“If she is lying about this, her performance is Oscar-worthy”
December 20, 2017 5:45 PM Subscribe
It’s so much easier to think that an attractive blond woman is sleeping her way to the top. Believing her claims against Payne means believing that she was forcibly raped and then forcibly coerced into having sex for two years to keep her job, that she cried in the shower and then wrote fake flirtatious emails because women write fake flirtatious emails every single day, because that is being a woman in America today.Why Doesn’t Anyone Believe Scottie Nell Hughes? Cari Wade Gervin writes for the Nashville Scene about the aftermath of conservative pundit/Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes going public with her rape allegations against Fox Business News host Charles Payne
It’s so much easier to think that an attractive blond woman is sleeping her way to the top.
There's a woman I work with who legit, flat-out has said this about some of the women caught up in the whole of the me-too movement. She hasn't named names, only said that she thinks "some women must have been taking advantage of things". The last time this issue came up in conversation in the office, I finally flat-out said that we should probably never discuss this issue again in the office because I was going to have a very hard time staying calm while giving my opinion of that belief. I simply do NOT understand how anyone would find it easier to believe someone would be that manipulative and self-exploitative.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:35 PM on December 20, 2017 [17 favorites]
There's a woman I work with who legit, flat-out has said this about some of the women caught up in the whole of the me-too movement. She hasn't named names, only said that she thinks "some women must have been taking advantage of things". The last time this issue came up in conversation in the office, I finally flat-out said that we should probably never discuss this issue again in the office because I was going to have a very hard time staying calm while giving my opinion of that belief. I simply do NOT understand how anyone would find it easier to believe someone would be that manipulative and self-exploitative.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:35 PM on December 20, 2017 [17 favorites]
If you're that good of an actor, there are easier ways of making money.
Oh, honey, yes. Afternoon soaps would be more fun, less gross, and likely more lucrative.
Scottie Nell Hughes' politics are utterly revolting, but that doesn't mean she should be subjected to rape in order to keep her job.
posted by MissySedai at 6:38 PM on December 20, 2017 [18 favorites]
Oh, honey, yes. Afternoon soaps would be more fun, less gross, and likely more lucrative.
Scottie Nell Hughes' politics are utterly revolting, but that doesn't mean she should be subjected to rape in order to keep her job.
posted by MissySedai at 6:38 PM on December 20, 2017 [18 favorites]
It’s so much easier to think that an attractive blond woman is sleeping her way to the top.
Maybe we shouldn't sleep with people we have power over. Maybe men who do that still deserve to face consequences.
I'm not saying I disbelieve Scottie Nelle Hughes. I agree that it would be really weird for her to go through all of this for... what, exactly? But, I think it's kind of telling that this supposed "defense" of Payne still involves some really shitty behavior on his part THAT ALSO ISN'T FUCKING OKAY. THERE ARE SO MANY REASONS IT'S NOT OKAY.
Like, I really do not get how "sleeping her way to the top" is a condemnation of the woman involved and not the man.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 6:44 PM on December 20, 2017 [97 favorites]
Maybe we shouldn't sleep with people we have power over. Maybe men who do that still deserve to face consequences.
I'm not saying I disbelieve Scottie Nelle Hughes. I agree that it would be really weird for her to go through all of this for... what, exactly? But, I think it's kind of telling that this supposed "defense" of Payne still involves some really shitty behavior on his part THAT ALSO ISN'T FUCKING OKAY. THERE ARE SO MANY REASONS IT'S NOT OKAY.
Like, I really do not get how "sleeping her way to the top" is a condemnation of the woman involved and not the man.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 6:44 PM on December 20, 2017 [97 favorites]
I have no reason to disbelieve her. I think I can understand why some, possibly especially those on the right, would. She made a career as a "bottom feeder" in her own words, beclowing herself over and over, defending the bullshittiest of the bullshit from the likes of Trump when he bragged about assaulting women. Being an outrageous public personality was her goal in life. This is the name of the game among right wing talking fuckheads, they all know it, they all partake in pursuit of $$ and notoriety. So "the indignities of a lawsuit and public scorn" would seem part and parcel of the career track for someone like her. Indignity and public scorn are badges of honor among her media peers. Just not usually in defense against their peers.
I do hope she can be credible enough to actually make a difference. As she notes, the ultra butch conservative world likely has yet to develop the tools for the kind of introspection needed to face the problem of sexual harassment, inequality, and assault.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:04 PM on December 20, 2017
I do hope she can be credible enough to actually make a difference. As she notes, the ultra butch conservative world likely has yet to develop the tools for the kind of introspection needed to face the problem of sexual harassment, inequality, and assault.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:04 PM on December 20, 2017
Like, I really do not get how "sleeping her way to the top" is a condemnation of the woman involved and not the man.
Wow yeah, this forever.
posted by Stonestock Relentless at 7:18 PM on December 20, 2017 [32 favorites]
Wow yeah, this forever.
posted by Stonestock Relentless at 7:18 PM on December 20, 2017 [32 favorites]
Is it that no one believes her (the account she gives in the article is harrowing and utterly believable), or that her public opinions have driven away most would-be supporters?
"Oh? And when the last woman was quiet, and the Devil turned 'round on you, who would you turn to, Scotty, the women all being silenced?"
posted by notsnot at 7:34 PM on December 20, 2017 [4 favorites]
"Oh? And when the last woman was quiet, and the Devil turned 'round on you, who would you turn to, Scotty, the women all being silenced?"
posted by notsnot at 7:34 PM on December 20, 2017 [4 favorites]
Well, if your options are to either (a) refuse to sleep with your harasser and lose your career, or (b) give in and sleep with him in order to keep it....You'd think "sleeping your way to the top" would be encouraged and supported in our world, wouldn't it?
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:35 PM on December 20, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:35 PM on December 20, 2017 [2 favorites]
It wouldn't even be a case of sleeping her way to the top if that allegation were true (which let's be clear, it's not) -- more like sleeping her way to more frequent contributor appearances and a tenuous grasp on a small amount of fame. Payne was the one with the high profile job here, not Hughes.
posted by axiom at 7:38 PM on December 20, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by axiom at 7:38 PM on December 20, 2017 [3 favorites]
I would believe this of her. In fact i would believe it of literally any woman at FOX, it's that kind of organization. Would not believe a one of them on literally any other thing.
posted by Artw at 7:43 PM on December 20, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:43 PM on December 20, 2017 [2 favorites]
Like, I really do not get how "sleeping her way to the top" is a condemnation of the woman involved and not the man.
i mean? because throughout history, women have always been considered only tainted by sex whereas men are elevated and celebrated? obviously.
posted by poffin boffin at 7:54 PM on December 20, 2017 [9 favorites]
i mean? because throughout history, women have always been considered only tainted by sex whereas men are elevated and celebrated? obviously.
posted by poffin boffin at 7:54 PM on December 20, 2017 [9 favorites]
Conspicuously absent from the article: Charles Payne is black. One part of the reason people might have a hard time believing Scottie Hughes is the long tradition of Southern white women reframing consensual relationships with black men as rape when the affair is discovered.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 7:58 PM on December 20, 2017 [47 favorites]
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 7:58 PM on December 20, 2017 [47 favorites]
That's an extra shitty cherry on the top, isn't it? I believe her. I believe that anyone with power can abuse those without. I can also totally believe that plenty of people look at her public politic stances and get super squeamish about supporting her.
Hate her politic beliefs, but at some point this shit has to stop.
posted by drewbage1847 at 8:24 PM on December 20, 2017 [2 favorites]
Hate her politic beliefs, but at some point this shit has to stop.
posted by drewbage1847 at 8:24 PM on December 20, 2017 [2 favorites]
Considering that Hughes is/was, like all Fox personalities, a professional liar, it is arguable that maybe some skepticism is warranted.
But taking her statements as fact, the other possibility is that people believe her, but they just don't care. If someone is an awful human being, actively working to make the world a worse place, do they deserve sympathy when something bad happens to them? Or should they just expect to go to the end of the sympathy-line, behind all other victims who are *not* lying sacks of shite, apologists for corruption, etc?
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 8:25 PM on December 20, 2017 [4 favorites]
But taking her statements as fact, the other possibility is that people believe her, but they just don't care. If someone is an awful human being, actively working to make the world a worse place, do they deserve sympathy when something bad happens to them? Or should they just expect to go to the end of the sympathy-line, behind all other victims who are *not* lying sacks of shite, apologists for corruption, etc?
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 8:25 PM on December 20, 2017 [4 favorites]
Nobody at FOX gives a shit, that's for sure. It's basically their job not to give a shit.
posted by Artw at 8:31 PM on December 20, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:31 PM on December 20, 2017 [2 favorites]
Hate her politic beliefs, but at some point this shit has to stop.
"What is she thinking" has become the new "What was she wearing?"
The optics and narrative here is messy, and inconvenient, and people do not like messy and inconvenient.
Like, I really do not get how "sleeping her way to the top" is a condemnation of the woman involved and not the man.
It is a condemnation of society in general that we live in primitive times. If she who is looking for a jobs doesn't give in, she is without employment. If he who has power doesn't give in, he has his job no matter what.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:45 PM on December 20, 2017 [3 favorites]
"What is she thinking" has become the new "What was she wearing?"
The optics and narrative here is messy, and inconvenient, and people do not like messy and inconvenient.
Like, I really do not get how "sleeping her way to the top" is a condemnation of the woman involved and not the man.
It is a condemnation of society in general that we live in primitive times. If she who is looking for a jobs doesn't give in, she is without employment. If he who has power doesn't give in, he has his job no matter what.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:45 PM on December 20, 2017 [3 favorites]
if i were a plaintiff's lawyer with liberal political views, i would jump at the opportunity to take this case, which names fox as a defendant, imagining the insanity that you would find out in discovery, and the chance to put the hurt on this horrendous network which is destroying our democracy.
posted by wibari at 9:17 PM on December 20, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by wibari at 9:17 PM on December 20, 2017 [3 favorites]
Whether she’s lying...whether she’s telling the truth...whether it’s something more complex with subtle coercion and romantic feelings on one or both parts and the subsequent vindictiveness of those in power who have been spurned...Jesus, Fox is just a cesspool of bad people making bad decisions in their personal lives and I suppose this should not be surprising for a group of bad people making bad decisions about public affairs. Hughes absolutely deserves her day in court to present her evidence but if Payne’s defense is “it was consensual “ — gawd, how hard is it to understand that doing the nasty with a coworker, especially when there is a power differential involved, is always, always a bad idea?
Fuck, I’ve been in the situation where there’s been sexual attraction with a coworker and the conversation goes “one of us changes jobs/careers otherwise this stops now“ because nothing is worth navigating the minefield of sex influencing career. That would be the most charitable interpretation of Payne’s actions and given the apparent culture and moral values at Fox, I doubt it “rises” to that level. Yes, it seems (from what these links provide and no additional evidence) that Hughes made some questionable decisions, but as always, the burden of fault lies with the person who holds the power.
I hope there’s a big payout and some careers ruined, even if it’s not outright “powerful guy is able to commit 100% non consensual sex activity” (which, if true should involve jail time) but at the very least should result in an understanding that even if “she said yes at the time” these shenanigans are at the very least extremely problematic and in my stupid hippie liberal idealistic world are identified and addressed right from the get go.
Fucking Republicans, perpetually 50 years behind where civilized humans live.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:58 PM on December 20, 2017 [9 favorites]
Fuck, I’ve been in the situation where there’s been sexual attraction with a coworker and the conversation goes “one of us changes jobs/careers otherwise this stops now“ because nothing is worth navigating the minefield of sex influencing career. That would be the most charitable interpretation of Payne’s actions and given the apparent culture and moral values at Fox, I doubt it “rises” to that level. Yes, it seems (from what these links provide and no additional evidence) that Hughes made some questionable decisions, but as always, the burden of fault lies with the person who holds the power.
I hope there’s a big payout and some careers ruined, even if it’s not outright “powerful guy is able to commit 100% non consensual sex activity” (which, if true should involve jail time) but at the very least should result in an understanding that even if “she said yes at the time” these shenanigans are at the very least extremely problematic and in my stupid hippie liberal idealistic world are identified and addressed right from the get go.
Fucking Republicans, perpetually 50 years behind where civilized humans live.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:58 PM on December 20, 2017 [9 favorites]
Every day I look at the world around me and marvel at the power that still gives men the benefit of the doubt, always, and insists that women are lying, always.
And by marvel I mean, I'm not sure how much more I can take.
posted by Space Kitty at 9:58 PM on December 20, 2017 [20 favorites]
And by marvel I mean, I'm not sure how much more I can take.
posted by Space Kitty at 9:58 PM on December 20, 2017 [20 favorites]
All I can say about this is my advice to other guys. Now is the time to shut the fuck up and listen.
posted by adept256 at 10:22 PM on December 20, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by adept256 at 10:22 PM on December 20, 2017 [6 favorites]
or that her public opinions have driven away most would-be supporters?
No, that's not it. The kind of people who respond to a woman's story, not even with reasoned disbelief, but by smirking about how she should have had the foresight to register as a Democrat before getting raped are the same kind of people who think prison rape is hilarious. They are the ones who think: it's only an atrocity if she didn't deserve it. if she paid for my sympathy in advance by living a good life.
but decent people don't fail to condemn gendered hate-violence because the victims are bad people. decent people don't consider women's humanity to be a privilege they earn by voting right and speaking respectably. Decent people aren't exasperated with victims because why didn't getting raped finally set her straight, politically speaking? They don't wonder why it wasn't a learning experience for the victim, politically. they don't sound happy that this woman, of all women, was the one to be violated because of poetic justice. they don't, in short, judge the victim in place of judging the perpetrator.
maybe the best way to put it is that there's no such thing as a would-be supporter. If you want to support women victimized by men, you just do it. It's not a favor you do for the victim, it's not a way to give her a passing grade in the school of life; it's a way to maintain the bare minimum of respect for yourself.
posted by queenofbithynia at 11:00 PM on December 20, 2017 [67 favorites]
No, that's not it. The kind of people who respond to a woman's story, not even with reasoned disbelief, but by smirking about how she should have had the foresight to register as a Democrat before getting raped are the same kind of people who think prison rape is hilarious. They are the ones who think: it's only an atrocity if she didn't deserve it. if she paid for my sympathy in advance by living a good life.
but decent people don't fail to condemn gendered hate-violence because the victims are bad people. decent people don't consider women's humanity to be a privilege they earn by voting right and speaking respectably. Decent people aren't exasperated with victims because why didn't getting raped finally set her straight, politically speaking? They don't wonder why it wasn't a learning experience for the victim, politically. they don't sound happy that this woman, of all women, was the one to be violated because of poetic justice. they don't, in short, judge the victim in place of judging the perpetrator.
maybe the best way to put it is that there's no such thing as a would-be supporter. If you want to support women victimized by men, you just do it. It's not a favor you do for the victim, it's not a way to give her a passing grade in the school of life; it's a way to maintain the bare minimum of respect for yourself.
posted by queenofbithynia at 11:00 PM on December 20, 2017 [67 favorites]
Hughes’ lawsuit also says Fox News and two of its executives, Dianne Brandi and Irena Briganti, were responsible for leaking the story that Payne and Hughes were involved in what was described as a romantic affair.Regardless of the merits of the underlying claim, this is utterly sleazy behavior that should be criminal. I hope she wins enough money that it manages to breach Rupert Murdoch's idiot bubble.
“As alleged in the complaint, after Ms. Hughes confidentially reached out to Fox to disclose that she was sexually assaulted and raped by Fox anchor Charles Payne, Fox ruthlessly leaked her name to a reporter at the National Enquirer, along with a self-serving ‘statement’ by Payne apologizing for what he falsely described as an ‘affair,’” Hughes’ attorney, Douglas Wigdor, said in a statement. “We intend to aggressively litigate Ms. Hughes’ claims and hold Fox accountable to the fullest extent under the law.”
posted by wierdo at 11:29 PM on December 20, 2017 [3 favorites]
When is the National Enquirer going to be acquired by Murdoch? It's basically the Trump/Fox Pravda at this point.
posted by benzenedream at 12:15 AM on December 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 12:15 AM on December 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
Out of curiosity I did read the alleged emails that she sent to Payne and now I can see where that distrust is coming from.
I can also see how someone who realizes that their family is in fact top priority in their life might go to extreme lengths, even lying to themselves about what had happened, just to keep that family in their life.
I feel there is a collision of two worlds: the world of instinct and emotion (which seems to go one way here) and the rational world (which seems to be pointing the other way). If this creates a strong dissonance, I would think that people are capable of powerful delusions.
And for those perpetually outraged: I still believe that power relationships (the rational world) should absolutely not be used to extract emotional favors (in the form of sex).
posted by Laotic at 3:16 AM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
I can also see how someone who realizes that their family is in fact top priority in their life might go to extreme lengths, even lying to themselves about what had happened, just to keep that family in their life.
I feel there is a collision of two worlds: the world of instinct and emotion (which seems to go one way here) and the rational world (which seems to be pointing the other way). If this creates a strong dissonance, I would think that people are capable of powerful delusions.
And for those perpetually outraged: I still believe that power relationships (the rational world) should absolutely not be used to extract emotional favors (in the form of sex).
posted by Laotic at 3:16 AM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
> I hope she wins enough money that it manages to breach Rupert Murdoch's idiot bubble.
Previous sex scandals at Fox News have involved the founder, CEO and ideological leader Roger Ailes and prime-time pundit Bill O'Reilly.
Two of the highest-profile people at the company were kicked out because they were sexual predators. The place hasn't changed in the slightest. If anything the network has slid even further rightward. Odds of this scandal, involving a low-tier network anchor, affecting anything at the company is slim to nil. The lesson men there will learn is not to stop assaulting women, but to be more aggressive at preventing the victims from going public about it.
posted by at by at 3:57 AM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
Previous sex scandals at Fox News have involved the founder, CEO and ideological leader Roger Ailes and prime-time pundit Bill O'Reilly.
Two of the highest-profile people at the company were kicked out because they were sexual predators. The place hasn't changed in the slightest. If anything the network has slid even further rightward. Odds of this scandal, involving a low-tier network anchor, affecting anything at the company is slim to nil. The lesson men there will learn is not to stop assaulting women, but to be more aggressive at preventing the victims from going public about it.
posted by at by at 3:57 AM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
> Like, I really do not get how "sleeping her way to the top" is a condemnation of the woman involved and not the man.
i mean? because throughout history, women have always been considered only tainted by sex whereas men are elevated and celebrated? obviously.
So.......then you blame society, not the woman.
It just feels like blaming the woman in this case is like saying the Handmaids are all having 100% consensual sex.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:26 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
i mean? because throughout history, women have always been considered only tainted by sex whereas men are elevated and celebrated? obviously.
So.......then you blame society, not the woman.
It just feels like blaming the woman in this case is like saying the Handmaids are all having 100% consensual sex.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:26 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
Yikes, I read those mails and now I need to wash my eyes with soap. And I think I agree somewhat with Laotic on this.
I've seen friends get into relationships with powerful men and it's always complicated when it happens. Very often my friends have described it as consensual while it went on, and then felt they were being used, even coerced afterwards. IMO, the predators are really good at seeking out women who are in some way vulnerable: women with insecurities or who are economically precarious, or who have other issues. With Hughes, her vulnerability seems to be her boundless ambition. I'm not suggesting that she is "sleeping her way to success" at all, more that her craving for fame and exposure makes her a target. I hope the #metoo campaign can lead to more companies getting a zero-tolerance policy towards sex with coworkers, because as long as there is a grey zone, predators will exploit it.
posted by mumimor at 4:46 AM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
I've seen friends get into relationships with powerful men and it's always complicated when it happens. Very often my friends have described it as consensual while it went on, and then felt they were being used, even coerced afterwards. IMO, the predators are really good at seeking out women who are in some way vulnerable: women with insecurities or who are economically precarious, or who have other issues. With Hughes, her vulnerability seems to be her boundless ambition. I'm not suggesting that she is "sleeping her way to success" at all, more that her craving for fame and exposure makes her a target. I hope the #metoo campaign can lead to more companies getting a zero-tolerance policy towards sex with coworkers, because as long as there is a grey zone, predators will exploit it.
posted by mumimor at 4:46 AM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
Like, I really do not get how "sleeping her way to the top" is a condemnation of the woman involved and not the man.
Well because men are powerless in the face of their sexual urges and it is and always has been the role of women to resist their advances and be the guardians of virtue. Good women obviously don't have sexual urges at all and those hussies who do should be shamed into not giving in to them.
[/sarcasm]
Short answer: Patriarchy, puritanical cultural values.
posted by *becca* at 4:52 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
Well because men are powerless in the face of their sexual urges and it is and always has been the role of women to resist their advances and be the guardians of virtue. Good women obviously don't have sexual urges at all and those hussies who do should be shamed into not giving in to them.
[/sarcasm]
Short answer: Patriarchy, puritanical cultural values.
posted by *becca* at 4:52 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos: "I simply do NOT understand how anyone would find it easier to believe someone would be that manipulative and self-exploitative."
If you know anyone who is strongly manipulative/exploitative, you'd quickly notice that one of the overwhelmingly-likely additional traits is that they will also assume everyone else is as well. Sometimes it's paranoia, sometimes it's searching for a self-justification, but manipulative/exploitative people almost always believe others are equally (if not even more so) manipulative/exploitative as well.
And I suspect you'll find that a bunch -- not all, mind, but a decent chunk -- of the people who think she is manipulative and exploitative do so from that state of mind.
posted by mystyk at 6:39 AM on December 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
If you know anyone who is strongly manipulative/exploitative, you'd quickly notice that one of the overwhelmingly-likely additional traits is that they will also assume everyone else is as well. Sometimes it's paranoia, sometimes it's searching for a self-justification, but manipulative/exploitative people almost always believe others are equally (if not even more so) manipulative/exploitative as well.
And I suspect you'll find that a bunch -- not all, mind, but a decent chunk -- of the people who think she is manipulative and exploitative do so from that state of mind.
posted by mystyk at 6:39 AM on December 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
First off, her politics have fuck all to do with this. Fox News politics have almost fuck all to do with this. Some PR consultant has no doubt told them that if they let cases like this move forward, especially ones where the plaintiff wants the anchor kicked off rather than cash, the public image of Fox will take a massive hit. If she could be bought off it would cost the business less money then having a public house cleaning would cost. At this point in time, barring new data, I have little doubt as to Ms. Hughes veracity in this matter. That she holds positions I find to be morally bankrupt and damaging to the long term health of the USA in no way make her undeserving of sympathy or support in this matter.
The black man, white woman dynamic has and will no doubt play into the way some folks see this issue. I have yet to notice any of the regular dog whistles for the traditional bigoted interpretation of this situation, though if I have missed something please let me know.
Workplace rules about dating co-workers vary. This is a problem. Many men like to use the, "what are the rules in this day and age," BS defense. One rule: Never flirt with, date, or have sex with anyone in or from the workplace. Unless they ask clearly and without ambiguity. Ideally by saying something like, "Would you like to go on a date?". If you have any power over them or influence over their job say, "No." Explain why. If you have no idea why I write this...I will try to find a support service for emotionally unintelligent smart people.
Never read anything deeper into any statement or request. If a woman asks you to go to coffee to discuss anything it is only a request to discuss the thing she has asked about. There is never to be any attempt to read deeper than the woman is openly discussing. Ask her to let you know if she feels uncomfortable at any time. Only think to solve work related issues with which you have actual competency. If they are having trouble at home or in a relationship recommend a qualified professional. Learn to actively listen and always check in with your co-worker during a conversation to make sure that they are feeling comfortable. Non-work related conversations can quickly become personal. Never mistake personal or intimate conversation for an invitation to do anything other than have a conversation. Keep you hands to yourself at all times. With the sole exception of a medical emergency.
Discussion of a co-worker's appearance beyond the, "You have something just there," or an actual wardrobe issue (i.e. tear, zipper down, etc...) has no place. Possibly the, "You changed your hair. It looks nice," or, "The fluorescent orange is going to take a little getting used to," class of statement might be acceptable.
Assume that your coworker have no attraction or interest in you as a romantic being. If they do they can ask. If an explicit request or statement of interest is never made keep your hands to yourself. Office and office related romances do happen. They are vastly outnumbered by office and office related assaults.
If you use power over someone's livelihood to have sex with them you are a monster. There is no liberal guilt or conservative puritanism involved with this premise. There is a noted process whereby the amount of power one acquires seems to diminish the intensity of moral restraint. This level varies by individual. If your level of power lets you assault or rape someone you are now a threat to the rest of us. We must never suffer the open predation of one human by another.
posted by Ignorantsavage at 7:11 AM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
The black man, white woman dynamic has and will no doubt play into the way some folks see this issue. I have yet to notice any of the regular dog whistles for the traditional bigoted interpretation of this situation, though if I have missed something please let me know.
Workplace rules about dating co-workers vary. This is a problem. Many men like to use the, "what are the rules in this day and age," BS defense. One rule: Never flirt with, date, or have sex with anyone in or from the workplace. Unless they ask clearly and without ambiguity. Ideally by saying something like, "Would you like to go on a date?". If you have any power over them or influence over their job say, "No." Explain why. If you have no idea why I write this...I will try to find a support service for emotionally unintelligent smart people.
Never read anything deeper into any statement or request. If a woman asks you to go to coffee to discuss anything it is only a request to discuss the thing she has asked about. There is never to be any attempt to read deeper than the woman is openly discussing. Ask her to let you know if she feels uncomfortable at any time. Only think to solve work related issues with which you have actual competency. If they are having trouble at home or in a relationship recommend a qualified professional. Learn to actively listen and always check in with your co-worker during a conversation to make sure that they are feeling comfortable. Non-work related conversations can quickly become personal. Never mistake personal or intimate conversation for an invitation to do anything other than have a conversation. Keep you hands to yourself at all times. With the sole exception of a medical emergency.
Discussion of a co-worker's appearance beyond the, "You have something just there," or an actual wardrobe issue (i.e. tear, zipper down, etc...) has no place. Possibly the, "You changed your hair. It looks nice," or, "The fluorescent orange is going to take a little getting used to," class of statement might be acceptable.
Assume that your coworker have no attraction or interest in you as a romantic being. If they do they can ask. If an explicit request or statement of interest is never made keep your hands to yourself. Office and office related romances do happen. They are vastly outnumbered by office and office related assaults.
If you use power over someone's livelihood to have sex with them you are a monster. There is no liberal guilt or conservative puritanism involved with this premise. There is a noted process whereby the amount of power one acquires seems to diminish the intensity of moral restraint. This level varies by individual. If your level of power lets you assault or rape someone you are now a threat to the rest of us. We must never suffer the open predation of one human by another.
posted by Ignorantsavage at 7:11 AM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
First off, her politics have fuck all to do with this. Fox News politics have almost fuck all to do with this.
Not that we shouldn't have sympathy, and I'm pretty much on the side of "men have no credibility in this sort of situation." But both parties have attached themselves to an organization that promotes toxic masculinity and distrust of women as a political position. And your third sentence kinda belies the first two.
posted by aspersioncast at 7:55 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
Not that we shouldn't have sympathy, and I'm pretty much on the side of "men have no credibility in this sort of situation." But both parties have attached themselves to an organization that promotes toxic masculinity and distrust of women as a political position. And your third sentence kinda belies the first two.
posted by aspersioncast at 7:55 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
It’s kind of a side issue, but is anyone else angry she had to take her shoes off for photos with powerful men so she didn’t appear taller? How is that even a thing.
posted by R343L at 7:59 AM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by R343L at 7:59 AM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
FOX News could be lefty as fuck and still have the awful corporate culture left by Roger Ailes.
It's not, obviously, but they have a disgusting rep outside of their disgusting politics.
posted by Artw at 8:01 AM on December 21, 2017
It's not, obviously, but they have a disgusting rep outside of their disgusting politics.
posted by Artw at 8:01 AM on December 21, 2017
do they deserve sympathy when something bad happens to them? Or should they just expect to go to the end of the sympathy-line, behind all other victims who are *not* lying sacks of shite, apologists for corruption, etc?
right, because being sexually abused is just a thing that happens to people, like falling down a flight of stairs or getting caught in a rainstorm. Nobody does it to them, so there's nobody to consider but them, the victims: do we help them, do we point and laugh, do we form a fucking SYMPATHY LINE, like a receiving line at a wedding, and put them at the front or the end of the line according to their merits?
good thing there's nobody else involved in the situation whose morality needs to be thought about. good thing men are just like the weather. men just happen to people who do or don't deserve it.
posted by queenofbithynia at 8:08 AM on December 21, 2017 [19 favorites]
right, because being sexually abused is just a thing that happens to people, like falling down a flight of stairs or getting caught in a rainstorm. Nobody does it to them, so there's nobody to consider but them, the victims: do we help them, do we point and laugh, do we form a fucking SYMPATHY LINE, like a receiving line at a wedding, and put them at the front or the end of the line according to their merits?
good thing there's nobody else involved in the situation whose morality needs to be thought about. good thing men are just like the weather. men just happen to people who do or don't deserve it.
posted by queenofbithynia at 8:08 AM on December 21, 2017 [19 favorites]
Re: Manipulative liars, a person really only needs to have been badly burned by one a few times to start losing the ability to trust others. I'm inclined to believe her, but I don't necessariluy thing that all doubters are awful people...
I read the emails linked from the article. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they cause her to lose her case. Describing them as "flirtatious" doesn't seem accurate. At least one of them reads as an explicit and enthusiastic endorsement. That said, those emails are from one month in 2013, and don't cover the entire two years. A few weeks of "maybe this is fine?" followed by two years of it not being fine at all is likely to color a person's perception, and also isn't noticably less horrible.
Also, if I'm reading this correctly, basically all parties involved agree that sleeping with the boss is a totally legit and accepted way to get ahead at Fox News? That's a pretty gross fact.
posted by surlyben at 8:18 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
I read the emails linked from the article. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they cause her to lose her case. Describing them as "flirtatious" doesn't seem accurate. At least one of them reads as an explicit and enthusiastic endorsement. That said, those emails are from one month in 2013, and don't cover the entire two years. A few weeks of "maybe this is fine?" followed by two years of it not being fine at all is likely to color a person's perception, and also isn't noticably less horrible.
Also, if I'm reading this correctly, basically all parties involved agree that sleeping with the boss is a totally legit and accepted way to get ahead at Fox News? That's a pretty gross fact.
posted by surlyben at 8:18 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
Conspicuously absent from the article: Charles Payne is black. One part of the reason people might have a hard time believing Scottie Hughes is the long tradition of Southern white women reframing consensual relationships with black men as rape when the affair is discovered.
Whoa, that is a conspicuous absence.
I was conflicted by the Nashville Scene's article about her. Why don't people believe her is a good question to ask, but it worked hard to humanize her. On one hand, humanizing victims of sexual assault is one way to advocate for change. On the other hand, Scottie Nell Hughes is a loathsome, racist bottom-feeder clinging to the coattails of fascism, and it seemed like the article was also humanizing her inhumane work.
So, I looked it up and it seems that the author is white. Maybe she assumed everyone knew Charles Payne is black. But I didn't; I don't watch Fox, and I assumed a detail like that would be in the article. I suspect that it would have been, if it had been written by a woman of color.
That is - there is not a rash of white women accusing men of sexual assault just because. But race has, for white women, been a reason to accuse black men of sexual assault. Writing an article about why people are hesitant to back her without mentioning that really... is conspicuous. Thanks for mentioning it.
(Though - this might not play as big of a role in white people's reactions, because they're not as aware of the issue.)
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:56 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
Whoa, that is a conspicuous absence.
I was conflicted by the Nashville Scene's article about her. Why don't people believe her is a good question to ask, but it worked hard to humanize her. On one hand, humanizing victims of sexual assault is one way to advocate for change. On the other hand, Scottie Nell Hughes is a loathsome, racist bottom-feeder clinging to the coattails of fascism, and it seemed like the article was also humanizing her inhumane work.
So, I looked it up and it seems that the author is white. Maybe she assumed everyone knew Charles Payne is black. But I didn't; I don't watch Fox, and I assumed a detail like that would be in the article. I suspect that it would have been, if it had been written by a woman of color.
That is - there is not a rash of white women accusing men of sexual assault just because. But race has, for white women, been a reason to accuse black men of sexual assault. Writing an article about why people are hesitant to back her without mentioning that really... is conspicuous. Thanks for mentioning it.
(Though - this might not play as big of a role in white people's reactions, because they're not as aware of the issue.)
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 8:56 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
queenofbithynia, I think you're misreading my comment. Accepting Hughes' story means accepting that the guy who raped her is a criminal and a sleazebag. I'm certainly not arguing otherwise. (Personally, I think everyone who works at Fox is morally compromised to some degree, but that's an entirely different discussion.)
The focus of the post is how people are reacting to Hughes' story, and my point was that, even though her suffering is real, people may not have a lot of sympathy to spare for someone like her when there are many other non-awful people who also have been seriously wronged or who are suffering. "Sympathy fatigue" is a real thing.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 9:05 AM on December 21, 2017
The focus of the post is how people are reacting to Hughes' story, and my point was that, even though her suffering is real, people may not have a lot of sympathy to spare for someone like her when there are many other non-awful people who also have been seriously wronged or who are suffering. "Sympathy fatigue" is a real thing.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 9:05 AM on December 21, 2017
How often do we talk about sex workers? That's a line of work that carries a greater risk of sexual assault than working at Fox AND isn't actively destroying society, but I'm not hearing any outpourings of sympathy.
posted by Artw at 9:18 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:18 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
First off, her politics have fuck all to do with this.
Ooooh, yes, they surely do have plenty to do with this. Her shitty politics are a good bit of the reason why people are giving her a hard side-eye and shrugging off her claims with "Welp, you lay down with dogs, you're gonna get up with fleas."
She stridently defended His Orangeness' "grab 'em by the pussy" commentary, claiming "[...]it is a distraction. This morning, no woman woke up affected by these words." She accused Clinton supporters of "tearing down boys" and being "sexist" for voting for Clinton. She has been pro-pussy-grabbing, anti-woman - loudly, with her own mouth.
Frankly, that makes it REALLY FUCKING HARD to give a shit about her claims. She has given a very public impression of loving every minute of her mouth-running.
Even with all that, though, she deserves her day in court. She deserves to be believed. As hard as it is to feel anything but revulsion for her, because of her trash-fire persona, she did not deserve sexual abuse and assault. No one does.
But please, let's not pretend her politics are in any way divorced from why people don't believe her. Human nature is A Thing.
posted by MissySedai at 9:41 AM on December 21, 2017
Ooooh, yes, they surely do have plenty to do with this. Her shitty politics are a good bit of the reason why people are giving her a hard side-eye and shrugging off her claims with "Welp, you lay down with dogs, you're gonna get up with fleas."
She stridently defended His Orangeness' "grab 'em by the pussy" commentary, claiming "[...]it is a distraction. This morning, no woman woke up affected by these words." She accused Clinton supporters of "tearing down boys" and being "sexist" for voting for Clinton. She has been pro-pussy-grabbing, anti-woman - loudly, with her own mouth.
Frankly, that makes it REALLY FUCKING HARD to give a shit about her claims. She has given a very public impression of loving every minute of her mouth-running.
Even with all that, though, she deserves her day in court. She deserves to be believed. As hard as it is to feel anything but revulsion for her, because of her trash-fire persona, she did not deserve sexual abuse and assault. No one does.
But please, let's not pretend her politics are in any way divorced from why people don't believe her. Human nature is A Thing.
posted by MissySedai at 9:41 AM on December 21, 2017
"Accepting Hughes' story means accepting that the guy who raped her is a criminal and a sleazebag. I'm certainly not arguing otherwise. (Personally, I think everyone who works at Fox is morally compromised to some degree, but that's an entirely different discussion.)"
In all likelihood this wasn't intentional, but can we perhaps *not* morally equate "has loathsome views and perpetuates propaganda/falsehoods" with "commits loathsome and rightfully criminal acts that directly violate another person"? Because that's what talking about how everyone at [X] is morally compromised as a mere parenthetical aside from talking about raping someone does. You're right that it's another discussion -- so much so that its presence in that particular arrangement of language is completely out of place.
posted by mystyk at 10:12 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
In all likelihood this wasn't intentional, but can we perhaps *not* morally equate "has loathsome views and perpetuates propaganda/falsehoods" with "commits loathsome and rightfully criminal acts that directly violate another person"? Because that's what talking about how everyone at [X] is morally compromised as a mere parenthetical aside from talking about raping someone does. You're right that it's another discussion -- so much so that its presence in that particular arrangement of language is completely out of place.
posted by mystyk at 10:12 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
Conspicuously absent from the article: Charles Payne is black. One part of the reason people might have a hard time believing Scottie Hughes is the long tradition of Southern white women reframing consensual relationships with black men as rape when the affair is discovered.
So...believe women when they put themselves through the horrifying gauntlet of going public, unless it’s a white woman and a black man?
The fuck?
Charles Payne was in a position of power over Hughes. He used it. It turns out black men can be sexual predators too, like literally every other demographic in the known universe.
Also, not for nothing, but if I’m reading correctly, the “affair” wasn’t “discovered.” It was reported. As rape.
posted by schadenfrau at 10:22 AM on December 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
So...believe women when they put themselves through the horrifying gauntlet of going public, unless it’s a white woman and a black man?
The fuck?
Charles Payne was in a position of power over Hughes. He used it. It turns out black men can be sexual predators too, like literally every other demographic in the known universe.
Also, not for nothing, but if I’m reading correctly, the “affair” wasn’t “discovered.” It was reported. As rape.
posted by schadenfrau at 10:22 AM on December 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
Yes, regarding the race issue at play here, the facts as presented thus far appear to be that Hughes went to Fox News with her claims of sexual assault against Payne. Fox News retaliated by leaking stories of the “affair” to the press. To change the narrative to “White, Southern woman has consensual affair with a black man and later changes the story to ‘rape’ after the affair is discovered”, at least in this circumstance based on the information we have to go on, is inventing a story out of whole cloth.
posted by The Gooch at 10:50 AM on December 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by The Gooch at 10:50 AM on December 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
Let me put this out to begin with I believe Scottie Nell Hughes, because to do otherwise given everything feels just ridiculous and reaching for ever more brittle "explanations" Yes she's a horrible person in lots of ways, but no one deserves to be raped and then have large portions of the public heap more abuse on them for trying to get some justice.
Also, not for nothing, but if I’m reading correctly, the “affair” wasn’t “discovered.” It was reported. As rape.
The way I read the story, the "affair" was discovered when her husband Chris questioned the bruising.
So it's possible that the way that Fox and company is trying to frame this is that she entered into a consensual relationship in order to further her career. When confronted by her husband she fell back to that grand old trope of an "Aggressive Black Man" raping her.
I think there are at least two main problems with this... there are many others but...
One, it sounds like there was definitely a cash and keep it quiet offer on the table initially. If she was just out for money doesn't it seem like that would be the right route to take? Clearly her Husband believes her already so what exactly is her game plan to take this horror show into the public eye if all she wants is a payout?
Two, even if we take everything in the kindest possible light for Payne he still deserves to be fired for taking advantage of someone in his power.
posted by cirhosis at 10:52 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
Also, not for nothing, but if I’m reading correctly, the “affair” wasn’t “discovered.” It was reported. As rape.
The way I read the story, the "affair" was discovered when her husband Chris questioned the bruising.
So it's possible that the way that Fox and company is trying to frame this is that she entered into a consensual relationship in order to further her career. When confronted by her husband she fell back to that grand old trope of an "Aggressive Black Man" raping her.
I think there are at least two main problems with this... there are many others but...
One, it sounds like there was definitely a cash and keep it quiet offer on the table initially. If she was just out for money doesn't it seem like that would be the right route to take? Clearly her Husband believes her already so what exactly is her game plan to take this horror show into the public eye if all she wants is a payout?
Two, even if we take everything in the kindest possible light for Payne he still deserves to be fired for taking advantage of someone in his power.
posted by cirhosis at 10:52 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
I read the emails linked from the article. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they cause her to lose her case. Describing them as "flirtatious" doesn't seem accurate. At least one of them reads as an explicit and enthusiastic endorsement.
Yes, those emails damage her credibility quite significantly. Especially the pool one. She says there is more evidence that will come out — that better be the case, because right now I don’t think there is any jury that would side with her.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 11:24 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
Yes, those emails damage her credibility quite significantly. Especially the pool one. She says there is more evidence that will come out — that better be the case, because right now I don’t think there is any jury that would side with her.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 11:24 AM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
The one undisputed fact is that Payne is a piece of garbage and should be fired, either for rape or for having an affair with someone in his sphere of influence. The politics of his accuser should be secondary.
posted by benzenedream at 11:50 AM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by benzenedream at 11:50 AM on December 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
So...believe women when they put themselves through the horrifying gauntlet of going public, unless it’s a white woman and a black man? The fuck?
I get this reaction. I really do. Believe women - there is no reason they would go through this if it wasn't true.
But there's a horrifying, racist history of white women participating in the framing of black men for rape. It happened. Sometimes it happened to cover up an affair; sometimes when a racist white woman (which Scottie Nell Hughes certainly is) wanted to promote her racist ideas that Black men are sexual savages and inspire a racist backlash. It's still happening today.
I'm not saying that I disbelieve her, that Payne is innocent (he can't be even in the most "innocent" scenario), or even that this could even match the facts that we know. But this is one of those areas where racism and sexism collide in a very painful and confusing way, and I can understand why it might make some hesitant to judge or speak their judgment.
Leaving that history out in an article about why there isn't more attention or outrage over Scottie Nell Hughes' accusations is a big oversight--and to be honest strikes me as pretty much textbook "white feminism." (I mean, one of the things that the article author could have done was address the history, and explain why they don't think it's happening now.)
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 12:08 PM on December 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
I get this reaction. I really do. Believe women - there is no reason they would go through this if it wasn't true.
But there's a horrifying, racist history of white women participating in the framing of black men for rape. It happened. Sometimes it happened to cover up an affair; sometimes when a racist white woman (which Scottie Nell Hughes certainly is) wanted to promote her racist ideas that Black men are sexual savages and inspire a racist backlash. It's still happening today.
I'm not saying that I disbelieve her, that Payne is innocent (he can't be even in the most "innocent" scenario), or even that this could even match the facts that we know. But this is one of those areas where racism and sexism collide in a very painful and confusing way, and I can understand why it might make some hesitant to judge or speak their judgment.
Leaving that history out in an article about why there isn't more attention or outrage over Scottie Nell Hughes' accusations is a big oversight--and to be honest strikes me as pretty much textbook "white feminism." (I mean, one of the things that the article author could have done was address the history, and explain why they don't think it's happening now.)
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 12:08 PM on December 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
Well, upon reading more, this would certainly be a landmark case if her claim was granted, because from then on, any supposedly consensual relationship could later be framed as rape, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. I'm not sure this is a win the feminists really want, and there are certainly other avenues to gender equality and non-aggressive work environments, as others have pointed above.
posted by Laotic at 1:43 PM on December 21, 2017
posted by Laotic at 1:43 PM on December 21, 2017
It's weird that you say "the feminists" as if you aren't one. It's also weird that you're ignoring a very important aspect of the case: the power that Payne supposedly had over whether or not she got appearances on the network.
But that aside...
At this point, it's been made excruciatingly clear that the world is full of men who will abuse women under their power, and that the small progress we've made in holding them accountable is basically a pair of deflated water wings thrown at women trying to stay afloat in a sea of shit.
This feminist is finding it pretty damn hard to care that much about men's fears that they'll be falsely accused of rape if they sleep with someone whose career they can derail. I mean, I know I should care. It would be an injustice; no one should be falsely accused of a crime. But I'm tired, and it's hard for me to not fancifully imagine what the world would be like if any woman who faced sexual harassment or assault from a boss could make a complaint and have it be believed--without having to go through the "but there were no witnesses, it's he said she said"... "but she didn't behave like a victim"... etc etc bullshit.
And men not being able to fuck women who depend on them for employment seems like a small price to pay. If you think she might accuse you of coercion, if you think you have enough power over her that the accusation would be plausible, maybe that's a sign you should stop.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:33 PM on December 21, 2017 [13 favorites]
But that aside...
At this point, it's been made excruciatingly clear that the world is full of men who will abuse women under their power, and that the small progress we've made in holding them accountable is basically a pair of deflated water wings thrown at women trying to stay afloat in a sea of shit.
This feminist is finding it pretty damn hard to care that much about men's fears that they'll be falsely accused of rape if they sleep with someone whose career they can derail. I mean, I know I should care. It would be an injustice; no one should be falsely accused of a crime. But I'm tired, and it's hard for me to not fancifully imagine what the world would be like if any woman who faced sexual harassment or assault from a boss could make a complaint and have it be believed--without having to go through the "but there were no witnesses, it's he said she said"... "but she didn't behave like a victim"... etc etc bullshit.
And men not being able to fuck women who depend on them for employment seems like a small price to pay. If you think she might accuse you of coercion, if you think you have enough power over her that the accusation would be plausible, maybe that's a sign you should stop.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:33 PM on December 21, 2017 [13 favorites]
But this is one of those areas where racism and sexism collide in a very painful and confusing way, and I can understand why it might make some hesitant to judge or speak their judgment.
I think, for me, what’s so discouraging is that it’s not like there’s a conversation about this, except for this very flawed piece. It’s just nobody believes her. Like in this particular instance of a fucked up intersectional shitshow, misogyny wins out.
Even though I too find Hughes personally despicable, I believe her, and this touches a nerve for me. I was consistently harassed by a guy who was black for a period of time when I was much, much younger. And the added “you’re a racist” flavor to the usual gaslighting that a woman gets in this situation was damaging in a unique kind of way. And I wasn’t a professionally racist Fox News contributor, I was a goddamn teenager. (FUCK that guy, for real. And all his friends. It’s really, really not racism if I don’t want to let you grope me, dickhead.)
Leaving that history out in an article about why there isn't more attention or outrage over Scottie Nell Hughes' accusations is a big oversight--and to be honest strikes me as pretty much textbook "white feminism."
Oh yeah. It’s inexcusable.
And the whole “let’s just not talk about it” / “I’m not going to touch that situation with a ten foot pole” response is also really fucking shitty. Victims shouldn’t have to be perfect (or even, you know, not terrible).
posted by schadenfrau at 4:20 PM on December 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
This feminist is finding it pretty damn hard to care that much about men's fears that they'll be falsely accused of rape if they sleep with someone whose career they can derail. I mean, I know I should care.
...Nah.
Honestly if a guy is ok with being Schrodinger’s Rapist to himself, then, you know. Sometimes you open the box and the cat is dead, or something.
Seriously, I’m not sure we need to waste energy caring about men who literally do not care if they’re coercing women into sex or not. That actually seems pretty generous.
posted by schadenfrau at 4:23 PM on December 21, 2017 [7 favorites]
...Nah.
Honestly if a guy is ok with being Schrodinger’s Rapist to himself, then, you know. Sometimes you open the box and the cat is dead, or something.
Seriously, I’m not sure we need to waste energy caring about men who literally do not care if they’re coercing women into sex or not. That actually seems pretty generous.
posted by schadenfrau at 4:23 PM on December 21, 2017 [7 favorites]
So if I understand the Apologists correctly, it's rape or harassment...unless it's too someone we hate, or by someone we like. Believe women, unless it's politically inconvenient, because women are fundamentally tools.
No wonder there's Democrats calling for Franken to unresign, and that support forced-birth politicians. I suppose it's nice that Democrats and Republicans, Left and Right can find common ground in misogyny. Maybe they can unite the parties in their mutual determination to grind "inappropriate" women into the dust.
posted by happyroach at 11:15 PM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
No wonder there's Democrats calling for Franken to unresign, and that support forced-birth politicians. I suppose it's nice that Democrats and Republicans, Left and Right can find common ground in misogyny. Maybe they can unite the parties in their mutual determination to grind "inappropriate" women into the dust.
posted by happyroach at 11:15 PM on December 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
(1)Well, upon reading more, this would certainly be a landmark case if her claim was granted, because from then on, any supposedly consensual relationship could later be framed as rape, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. (2) I'm not sure this is a win the feminists really want, and there are certainly other avenues to gender equality and non-aggressive work environments, as others have pointed above.
So point 1: are you saying you believe this was a consensual relationship that she is now claiming is rape? Because that is definitely what it sounds like you're saying.
For point 2, I'm going to believe her and go from the assumption that maybe in the beginning it could have been consensual (forgetting the power imbalance that would make it not), but then for sure later became rape to keep her job: um, yes, from what I've heard, feminists do want a win for that. As far as I know, feminists have been fighting for years to get courts and the public to acknowledge that consent for one act does not give consent for all future acts.
posted by LizBoBiz at 7:13 AM on December 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
So point 1: are you saying you believe this was a consensual relationship that she is now claiming is rape? Because that is definitely what it sounds like you're saying.
For point 2, I'm going to believe her and go from the assumption that maybe in the beginning it could have been consensual (forgetting the power imbalance that would make it not), but then for sure later became rape to keep her job: um, yes, from what I've heard, feminists do want a win for that. As far as I know, feminists have been fighting for years to get courts and the public to acknowledge that consent for one act does not give consent for all future acts.
posted by LizBoBiz at 7:13 AM on December 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
Believe women, unless it's politically inconvenient, because women are fundamentally tools.
I think that’s unfairly reductionist. We shouldn’t believe someone when their statements are contradicted by other evidence. Her claim is that she was raped and then forced into a 2 year non-consensual relationship. Ms. Hughes’ own emails contradict what she is now saying, at least in part. So who should we believe? Her now, or her then?
Which shouldn’t be interpreted as saying Payne is blameless, either. I think even the most charitable interpretation of events should have resulted in his dismissal. The moment she says, “I’m done.” is the moment his advances should have ended. And any retaliatory actions he undertook are actionable by her.
The problem isn’t (for me at least) that she should be dismissed because of who she is (a conservative woman) but rather because her current statements don’t reflect her prior actions.
Now, she says there are more facts to choose me out. Fine. Let them come out. But right now, with the current facts available, Scottie Nell Hughes is not the hill “Believe Women” should die on.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 7:52 AM on December 22, 2017
I think that’s unfairly reductionist. We shouldn’t believe someone when their statements are contradicted by other evidence. Her claim is that she was raped and then forced into a 2 year non-consensual relationship. Ms. Hughes’ own emails contradict what she is now saying, at least in part. So who should we believe? Her now, or her then?
Which shouldn’t be interpreted as saying Payne is blameless, either. I think even the most charitable interpretation of events should have resulted in his dismissal. The moment she says, “I’m done.” is the moment his advances should have ended. And any retaliatory actions he undertook are actionable by her.
The problem isn’t (for me at least) that she should be dismissed because of who she is (a conservative woman) but rather because her current statements don’t reflect her prior actions.
Now, she says there are more facts to choose me out. Fine. Let them come out. But right now, with the current facts available, Scottie Nell Hughes is not the hill “Believe Women” should die on.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 7:52 AM on December 22, 2017
Re Kutsuwamushi and LizBoBiz:
Yes I'm a feminist on account of my two daughters for who I definitely want to leave the world more gender balanced in all respects (especially in a country which ranks at the bottom of the EU in all relevant metrics), BUT please try to separate feelings and possible judicial repercussions of this case.
Like others noted, the emails which were leaked do seem to confirm the consensual nature of some of that relationship. If the court is swayed by an emotionally charged depiction of the event and by the (related) agenda of improper at-work relationships based on imbalance of power, and decides contrary to admissible and valid evidence, then we will be pressed to redefine consent.
I'm not talking about power-unbalanced relationships which should be prevented by definition (as someone above remarked, by restricting intimacy between co-workers), but about regular affairs where one party decides, ex-post, they no longer think the liaison was consensual. I do not think granting this serves the goals of feminism.
(Also, there are various sorts of feminists and I tend to disagree with some of them, particularly those denying ANY natural differences between men and women, but this is more about civilized discourse building rather than venting one's biases.)
posted by Laotic at 12:00 PM on December 22, 2017
Yes I'm a feminist on account of my two daughters for who I definitely want to leave the world more gender balanced in all respects (especially in a country which ranks at the bottom of the EU in all relevant metrics), BUT please try to separate feelings and possible judicial repercussions of this case.
Like others noted, the emails which were leaked do seem to confirm the consensual nature of some of that relationship. If the court is swayed by an emotionally charged depiction of the event and by the (related) agenda of improper at-work relationships based on imbalance of power, and decides contrary to admissible and valid evidence, then we will be pressed to redefine consent.
I'm not talking about power-unbalanced relationships which should be prevented by definition (as someone above remarked, by restricting intimacy between co-workers), but about regular affairs where one party decides, ex-post, they no longer think the liaison was consensual. I do not think granting this serves the goals of feminism.
(Also, there are various sorts of feminists and I tend to disagree with some of them, particularly those denying ANY natural differences between men and women, but this is more about civilized discourse building rather than venting one's biases.)
posted by Laotic at 12:00 PM on December 22, 2017
BUT please try to separate feelings and possible judicial repercussions of this case.
What a condescending sentence. Yes, I'm just emotional; you're the rational one. I've never heard that from a man in a discussion of feminism before.
Fuck that bullshit. I'm not going to let that condescending tone unremarked, especially coming from a man still struggling to understand the importance of basic facts of this case - and, for that matter, the American judicial system.
So, again: Fuck that bullshit and the slippery slope it slide in on.
We can discuss this when you're willing to give me the basic common courtesy of assuming I'm at least as smart as you and understand the situation at least as well as you do, and that my statements are not coming from a position of "emotional irrationality." They're coming from a different perspective - one that is informed but not invalidated by the constant fucking degradation of the male-dominated systems we live under.
Me deciding that it maybe it is more important for women to be safe from their bosses than for their bosses to be able to fuck them without fear isn't a failure to "separate feelings", it's a matter of values.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 2:56 PM on December 22, 2017 [8 favorites]
What a condescending sentence. Yes, I'm just emotional; you're the rational one. I've never heard that from a man in a discussion of feminism before.
Fuck that bullshit. I'm not going to let that condescending tone unremarked, especially coming from a man still struggling to understand the importance of basic facts of this case - and, for that matter, the American judicial system.
So, again: Fuck that bullshit and the slippery slope it slide in on.
We can discuss this when you're willing to give me the basic common courtesy of assuming I'm at least as smart as you and understand the situation at least as well as you do, and that my statements are not coming from a position of "emotional irrationality." They're coming from a different perspective - one that is informed but not invalidated by the constant fucking degradation of the male-dominated systems we live under.
Me deciding that it maybe it is more important for women to be safe from their bosses than for their bosses to be able to fuck them without fear isn't a failure to "separate feelings", it's a matter of values.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 2:56 PM on December 22, 2017 [8 favorites]
« Older 3000 Malagasy Ariary (MGA) = 1.19 Canadian Dollars... | Christmas is coming, the wind is come to you Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by AFABulous at 6:24 PM on December 20, 2017 [40 favorites]