Cain Now Has 3 Harassment Accusers

[Seth]

Perhaps if there hadn't been a quid pro quo offered for sex.

You have any credible evidence there was? Just sayin'.

[Schneibster]

Two women who got settlements. Three more crawlin' out the woodwork.

Ain't no smoke without a fire.

Just sayin'.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Limbaugh to Cain accusers.

“I tell you, you women, why don’t you just make it official, put on some burqas?” he concluded. “And I’ll guaran-damn-tee you nobody’ll touch you. You put on a burqa, and everybody’ll leave you alone, if that’s what you want.”

He makes a salient point. If feminazis don't want men to look at them as sex objects, then don't dress and act like sex objects. It's unreasonable to expect men not to look at a pretty woman dressed provocatively as being sexually attractive and to expect them not to flirt back, and feminazis need to put on big black bags if they don't like their sexuality to be an issue, because men have been genetically programmed to assess a woman's sexuality for millions of years. And women have been just as programmed to view the sexuality of men. It's all perfectly natural behavior, and those who object should cover up.

The real problem with such accusations, particularly when they are more than a decade old, is that it's just as likely that at the time the women were flirting with the accused (a powerful business figure) and that they are now coming forward for purely political reasons.

I didn't notice where he singled out feminazis there. He said, "you women".

[Linus]

Conversely, if you don't want to be the target of a sexual harassment lawsuit, then don't dress, talk and act in a way that encourages it. It's unreasonable to expect women to resist filing lawsuits when men behave sexually provocatively and self-servingly misinterpret signals.

None of these women sued Cain.

Some of them did sue, but they sued where the money was, not the alleged harasser.

Not sure what you mean by that. Cain was chief executive of the National Restaurant Association, which paid settlements on his behalf. Anyway, Limbaugh and Seth implicitly make a salient point: if he didn't want sexual harassment charges leveled against him, he shouldn't have worn those inviting sexual harasser clothes.

[tattuchu]

Conversely, if you don't want to be the target of a sexual harassment lawsuit, then don't dress, talk and act in a way that encourages it. It's unreasonable to expect women to resist filing lawsuits when men behave sexually provocatively and self-servingly misinterpret signals.

None of these women sued Cain.

Some of them did sue, but they sued where the money was, not the alleged harasser.

Not sure what you mean by that. Cain was chief executive of the National Restaurant Association, which paid settlements on his behalf. Anyway, Limbaugh and Seth implicitly make a salient point: if he didn't want sexual harassment charges leveled against him, he shouldn't have worn those inviting sexual harasser clothes.

[amok]

Am I misunderstanding, or is the dinner invitation story seriously being seen as one of the cases of alleged harassment?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67819.html

If I'm wrong, I stand corrected. If not, I'm appalled. It would be a terrible trivialization and a huge disservice to people (women & men) who have faced real sexual harassment.

[Seth]

Am I misunderstanding, or is the dinner invitation story seriously being seen as one of the cases of alleged harassment?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67819.html

If I'm wrong, I stand corrected. If not, I'm appalled. It would be a terrible trivialization and a huge disservice to people (women & men) who have faced real sexual harassment.

You are exactly correct, it is a terrible trivialization and a huge disservice to victims of sexual harassment, and it's also a mendacious and cynical political smear campaign and nothing more.

[Linus]

Am I misunderstanding, or is the dinner invitation story seriously being seen as one of the cases of alleged harassment?

From the small sample of news commentaries I've seen (e.g. here), it does appear to have been added to the narrative as something that corroborates/supports the main allegations.

[Schneibster]

Oh, that's the fifth one? Never mind. The Washington Times is the Moonies. Not exactly the most reliable source.

OK, four.

[amok]

Am I misunderstanding, or is the dinner invitation story seriously being seen as one of the cases of alleged harassment?

From the small sample of news commentaries I've seen (e.g. here), it does appear to have been added to the narrative as something that corroborates/supports the main allegations.

Hm. How does that work, exactly? They're using an anecdote about a man not behaving badly to corroborate/support allegations that he behaved badly on other occasions? How bizarre.

[Linus]

Am I misunderstanding, or is the dinner invitation story seriously being seen as one of the cases of alleged harassment?

From the small sample of news commentaries I've seen (e.g. here), it does appear to have been added to the narrative as something that corroborates/supports the main allegations.

Hm. How does that work, exactly? They're using an anecdote about a man not behaving badly to corroborate/support allegations that he behaved badly on other occasions? How bizarre.

AFAICT, Donella steps forward with something like testimony about Cain's character or whatever. The way I read the Washington Examiner news report, she claims that she (and her colleagues?) got the sense that Cain was trying to get laid (in a manner that she projected risked crossing the line to sexual harassment?). To what extent this "works", your guess is as good as mine. To me, it seems peripheral compared to the most serious accusations.

[Warren Dew]

AFAICT, Donella steps forward with something like testimony about Cain's character or whatever. The way I read the Washington Examiner news report, she claims that she (and her colleagues?) got the sense that Cain was trying to get laid (in a manner that she projected risked crossing the line to sexual harassment?). To what extent this "works", your guess is as good as mine. To me, it seems peripheral compared to the most serious accusations.

It is relevant in one respect: it illustrates how, in the U.S., the legal definition of harassment is based on whether the victim feels harassed, and not on whether any harassment was actually intended.

[Schneibster]

Straight out of Wikipedia:

Sexual harassment, is intimidation, bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.

Note that offering a quid pro quo is the common thread here.

There's a lot of whining goes on by the harassers, but when it goes before the jury and that definition gets read it's pretty much over. That's why they settled.

He has bad judgment. You can't make sexual advances to people who work for you. It's not OK. Get over it.

[JimC]

Scheibster wrote:

He has bad judgment. You can't make sexual advances to people who work for you. It's not OK.

That's the crux of it, because the inequalities of power inherent there (like teacher and student) make any relationships dubious in the extreme...

[Seth]

Scheibster wrote:

He has bad judgment. You can't make sexual advances to people who work for you. It's not OK.

That's the crux of it, because the inequalities of power inherent there (like teacher and student) make any relationships dubious in the extreme...

Of course, there's still NO credible evidence that he made any sexual advances towards anyone but his wife. It's all unsupported allegations, innuendo and speculation.