Men just obey the commands, signals, etc..

Uh huh. That is why there is no such thing as rape, since men always stop when told 'no', is that right?

Lucille, Rape isn't an office romance, and has nothing to do with flirting or lovemaking. Haven't you ever flirted?

BTW, you took the quote out of context. Research it.

We're animals, you and me.

But you're implying that these women were flirting or otherwise encouraging the men, and the men are just responding.

I think the signal get mixed in some cases in the workplace. Being chased around as a 14 yrs old by your boss is sexual harassment. I had to tell him no, you're making me uncomfortable and avoided him in any place alone.

On the other hand, I had to defend a colleague who was reported to HR for sexual harassment because he passed around a yearbook photo of a woman colleague. She had slept with him, our boss and all except 2 of the men in the office. This was open knowledge.

She was just upset that he found her yearbook picture. What he did was inappropriate but it's not sexual harassment.

On the other hand, in the crack down and investigation of the office by HR, it turned out that all the men watched porn on their computer including a very nice, sweet family man who I never would have expected to do something like that.

Rape is rape and assault is assault. Doesn’t matter whether it’s done to a three-month old in pajamas and a grin or a twenty year old in a mini skirt and a smile. Neither is extending an invitation to sexual violence.

Watchmelol mentioned above that entertainers and celebrities have "morals clauses" in their contracts as a reason why they can be quickly fired based on sufficiently compelling evidence, without first having to wait for a trial and "beyond a reasonable doubt". That is great. What I want is for our supposed statesmen and representatives and high-ranking government officials is to similarly have a "morals clause" that allows them to be quickly and summarily removed from office for misdeeds. Maybe there already is some notion of such a thing, but it is clearly rarely if ever enforced, probably because the ones who would have to enforce such a standard have committed similarly egregious misdeeds.

Furthermore I am really bothered when some government official is summoned to testify and they sit there repeatedly saying "I don't remember" or they invoke the 5th amendment to avoid self-incrimination. If their memory is that porous then they shouldn't be in whatever position they are in, they should be in an Alzheimer's memory care ward, and if they invoke the 5th, well, that's a right granted in the Constitution, but it should also be grounds in-and-of-itself for removal from that position.

If it takes assigning a person to follow around each and every member of Congress and live-streaming every interaction with other people, staff members, lobbyists, or foreign dignitaries, to compel them to not assualt or harass their staff, to not engage in shady quid pro quo dealings, and to not leak classified material to the press or to well-heeled backers, then maybe that's what we should do.

“I wouldn't be surprised that sometime down the line that we discover that a very high-ranking, very wealthy politician is involved in all these sudden exposures and firings of men in the media.”

If it weren’t for the fact that his good buddy Ailes was one of the first to go, I’d think you were on to something and who knows, maybe you are. Nothing would surprise me anymore.

Fasten your seat belts. According to a famous attorney more
high profile firings are on the way.

I was really struck how NBC announced his termination via his female co-anchors. Although" Matt was fired for inappropriate sexual misconduct", they expressed their disbelief regarding these accusations. In doublespeak, they added that they were "heartbroken" for both "their dear friend" and the "brave colleague" who reported him. As she left the set, Hoda even declared that she "loved Matt" and Kathy Lee sought to forgive him as she did her husband. This kids-glove approach gives the impression that he really didn't do anything THAT terrible and sends a subliminal message that women are the cause of continued sexual assault in the workplace by normalizing this behavior.

Nannygoat, I think that his female co-workers just want to get ahead or keep what they've got. So there won't be any boat rocking going on there.

It's sad that they prioritize their celebrity status higher than they do their personal integrity. I'm a nobody but I could never rationalize that way.

Pennydesign, I agree.

They seemed so Stepford-ish.

Some will sell their soul for riches and a career. Some have. More will.

It's a testament to network bias as well.

A stark contrast to the farewell humiliation suffered by Ann Curry.

Maybe Ann Curry... and Tamron Hall, for that matter... wouldn't unbutton their blouses!

I don't think there's any reason to find fault with his coworkers. Regardless of what he's done or who knew or didn't, they worked closely together and I'm sure it was emotional. Savanna Guthrie seemed genuinely distraught. She's done nothing wrong.

I have much more respect for Norah O'Donnell and Gayle King. They didn't hide the fact they were angry and felt betrayed by their co-host. "This is a moment that demands a frank and honest assessment about where we stand and more generally the safety of women,” O’Donnell said. “Let me be very clear: There is no excuse for this alleged behavior. It is systematic and pervasive.”

Very different messages from different networks. Guess you have to cut the head off the snake for the body to die.

I was really struck how NBC announced his termination via his female co-anchors. Although" Matt was fired for inappropriate sexual misconduct", they expressed their disbelief regarding these accusations. In doublespeak, they added that they were "heartbroken" for both "their dear friend" and the "brave colleague" who reported him. As she left the set, Hoda even declared that she "loved Matt" and Kathy Lee sought to forgive him as she did her husband. This kids-glove approach gives the impression that he really didn't do anything THAT terrible and sends a subliminal message that women are the cause of continued sexual assault in the workplace by normalizing this behavior.

I don't know that there is a right answer for them. I think Matt was genuinely Savannah's friend. I could see her being heartbroken. I don't think Hoda and Kathy Lee owed it to anyone to say more than they did. Their careers are also on the line with this. Some form of neutrality was probably their best choice. They've fought for women in their own way over the years. The battle won't be over with one firing.

Oh come on watchme, are you really saying that powerful men are "programmed" that anything goes and can't tell the difference between an interested woman and sexual assault?

Twisting my words. never said that. But when people become used to things being offered up to them all the time many become used to it and simply feel entitled. It's not that they think sexual assault is OK. They don't see it that way. They are making a play with the assumption that it will be welcomed. I mean if you are a "rock star" with women sneaking into your room, trying to sneak in your bed, throwing their panties up on stage and plotting on how to have sex with you on a regular basis how would you even recognize that other women wouldn't want you? Yes. Women do own a part in normalizing this behavior.

Look I've been around a lot of men that would be called womanizers. But those womanizers have my back. I set the tone and they respect me for it. Women have always held the power. You comport yourself as one due respect, you don't p#@#k tease and you set your boundaries. But women with this new feminist agenda seem to want it both ways. We are strong and equal to men but society has to protect us from the bad scary men as if we were children regardless of our behavior. To even hint that our behavior matters is construed as misogyny.

One woman stated in one of these things that she entered an office and the guy said unbutton your blouse and she did. Well golly gee if that wasn't an invitation for him to move to the next step what was it? Anyone with half a brain would just say no. There have been other accusations of rape this past year where the women admit to visiting the so called rapist over and over. How is he a rapist if they keep coming back for more?

So many accusation, so much redefinition of what constitutes assault and what isn't and now even regret sex is rape. But only for the women. Drunk couple have drunken sex neither remembers, he's a rapist, she's a victim. Stupid.

Women have always held the power.

I don't think that is true. Not even getting into the many victims of sexual assault who are not women: Men, children, animals; there are many who have no chance at 'power'. If you are saying that every woman who has been sexually assaulted had the power to stop the assault, I question your view of reality.

You comport yourself as one due respect, you don't p#@#k tease and you set your boundaries.

That certainly seems to be blaming the victim. No means no, and when a woman says 'no' she is setting a boundary that needs to be respected. If you are saying that in every successful case of sexual assault against a woman she is to blame because she didn't comport herself correctly, or teased, I think that seems to absolve men of any responsibility at all.

Lucille, I agree with you. Those sentiments perpetuate rape culture.

Whatchmelol, being a p@@@k tease, wearing suggestive clothing or otherwise putting oneself in a risky situation is not a crime. RAPE is a crime. That is the fundamental difference.

Oops, in my comment above I called out the wrong poster. I have edited to now call out the real person. My apologies if the other poster I initially named was offended, or even saw the post.

I mean if you are a "rock star" with women sneaking into your room, trying to sneak in your bed, throwing their panties up on stage and plotting on how to have sex with you on a regular basis how would you even recognize that other women wouldn't want you?

You would recognize that because even as a desirable rock star you had a childhood, and young adulthood, and most children and young adults have some idea of behavioral norms from pretty early on.

As young adults, one gets a progressively more detailed acquaintance with the concepts of law, and responsibility/consequences for actions. By the time you got to rock stardom, even if you were offered plenty of sex, you knew it was consensual, and you still knew that not every woman you saw was available to you for sex, and you had an acquaintance with laws that said that rape is a prohibited act.

To put in it more basic terms, if you walked past a tempting display of fabulous desserts, you would have the self restraint not to leap over the counter and gorge yourself. If you did, you could hardly blame the chocolate eclairs for your crime.

To put in it more basic terms, if you walked past a tempting display of fabulous desserts, you would have the self restraint not to leap over the counter and gorge yourself. If you did, you could hardly blame the chocolate eclairs for your crime.

I don't know. I kind of think of it in terms of leaving your wallet on the dashboard of the car. The person who breaks in may be a thief, but you would still be considered stupid for putting your wallet on display like that.

Adellabedella, I take issue with the undertones of your comment. There's only one factor that influences whether a woman gets assaulted or not and that is the will of the man who is contemplating it.

Behavior should be setting appropriate. There should be assumptions (yes, I said assumptions) that when in a business setting, any behavior not business-appropriate is damn wrong and shouldn't be engaged in by either party.

If you don't know how to act in the adult world...no matter who the hell you are...then there should be consequences, no exceptions.

Both the men who abuse power and the women who tolerate it make me sick. And before that gets turned around into me victim shaming it's not. It's me saying don't behave badly and don't tolerate those who do.

Penny, I agree. I would NEVER have gone to my boss's hotel room, even if my boss was a woman. It's a BEDROOM for heaven's sake! It's unprofessional and certainly not conducive to business discussions or work.

I don't excuse boorish behavior by men, but I also don't excuse women who are too weak to call them out. It doesn't have to be done in a nasty, bossy way - just say something like, "Oh dear! My mother told me to never go in a man's hotel room! Perhaps we could meet in a corner of the lobby or one of the business conference rooms? I don't want the poor dear rolling in her grave!" Light hearted, non-critical, but clear that it's not happening.

If one is sure of oneself, knows what proper business boundaries are and can offer an alternate plan, much of this can be avoided. Who knows - these egotistical, delusional men, probably think that all women are dying to see them naked with their robe open. And they're 70? Egads! Yes, delusional...

Adellabedella, I take issue with the undertones of your comment. There's only one factor that influences whether a woman gets assaulted or not and that is the will of the man who is contemplating it.

You may not like my wording. You're leaving out opportunity. Some of these men will only act if there is enabling behavior... a woman getting so drunk that she is not aware of what is going on around her, leaving alone with guys she has never met, being in someone's bedroom, flashing the goodies for easy access, etc., etc. The person most responsible for taking care yourself is you. Women need to be taught that. It's not victim blaming. It's saying don't make yourself an easy target to be a victim.

It's really not as simple as some of you are making it out to be, and it's not always weakness behind the reason why women "tolerate" it. Some of these women might be scared of repercussions, of losing their jobs, ruining their careers, becoming targets. These women are sometimes called liars, and all manner of other nasty names. And maybe some of them think it was their fault, because of how they dressed, or because they drank a bit, or whatever other victim-shaming reason society has come up with.

I think reasonable precautions are fine but it doesn't matter if a woman is drunk and completely naked. It's not her fault if she's assaulted. It drives me nuts when one of the first questions people ask after a rape case is, "what was she wearing?"

I am referring to your misplaced focus. You are sending a clear message that women are responsible to avoid becoming a victim and if they fail at that task, then it must be their fault. This attitude leads society to blame rape survivors instead of placing it exactly where it belongs--with the perpetuators of the crime. Tearing down rape culture involves encouraging a culture of consent and respect and punishing those who violate those boundaries---not suggestions for women to follow to mitigate their risk of being assaulted.

Chi, we posted at the same time!

That question really bothers me too. And it's only "relevant" if the survivor is a young woman. The attire worn by infant and great-grandmother survivors is clearly not a subject of curiosity.

Rape is not about sex or courtship, it's about POWER

Now we have Maestro James Levine accused. I just listened this afternoon to him conducting the Met in Verdi's Requiem. The boy was 15-16 when this happened repeatedly. What I found interesting was why on earth would his parents allow him to go to a 40 yr old man's hotel room? No, this does NOT excuse Levine's conduct, but jeeze, where were the parents? What will come out about Leonard Bernstein? Other legendary muscians?

Who's next? I'm sure some interior designers will be outed by their assistants who will tell of their sexual encounters that they will describe as coerced. University presidents? Military leaders? Architects? Magazine and Newspaper editors? Is there going to be a male in a prominent position left unscathed?

It appears in all of these situations that these improprieties were well known. No one said anything for decades. It was clearly felt to be acceptable- "These things happen..." attitude. How did this change, practically over night?

And here we have it. The fight without a solution. It is always true no one ever should be assaulted. BUT it is also true to not be on guard, responsible for where you are and how you are in that space is naive. I don't want to say the world is an evil place--but truth is women are vulnerable. It just is what is. To ignore that means you take a risk. Fair? no but it is true. EVEN when the dogs of the world are ELIMINATED there will always be that one that is a creep down to his toes. It only takes one to impact a woman's life negatively. Agree or not the women who use their sexuality, flirt their way through life make it an up hill battle for the rest of us to keep men professional. Back in the day I ran a costume jewelry counter in a large department store in a large mall. The buyer came in and made some crass, unprofessional, playful comments. I responded in a highly professional manner and did not respond to the "flirting". He was ashamed. How was he to know? The gal next to me selling cosmetics gave EVERYONE the impression she was one step up from a street walker. The salesman was only behaving as SHE had taught him was ok in our store. My manager came later to check on me. The salesman had apologized to him. I was neither insulted nor tempted to play at their level. Sadly at 19 I already knew this is the plight of women in the work place. Not all women are the same. Not all are strong and assertive. We need to be kind and mindful before we judge us all with the same standard.

Years ago, a male superior made a comment to me about paper clips where his inference was perfectly clear. PAPER CLIPS!!! Picture this: at his desk he draws out a handful of paper clips. “Look,” he says. “I have both smooth and ribbed paper clips. I much prefer ribbed, don’t you?” Said he with waggling eyebrows and a naughty half-smile.

Oh yeah, buddy, I know what you meant. I wonder if the statute of limitations has run out.

littlebug, you should have said, "I'd recommend this."

I am so disappointed to hear this about Matt Lauer. Living in So.Ohio, I remember him from the local WOWK-TV (one of only two channels we received at that time). I have a friend who attended OU at the time Matt was there, although the friend wasn't acquainted with him, and two of my children graduated from OU, many years later, so Matt always seemed like the boy next door, and seemed to have great relationships with the co-hosts and news anchors. I loved his interaction with Al Roker.

My enthusiasm cooled, and I stopped watching Today, after they fired Ann Curry, but his interview with Hillary Clinton cinched it for me. I feel very sorry for his children.

Hahah, little bug, he left a lot of openings...like maybe they don't make paper clips small enough for him, or something about a staple gun...

Lol mama goose and Annie!! Oh how I wish I would have recommended the paper clamp! How clever.

What a jerk he was.

I'm a little perturbed by the notion that we should somehow have to "teach" men how to behave in the business world. They're not stupid.

Also, until we take action, we're doomed. Silence is acquiescence.

Change of any kind doesn't happen overnight. It starts small and slowly. No matter whether mistakes are made or not in these early days, at least the change is happening. Like any social injustice, change may not be complete in our lifetimes, but I hope it happens in our children's. I know my boys and girls know how to behave and know what is considered inappropriate. And they're mouthy enough (like their parents) to voice their opinions, thank goodness.

I would bet that ML and the others also know how to behave and know what's inappropriate . Didn't stop them

And no Penny I'm not suggesting in the least that your kids would act inappropriate...please don't misunderstand me.

I've posted these before, but I think the message, esp to people who blame women for putting themselves at risk, can't be stated enough:

That's just it. It takes being exposed to stop some from engaging in what they know is inappropriate behavior.

I dunno. Some are so pathological that they’ve managed to rationalize and/or justify their behavior.

I agree, nannygoat. I think Maestro James Levine is one of those. And his behavior is not just sexual harassment but choosing to go after teenage boys well below the age of consent. He's really just a monster and the worst is that his proclivity was known about for years in the NYC music scene. They new he liked his boys YOUNG but did nothing but shower this man with adulation. The Met has been on unsteady financial grounds for sometime - this could take it down which would also be a tragedy.

I can't help but wonder if we shouldn't be teaching more about Job and his "trials" due to a wager between God and Satan, and Marlowe's Dr Faustus. These "pacts with the devil" are NEVER worth the price paid! We need to emphasize this with our children when we teach them about "good touch/bad touch". NO job on earth is worth selling ones soul or body to obtain! And in some instances, parents are a party to this, keeping quiet in exchange for money or favors. To me, this is truly a form of child abuse - you keep quiet that an adult has had sexual relations with your 13-17 year old child in exchange for MONEY? I'd rather be evicted and starve than do that!

We started moving from a strict interpretation of right and wrong about 50 years ago - we moved to "situational ethics". Gee, that's worked out really well, hasn't it!

I wager there's far less rape and assault now than in the past, so I don't think it has anything to do with teaching children ethics. Especially beyond recent history, when women had no rights and were viewed as property. It still happens all over the world.

Sexual abusers, and the abused, know that it is wrong. It's not a matter of teaching children right and wrong.

It IS about teaching children right and wrong and the consequences of not standing up for what they know is right and opposing what is wrong! We teach toddlers not to say "no" to everything, but later we must teach them when it is not only appropriate but far safer to say "no" to innumerable things.

I disagree, I think you are oversimplifying it again. I don't believe for a second that these women didn't speak up because they weren't taught correctly as children. It's just a different variety of victim blaming.

We teach toddlers not to say "no" to everything, but later we must teach them when it is not only appropriate but far safer to say "no" to innumerable things.

In that case, "Just Say No" should have successfully combated substance abuse in youth. Instead it was a dismal failure--not only did it oversimplify a complex issue but it also perpetuated the myth that addiction was a choice. You cannot simplify the complexity of rape and assault into a one-word response.

I think we're about to have the first woman on woman sexual abuse test.