Next Up: Sepp Blatter

[Dick Whitman]

The fact that a lot of people think “sexual assault” = “rape” is part of the problem.

No doubt. The fly in the ointment, of course, is that sexual assault can mean rape. I’m not dense. I understand that it is an enormous problem, only now being addressed, that behavior that is damaging and maybe even criminal was laughed off as “boys being boys.” But I don’t think that that the right tact for journalists is to use the blanket “sexual assault” term for everything from a 90-year-old president pinching someone’s ass from his wheelchair (again, it’s wrong) to violent rape. (But not, apparently, Ben Affleck grabbing a host’s breast on live television.)

I think many people are going to start tuning these stories out when a headline announces “sexual assault,” and the story reveals an ass-grab.

 

[Vombatus]

And it could also be an increasing climate of zero tolerance for ANY form of bull****.

 

[Dick Whitman]

And it could also be an increasing climate of zero tolerance for ANY form of bull****.

I think we’re there. At the same time, again, I don’t think it’s the role of journalists to play misleading word games to get us there. It’s flat advocacy.

 

[CD Boogie]

No doubt. The fly in the ointment, of course, is that sexual assault can mean rape. I’m not dense. I understand that it is an enormous problem, only now being addressed, that behavior that is damaging and maybe even criminal was laughed off as “boys being boys.” But I don’t think that that the right tact for journalists is to use the blanket “sexual assault” term for everything from a 90-year-old president pinching someone’s ass from his wheelchair (again, it’s wrong) to violent rape. (But not, apparently, Ben Affleck grabbing a host’s breast on live television.)

I think many people are going to start tuning these stories out when a headline announces “sexual assault,” and the story reveals an ass-grab.

Same thing with molested. It’s s vague term that is used to encompass a wide range of acts.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I held a discussion about this topic on Facebook a couple weeks ago. A former co-worker of mine, a very smart liberal feminist, suggested just using “assault” as the flash descriptive and leaving “sexual” out of it. I think that would be an improvement. I know that’s weird, because on the surface it’s less precise. But I also think it’s less potentially misleading, and also more likely to be accurate across jurisdictions.

 

[User 11148]

Especially something that was purposely made nebulous by unwitting enablers.

Ummm ... what?

 

[Vombatus]

I think we’re there. At the same time, again, I don’t think it’s the role of journalists to play misleading word games to get us there. It’s flat advocacy.

Or laziness. Or lack of understanding of what certain words mean.

Harassment is a lot longer word than assault. The choice of assault is three letters shorter and might have fit on the page better, or allowed the use of a bigger eye catching font, which is the old school form of click bait.

I wouldn't claim it is flat out advocacy.

 

[MisterCreosote]

Ummm ... what?

“Boys will be boys,” etc.

 

[Azrael]

Look, I get it. I understand the phrase "sexual assault" strikes fear in the hearts of men.

I also guarantee that most women are untroubled by its correct application across a wide and varied range of terrible male behaviors. Including unsolicited ass-grabbing.

All sorts of "assault" are considered in every state's penal code - from misdemeanor intimidation to felony assault with a deadly weapon.

We seem perfectly comfortable cataloging all of them under the umbrella of "assault," with the understanding that the word represents a broad range of acts and intentions.

Not sure why it's such a struggle on this thread to do likewise.

 

[Neutral Corner]

Aside from all the individual cases of these incidents being reported and hopefully prosecuted, the really good part of all this is maybe society will change and stop doing this thing in the first place.

I look at the reaction to the Roy Moore story and despair.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Look, I get it. I understand the phrase "sexual assault" strikes fear in the hearts of men.

I also guarantee that most women are untroubled by its correct application across a wide and varied range of terrible male behaviors. Including unsolicited ass-grabbing.

All sorts of "assault" are considered in every state's penal code - from misdemeanor intimidation to felony assault with a deadly weapon.

We seem perfectly comfortable cataloging all of them under the umbrella of "assault," with the understanding that the word represents a broad range of acts and intentions.

Not sure why it's such a struggle on this thread to do likewise.

There is nothing in your post I have not already attempted to address as thoughtfully as I could. I don’t think you read any of it. You are, of course, welcome to if what you actually seek are answers. But I don’t think that’s what you want. I think you have a point of view, and are uninterested in engaging earnestly on anyone else’s.

In the meantime, looking forward to your next post about what a noble test it is for you to interact with the peasants here and all of our silly williness.

Let’s also not forget that you didn’t understand why it was a big deal that Harvey Weinstein is a serial sexual harasser and possibly assaulter.

That’s how the casting couch works, silly boys!

Maybe you’ll have the mods scrub that one, too, like you did on the old thread about the fabricated “Esquire” lede. When you’re a star, they let you do it, right?

 

[CD Boogie]

Sepp Blatter sounds like a UTI

 

[Azrael]

I think I said I wasn't shocked about Harvey Weinstein.

I think anything scrubbed from that Esquire thread was likely scrubbed because Piotr outed me on it. That's the only reason I can think of.

I also thought it was inconceivable an editor would ask a writer to pipe an entire scene.

I'd have certainly quit before agreeing to do something like that. Wouldn't you?

 

[Dick Whitman]

None of that's true. But I'll wait for you to stop editing your post before I reply.

I guess your posts magically disappeared.

 

[Azrael]

You mean like yours?

 

[Dick Whitman]

If you want to big-time people, it’s no skin off my nose. But if you big-time someone and end up being wrong, then live with it. It’s not too much to ask.

Anyway: I answered your inquiries about “assault” vs. “sexual assault” if you care to engage.

 

[Dick Whitman]

It’s interesting that the other person whose posts were scrubbed is out and loving it here.

It’s almost as if they weren’t scrubbed for the reason you say they were.

 

[jr/shotglass]

****, I think I've proven that I agree with a lot of what you're saying here, and yes, the media hasn't painted itself with glory.

But I'm wondering if the potential for improving the human condition might be more important. In other words, if it can be made clear that sexual harassment of any kind is not socially acceptable behavior, I think something has been accomplished. REGARDLESS of how we get there.

 

[Dick Whitman]

****, I think I've proven that I agree with a lot of what you're saying here, and yes, the media hasn't painted itself with glory.

But I'm wondering if the potential for improving the human condition might be more important. In other words, if it can be made clear that sexual harassment of any kind is not socially acceptable behavior, I think something has been accomplished. REGARDLESS of how we get there.

That is absolutely the calculation the press has made, yes.

 

[jr/shotglass]

It may be the correct calculation. Perhaps you need to think a little less about the methodology and a little more about the result.