posted
Not to defend Arnold, but wasn't Packwood's victim a member of his staff? That adds a significant dimension -- that made him a sexual harasser on the public's dime.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think what Arnold Schwarzenegger was right, justified, or acceptable. What I am saying is that women put up with it. They accept it, and when it happens they tend to either "like" it or give a "look". If you don't think this happens then open your eyes and watch what men, especially young men do. OK, maybe half the male population was an exaggeration, but still a large percentage do act that way. They see bolder men do it and get away with it and then they do it. This doesn't make it any less acceptable but it does mean that women have to actively disprove of it. Instead, all I've ever seen is toleration.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just amazed that Arnold is supposedly leading the polls in California. This guy has put forth no real political platform, refused to participate in any 'serious' debates (you know, ones where you don't get the questions in advance), has been known in the Hollywood community for a long time as 'the Octupus' due to his groping of women habits, and seems to be sliding by on his name recognition alone.
Are Californians truly this desperate?
Plus...how can this man represent the Republican party? I agree with the previous posters that Arnold's actions are MUCH MUCH worse then anything Clinton did. The Republican party likes to think of itself as a moral compass and staunch supporter of 'family values', etc...how does Arnold fit that mold?
I'm wondering why his wife is sticking with him...after all these women have come forth with these stories (one as recent as 2001). He is obviously a chronic womanizing sexist pig.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: From what I see women generally tolerate it.
I think this is because they aren't sure what to do. In the article one woman said she told Arnold that if she were a man, she would punch him, and just laughed at her until she cried. I think many women feel helpless in these sorts of situations and may try to pretend it doesn't bother them much just because it's so embarrassing and they don't know what to do. And the whole "maybe the woman invited it" thing tends to leave women doubting themselves. They may think that they inadvertently did something to make the man feel like this would be acceptable.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
A woman could be walking down the street in a a g-string and skimpy top...but that does not justify a bunch of guys jumping her and groping her does it? No it doesn't.
The final responsiblity in any situation like this is upon the the man to practice something called 'self-control' and 'good judgement'.
If some poor Joe working a 'everyday job' did something similar to this he'd have the book thrown at him in a heartbeat for sexual harrassment. Why does Arnold get a free pass? Being a famous actor should not give someone a green light to abuse women.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No means No" doesn't help very much after the woman's already be groped. He may get in trouble, but there's still not much she can do to take back the groping.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we all agree what "acceptable" behavior is. I.e. a woman shouldn't get mugged even if she's wearing a g-string and bikini top for a walk around the block. She might get cited for indecent exposure though in some towns.
The question I have is this: In this ideal society do expect more self control from men than from women? And if so is this fair?
There have been many studies showing that males are far more aroused by visual images alone than their female counterparts.
I'm not proposing we all wear burkas. I came from a family in which I was pretty much forced to wear unflattering clothing because anything even remotely becoming would have been "tempting" to guys. The lovely religous argument used was that we "should not cause our weaker brother to stumble" combined with "if a man looks at a woman with lust in his eye he is committing adultery" Therefore the responsibility was on the woman to not cause men to lust.
But there has to be a intermediate comprimise between the two extremes. Perhaps the same self-control a mature (in wisdom not years) male expresses by not groping attractive females, should be exhibited by the females when choosing what to dress and not wearing the skimpiest thing in their closet if it isn't appropriate.
Am I totally off the deep end here? I guess in my own life, I personally enjoy showing skin (if it is warm) but I dress exactly like the guys while I'm at work in deliberately baggier clothes (which also happen to be comfy) so that my feminine characteristics aren't as obvious.
posted
"Hey Paul, by that line of reasoning, you're saying that it'd be ok for me to grab your ass next time you wear jeans, because, mmm mmm mmm, you've got such a sexy ass. And if my hand just happend to slide around to that gorgeious bulge in front, that'd be ok, too, right?"
Strawman alert. Argument in no way resembles my argument.
To phrase clearly for the reading impaired...
Putting the entire blame for groping that goes on in certain circumstances on men is ridiculous in the extreme. Women do everything but verbally ask to be groped, in certain environments... and men do everything but verbally ask to be groped, as well. And both men and women do group in those circumstances.
This does NOT MAKE UNWANTED GROPING OK! I was responding to comments above my post where the entire blame was put on men. I think that attitude is blind to reality.
The next person who says I think groping is ok is going to get a serious swearing at.
[ October 03, 2003, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone ever see Arnolds romantic movie, "True Lies".
When it came out people protested its portrayal of Arabs.
I watched it and was sickened by its portrayal of women. The wife considers having an affair because her husband ignores her. In retaliation the husband abuses the power of his job, kidnaps her, terrorizes her, and basically tortures her mentally.
This seems to reflect Arnold's past attitude toward women.
On a side note, Arnold admitted that he "behaved poorly". Note he didn't say that he "acted poorly". That's been known since Conan first came out.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he doesn't understand why what he did is bad. He might honestly be sorry for causing discomfort in these women, but I don't think he realizes why it caused discomfort and embarrassment, and I don't think he understands that this sort of thing is actually a serious offense.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard about this from a friend of a friend (I know...) a few days ago. The LA Times was sitting on this, their parent company (the [Chicago] Tribune Corp.) wanted them to release this but they had already editorialized against Arnold and didn't want to rock the boat for some reason. Their latest poll results pushed them over the edge.
Apparently, they have more, and worse, stuff in the holding pen.
This morning, Arnold's campaign manager is bending over backward to state that he doesn't belive Davis has anything to do with this news.
$.02 or less:
Clinton in office/consensual= non-starter.
Arnold (supported by conservatives) with a life-long history, well known in his industry=deal breaker for public office, come on.
Arnold ain't much of a conservative.
A vote for Arnold is a vote for Pete Wilson (Gray Davis' predecessor), who is generally regarded as much worse than Davis, and the real culprit behind California's energy crisis. Wilson is Arnold's campaign consultant.
The Republican party, both Cal and National, is so desperate to elect anyone who will call himself a Republican to the Californian governorship that they will reject capable candidates like Peter Uberroth (sp?) and Tom McClintock for an electable, name-recognized celebrity.
Recall Leno!
Arnold's kid puched my girlfriend's kid when they were in the same preschool together, and the Schwarzeneggers did not apologize.
Women have been reported to be wearing at his rallys today pins saying "Arnold may have groped me, but Davis groped my wallet".
The California legislature is a snake pit. Controlled by democratic snakes. Arnold will, as some have said, spend six months finding where the bathrooms are. He will get zero, nothing, nada done as Governor.
He plans on commuting to the Governor's office from his home in LA. That's about an hour in traffic, over an hour by plane, another hour in the limo.
Posts: 86 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think he doesn't understand why what he did is bad. He might honestly be sorry for causing discomfort in these women, but I don't think he realizes why it caused discomfort and embarrassment, and I don't think he understands that this sort of thing is actually a serious offense.
How could he not know? He's lived in America longer than he has in Austria.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nick- Yes, I would definitely defend myself if a strange man touched me inappropriately. According to the article, Arnold reached up her skirt. That is NOT okay. Besides, I'm not strong enough to make any man sterile. Knowing me, I'd miss. Posts: 274 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what's happened since last night, but Arnold said to the press that he had done a short stint in Playboy, but that he had never harrassed any woman. Forgive me if more has been admitted by Arnold or exposed since last night, but as far as I know he has never harrassed anyone.
Something that fails to make itself understood by me is why people (male and female alike) don't tell about something that happens to them (such as sexual harrassment) when it occurs, as opposed to years later. I don't believe that they were "too scared" to tell when it happened, otherwise, why would they shine light on it now? I realize that it may be because they don't want him to harrass or embarrass others if he becomes governor, but wouldn't they not want people to be hurt when it happened, too??
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could be that they did speak up about it before, but nobody paid them any attention. How newsworth is it that a woman claims a macho actor grabbed her?
Now that Arnold is more in the lime light those comments are more newsworthy.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Each of the women the Times spoke to DID tell people before now -- the Times interviewed their friends, families, etc. However, it is true that none pressed charges or anything like that. Four of the women are still unwilling to go public about who they are.
And who can blame them? The two who did release their names are under attack by radio pundits (I have rarely disliked Larry Elder more than I did yesterday afternoon) and others. And if you work in Hollywood (as three of the four do), having your name linked to this would be the kiss of death for your career.
Of COURSE there are far far better reasons NOT to vote for Arnold than this. But none of them seem to have done the trick.
You'd think Californians would learn not to elect an actor for governor!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, when will they learn? You have to elect *wrestlers* not actors... sheesh. Where've they been?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now that Arnold is more in the lime light those comments are more newsworthy.
Especially with some of the media that is very liberally biased.
quote: You'd think Californians would learn not to elect an actor for governor!
Nobody elected him.
When the recall was initiated, you could run if you fill out some papers and pay a large sum of money. Arnold isn't the only one to be able to do that you know. Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
on the issue of the women not reporting the incidents till now, i am pretty much with rivka, with a few additions:
first of all, probably wouldn't have cared as much about the incidents till now.
i've been harrassed by men before, and usually they are much bigger than i am and usually it takes you by such surprise or you are made so uncomfortable that you just kinda freeze up and feel dumb. and even when i've been on my toes, sometimes it is a very STUPID idea to tell off a guy that is already in the mood to start trouble and has already defiled you verbally/groped you and could probably hold you down a lot better than you could knock him unconscious. on one occasion i had no other choice than to flat out run away and hide.
and the sad truth is that usually it is a big waste of time to report sexual harrassment. if you weren't raped, hardly anyone cares and it's hard to prove it. sometimes even if you are raped it doesn't matter to many. i am not saying sexual harrassment is okay, i am disgusted by it. but at the same time, i probably wouldn't do much in way of reporting it (minus job-site incidents) but if some guy i knew had felt me up suddenly ran for governor i would be concerned about a man with such a character running my state and would say something not for my benefit, but for the benefit of the rest of my state.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now that Arnold is more in the lime light those comments are more newsworthy.
That makes a good point.
quote: You'd think Californians would learn not to elect an actor for governor!
That's what California's all about - Hollywood. If you live in Napa Valley, you're either thinking about grapes or Hollywood. (I hope any California natives will realize that I am exaggerating )
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How could he not know? He's lived in America longer than he has in Austria.
Well, you know, in Austria it is perfectly OK to grope anyone you want in any circumstances whatsoever; in fact, it is strongly encouraged and considered something of a national characteristic. So, you see, even though Arnold has lived more than half his life in the US -- perhaps the ONLY country that seriously frown upon such behaviour -- he cannot be expected to entirely have shed his groping habits in which he has been so deeply indoctrinated by his Austrian peers and up-bringing.
posted
I think there are situations where men and women get playful in over-the-line ways. I do not get the sense that the Arnoldized women were playing.
Still, guys, whatever the situation, drunken frat party, bar, or whatever, if a woman decides that you have crossed the line, she can take you to court, even if she has teased and flirted with you. So be careful, and be appropriate, and be respectful, in any situation. (just a little pedantic moment from an old lady)
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Still, guys, whatever the situation, drunken frat party, bar, or whatever, if a woman decides that you have crossed the line, she can take you to court, even if she has teased and flirted with you.
Now this I have a issue with. Girls flirt to show men that they are interested correct? Well, if a guy thinks a girl is interested, wouldn't he want to pursue something further? Like a kiss or an invitation for a dinner/date?
So basically you're saying that guys should be submissive and only become intimate with women when women say so? When do women go to a man and say: "you have my permission to court me"?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, stop the actor bashing. I'm an actor, and I personally don't see why acting is any less respectable a profession than any others. I've met some fine, practical, intelligent actors that would make excellent politicians (honest ones, too, if that's possible). My problem is electing an actor without any political experience. Or any brains.
Posts: 274 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay porce. Another theoretical situation then:
Guy and girl that were dating for 3 years exclusively were freak-dancing to a song in a night-club. The guy groped the girls behind, and she pressed charges, when they were intimate just the night before. Is that right?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Nick- Yes, I would definitely defend myself if a strange man touched me inappropriately. According to the article, Arnold reached up her skirt. That is NOT okay. Besides, I'm not strong enough to make any man sterile. Knowing me, I'd miss.
It doesn't take much. I don't know if you would miss or not...
But, are definitely strong enough.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
nick, i am not defending fickle, flippant women. i am just saying that i wouldn't be offended by a boy asking me out. i would, however; be offended if a boy took physical liberties with me without asking first.
now if i was grinding in said boy's lap, i think it's unspoken that i am okay with a kiss. but to hold me down and have sex with me? no. gah, i think we all know what is right and wrong in these situations, let's stop playing "what if" and "let me make up an outrageous situation for you to pick sides on" unless you have a real experience that you want help figuring out, not to win some hypothetical race, but to do right by everyone in a situation.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Campaign spokesman Rob Sutzman said Saturday that the latest allegations are "not true."
He also said the Times didn't contact the Schwarzenegger campaign for comment until just before the deadline for its first edition Friday night -- not enough time, he said, to gather information from people who could rebut the charges, including Ivan Reitman, the film's director.
"This is unprecedented, gutter, last-minute, 'gotcha' journalism by the largest newspaper in this state," Sutzman said. "They're unfit to own a printing press, and we're not going to take it. The people of California are going to see through this."
In a statement included in later editions of the story and on the Times' Web site, Reitman told the newspaper, "Nothing even approximating what you're saying happened." Two other "Twins" crew members also disputed the charges.
"Obviously, this candidate now has some very powerful enemies for the stances that he has taken and for who he has taken on, including, apparently, the largest newspaper in this state," Sutzman said. "I don't know if they're out to get us or not, but they're certainly not interested in the truth."
Let's not forget that this was the same publication who published a photo from Iraq that was doctored, without bothering to check for authenticity first. The more questionable acts this paper does, the more it is looking like a tabloid rag than a reputable news source.
quote: Let's not forget that this was the same publication who published a photo from Iraq that was doctored, without bothering to check for authenticity first. The more questionable acts this paper does, the more it is looking like a tabloid rag than a reputable news source.
Isn't that true of most publishers?
This paper doesn't care about Arnold, they only care about what sells. That paper--if false--sold like popcorn in a movie theater. That's all they care about.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not about how scrupulous the LA Times is or not, Nick. It's about how it seems so very easy to assume the smear allegations against Arnold are true, without even once asking for some backup to the claims. It was immediately taken for granted that they were true, though Reitman and two other crew members totally deny it. Why is it always easiest to assume the worst?
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why is it always easiest to assume the worst?"
I don't know, but it is true that we(as a group) do that. Then, when the truth comes out, no one is really all that interested, and the truth is often found in a five sentence paragraph in the back of the newspaper.
I went to a small college in Vermont, without a whole lot of diverstiy.(OK, there was no diversity). My sophomore year, a black student, who was a freshman, had his door graffiti-ed with racial slurs. The event was front page news in the "Boston Globe." We looked bad, very bad. We all tried to figure out who had done it, why it had happened, etc.
It turned out that the young man had written on his own door.
That part of the story appeared way in the back of the paper, but by that time, no one cared, and just remembered the big headlines.
I don't know if Arnold should be governor or not, but I don't think he is a bad man, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, even when he puts his foot in his mouth. I hope that, if the allegations are false, we hear about that in the same way.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the conversation has moved into a discussion of sexual harrassment, so I'll address some of the things said on that subject.
First, Nick, I know exactly what kicking a guy in the balls will do. But really, it's the only semi vulnerable spot that a girl like me, who is very weak, could use to get the point across. However, I'm not sure I would definately kick them in that situation, I would probably be in too much of a shock to do anything.
Second, Newfoundlogic, you disgust me. What exactly are girls supposed to do? Generally, the kind of guy that gropes a girl, isn't going to listen when she tells him to stop. In fact, I would guess that in most situations where a guy is groping a girl against her will, telling him to stop will only accelerate the problem. Girls don't "just let it happen." Most of the time, they're too scared (and they have reason to be) to do anything to stop it.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the groin is only vulnerable spot males have, you need to take some self defense classes. I don't mean that in patronizing way either, I really suggest to all women.
There are a lot sensitive areas that are effective in stopping groping or further violation.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
