly can though, when it comes to simple courtesy.

I , obviously, wasn't hear during the Kav stuff and I'm not going to search through old threads, so I'll take your word for what you said. However, I will say this.

No, that woman should NOT have had a right to "tell her story" A woman, or anyone else for that matter, should be required to show at least a modicum of evidence beyond "her story" before such allegations are made in any form that could be made public. Look at the way this guy was relentlessy hammered simply because one woman said something happened. And we see it all the time.

Call me an asshole if you wish, but these women who make allegations that they can't even provide a single shred of evidence to support should be silenced. I don't care if it' against a Republican, a Democrat, or a Communist, or a Martian. No man should be subject to such a spectacle based on a woman's testimony alone. I don't care if 100 women claim something happened common sense tells us if 100 women were sexually mistreated by a man there should be some witness or other piece of evidence to corroborate at least one of the stories.

Then when you add in all the dirty tricks other people are willing to use in conjunction with unsubstantiated claims, you quickly have a situation where men become in affect a second class citizen who isn't afforded the basic of civil rights.

I'm not going to get into the Kavanaugh/Ford thing again. I did it for long enough.

What I am interested in is, what kind of evidence do you expect there to be? As far as sexual harassment, it is going to be her word against his, and the strongest support would be other women who had been treated similarly. Patterns matter. Without that, what kind of evidence should there be, say... against a Harvey Weinstein?

Harvey Weinstein wasn't even a secret! Women knew to offer him sex and he would wrangle a part for them. Many many did.

Then it became his fault.

Ah.....and this is why many women don't report...because losers like this one always blame the woman.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Women lie. Several women who made complaints against Weinstein already withdrew them because they were exposed as having made the offer.

I have had several friends that lied. A very good friend of mine said that a bartender followed her to the bathroom and raped her. Total lie.

 

[Lysistrata]

Is it more likely that the men who are accused deny it, therefore making the women into liars, if you tend to "side" with the men.

You mean like you tending to side with women?

Why is it that the woman is assumed to be virtuous when we know men have been falsely accused of sexual harassment?

It's just like the birth control argument as far as I'm concerned \. No man should ever trust a woman to be in charge of birth control because some women will lie to a man about being on the pill so why wouldn't some women lie about being sexually harassed?

You perceive women as the "enemy" as much as any radical feminist may dislike men. But I'm not gonna let you have the last word in this thread, just so you know. We can keep it up forever, if you want.
You will not shut us down or shut us up, Skull Pilot.

Not at all.

I respect women and I love, adore and treat my wife like she is the single most important person in the world because to me, she is. But I do not trust a person simply because he or she is a woman or a man. I don't trust anyone and treat everyone with the exact same level of respect and trust. You obviously put more faith in a person b for no other reason than she is a woman

That you will not even entertain the fact that some women have falsely accused men of rape , lied about being on birth control, made false harassment allegations, etc tells me you cannot be taken seriously.

I will not condone the intent of this thread. If you have such a problem with trust, why is it that you have no problem believing a man who says "Aw, I never said that" or "I would never do that!" when a woman calls him out?
The intent of this thread is to silence women and you can go fuck yourself.

That doesn't appear to be the intent of this thread to me. Instead, the intent seems to be to point that false allegations have led many men who don't do things wrong to think twice about trusting women. And the reason for this is not because of the women who make false allegations, but because of the people who defend the women who make false allegations.

Do you not have any brothers, or sons, or grandsons, or even friends who are single men? If so, you do them a huge disservice when you defend the principle of guilty until proven innocent when it comes to sexual misconduct allegations.

While you might find that women make false allegations, an assertion that is really is not backed up by any facts or statistics that have been documented anywhere, what are you doing to defend women who actually were victims of this sort of behavior and have been accused of being liars? What have you done to defend women who actually were the victims of this sort of behavior against men who denied misconduct that they actually committed? What have you done to to encourage women who were victimized to come forth?

The question of "which side are you on" is not one of male versus female. It's a matter of sitting down and determining, with people of both sexes, what the standards of appropriate behavior are. I saw something a few weeks ago on USMB that (to paraphrase) said "don't say anything to anyone else that you wouldn't want someone to say to you in prison."

This a matter of civilized behavior.

 

[pismoe]

best to be leery of women especially in the workplace if a guy values his job . Good old Mike Pence is a role model in his treatment of women and i am happy to see his rule being passed on to younger men . Also hearing that the Ladies have gotten men leery of practicing life saving emergency First Aid on women who have collapsed due to possible heart attack or similar .

 

[bodecea]

Men today should and are engaging in protective behavior. They avoid women at work. They are videotaping consents prior to dates and keeping careful detailed diaries with supporting texts and emails.

"Men today should and are engaging in protective behavior"........

Women forever have been engaging in protective behavior....pardon us if we don't feel bad that men are finally doing so.

 

[pismoe]

The "me-too" movement has necessitated this new rule, which is certainly a positive move for Homoamericans seeking employment in finance. The Light-in-the-loafers crowd will have no problem with the new dictates from the Wall Street crowd.

Wall Street rule for the #MeToo era: Avoid women at all costs

How sad guys can't just be respectful and professional while at work.

The concern isn't that Wall St. men can't be respectful to broads, but that the gals are making up things and ruining the men's careers.

That's what the people learned with the Bret Kavanaugh situation. Even though the man was found to be totally innocent of Gang Rape and Sexual Harassment, the broad who made the accusation made a big score and Kav's life and career were almost ruined by just 2 votes.

Better to be safe and just avoid broads or follow the Hallowed Mike Pence rule.

"broads"? Well, we know where YOU are coming from...............

"Broads" is a slang word for the gals here on the East Coast.

I've tried to use it more since I moved to the Commonwealth of the Pennsylvanians.

Nope...I'm from the East Coast....it's derogatory and has been for at least 50 years.

------------------------------------- and does that matter Bode ??

 

[pismoe]

Men today should and are engaging in protective behavior. They avoid women at work. They are videotaping consents prior to dates and keeping careful detailed diaries with supporting texts and emails.

"Men today should and are engaging in protective behavior"........

Women forever have been engaging in protective behavior....pardon us if we don't feel bad that men are finally doing so.

-------------------------------------------- but when the ways that Mike Pence deals with Broads was found out there was an outcry that his ways were hurtful to 'broads' Bode .

 

[bodecea]

How sad guys can't just be respectful and professional while at work.

The concern isn't that Wall St. men can't be respectful to broads, but that the gals are making up things and ruining the men's careers.

That's what the people learned with the Bret Kavanaugh situation. Even though the man was found to be totally innocent of Gang Rape and Sexual Harassment, the broad who made the accusation made a big score and Kav's life and career were almost ruined by just 2 votes.

Better to be safe and just avoid broads or follow the Hallowed Mike Pence rule.

"broads"? Well, we know where YOU are coming from...............

"Broads" is a slang word for the gals here on the East Coast.

I've tried to use it more since I moved to the Commonwealth of the Pennsylvanians.

Nope...I'm from the East Coast....it's derogatory and has been for at least 50 years.

------------------------------------- and does that matter Bode ??

It doesn't matter if one INTENDS to be derogatory by using it....

 

[bodecea]

Men today should and are engaging in protective behavior. They avoid women at work. They are videotaping consents prior to dates and keeping careful detailed diaries with supporting texts and emails.

"Men today should and are engaging in protective behavior"........

Women forever have been engaging in protective behavior....pardon us if we don't feel bad that men are finally doing so.

-------------------------------------------- but when the ways that Mike Pence deals with Broads was found out there was an outcry that his ways were hurtful to 'broads' Bode .

Actually, I was laughing about that.....as if he has anything to worry about. But it's HIS choice, isn't it?

 

[Ravi]

More women lie about sexual assault or harassment then men lie about their innocence.

Prove this.

The overwhelming number of women proved to be liars. In universities men are prohibited from offering evidence of innocence. The women are for the most part lying. Did we learn nothing from mattress girl, the prison sentence of Brian Banks?

Oddly enough, when a real rape occurs the man is usually a non white minority and culturally incapable of committing such a crime.

I say you are making things up based on what you want to believe.

 

[Ravi]

The "me-too" movement has necessitated this new rule, which is certainly a positive move for Homoamericans seeking employment in finance. The Light-in-the-loafers crowd will have no problem with the new dictates from the Wall Street crowd.

Wall Street rule for the #MeToo era: Avoid women at all costs

How sad guys can't just be respectful and professional while at work.

Even respectful and professional men get falsely accused

Who? How often? Where are you getting all of this information about people being falsely accused as opposed to how many people make truthful accusations and are falsely accused of lying, or who have never reported actual incidents due to fear or the unavailability of legitimate avenues of complaint?

Who is keeping this information?

Women are people people lie when it suits and or benefits them

Or is it your stance that women are possessed of unassailable virtue and are never to be doubted?

Lol, you don't like women much, obviously.