I really hope Angela Lansbury was misquoted- Page 2
I really hope Angela Lansbury was misquoted
#26I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/29/17 at 12:53pm
Focusing on and shaming a woman who is 92 years old and spent the first part of her life as a dress up doll in the old Hollywood system is completely off point (I believe). Women have been shaped by this world that we've created. Her advice may seems sensible and pragmatic...but it's cause we've allowed a world that is beyond f*cked up.
Also...I work at a very large, world-wide law firm. There are many instances of office romances leading to marriage. There are many work places where that isn't allowed. But here, it is. There is, for want of a better phrase, a chain of command in how unwanted sexual advances are reported. No one here is fired if they make a romantic overture that was a misread or something that was unwanted. Either the woman handles it herself, or takes the issue to a superior who will address it with the other party. In most cases, that's where it ends. No one is fired for something like that, let alone subject to the legal system. This is not the way these things work (at least in major corporations).
Alexander Lamar
Broadway Star Joined: 2/16/16
#27I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/29/17 at 1:31pm
Some of you are truly vile.
#28I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/29/17 at 1:42pm
Dollypop said: "Good God, there's a lot of flesh showing these days! I'm not saying you should dress like a nun, but a touch of modesty would be in order when you're in a church.
If you're gonna dress that revealingly in church, you're asking for trouble at the reception, where the booze runs freely."
No. This is wrong. People should be able to wear anything they want - or nothing at all - without being assaulted by anyone (including the police). I absolutely believe this to be true.
#29I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/29/17 at 1:49pm
"
x Misconception
Women entice men to sexually assault them by dressing a certain way or by leading them on.
? Truth
People may experience sexual assault no matter what they are wearing or how they were acting; what the survivor was wearing in no way makes them responsible for the assault. No person deserves to be assaulted, asks to be assaulted or wants to be assaulted. This misconception again shows the extent to which sexual assault is sexualized in our society. Sexual assault does not occur because of uncontrollable sexual desire. People commit sexual assault because they feel entitled to other people’s bodies and disregard other people’s right to consent. Perpetrators often use the excuse of how the survivor dressed or acted as way to avoid taking responsibility for their own criminal sexual behavior. But perpetrators are responsible for their own desires and actions."
Sexual Assault Misconceptions
https://sapac.umich.edu/article/52
#30I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 1:32am
I thought that the most interesting development today came from the mouth of Jane Curtin:
Jane Curtin, a comedian who is a friend and former colleague of Mr. Franken’s, compared the current atmosphere to McCarthyism. “It’s just like the red menace,” she said in an interview with The Times. “You don’t know who’s going to be next.”
What! McCarthyism!
McCarthyism is defined in the dictionary as the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges, resulting in the defamation of character or reputation through such tactics.
Well men are losing their jobs, careers and reputations due to the allegations of often anonymous women. The accusations by the women are not made under oath where they might be charged with perjury if not telling the truth. And the men have no better chance of defending themselves than did French Noblemen during the Reign of Terror.
I really care nothing for these men as individuals, and most are probably guilty of the offense. But I was surprised that an august organization such as CBS would have so little regard for the rights of the accused. Now the Bill of Rights applies to state and federal criminal prosecutions, and certainly not to CBS. Yet I would have expected them to have some regard for the principles of the Sixth Amendment with which Madison meant to protect the innocent.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
#31I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 7:17am
henrikegerman said: ""Although it’s awful to say we can’t make ourselves look as attractive as possible without being knocked down and raped."
I never thought of this before, but Gaveston got me thinking. This statement can be read two different and very opposed way. One is that what Lansbury was about to say was "awful" but in her mind true. The other is that she's distancing herself from the main clause because it's not onlyawful but inappropriate and wrong.
Now that I consider that second reading, I can almost hear Lansbury putting it that way, and so I think that may very well have been her meaning. Not a misquote but a quote capable of wide misinterpretation.
"It should be obvious the law hasn't settled yet when the same remark by a man to his female colleague may be harassment or not merely based on HER mindset. Is the guy required to be a telepath?"
Not an expert on this area of law. But the oft-used phrase "unwanted sexual advance" seems very problematic to me as a keystone of wrongdoing. In any escalating series of sexual overtures there is almost always an initial advance. Sometimes the other party has made it clear that that advance will be welcome. But at other times there is uncertainty as to how that "initial advance" might be received. In which case, how is the party initiating that first advance to know whether the "first move" will be "wanted" or "unwanted?" Hell, in the real world, the party receiving that "first advance" may not even be certain how she or he feels about it, whether she or he wants it for sure, doesn't want it for sure, or is unclear about how she or he feels about it (the jury may still be out; or it may merely be flattering or intriguing but not a total greenlight). And if what has preceded that "first move" in the other party's behavior makes "wanting" the "mover's move" fairly obvious, that seems a very subjective determination on the part of the mover. And if the movee's prior behavior makes the move clearly welcome, isn't what the movee has presented also a "first move?" And, if so, how would the moveeknow that their "first move" (or "pre-first move"would be wanted?
Sometimes, I think this way of thinking about it is retrogressive and sexist. That it relies for a foundation on outdated if somewhat adjusted notions that men always want sex and that it's up to the woman to make her receptiveness to an overture known - that there is nothing untoward or threatening about the woman making her interest known but that there is something agressive about the man being the first to somehow broach the subject of desire. It's as if we went from an era in which no good "girl" would behave in that way (making her interest known) to an era in which no gentleman would make the first move without getting complete assurance from the woman that such amove would be welcome; that a woman who has exhibited no overt sexual interest should be presumed to not be interested in a man (i.e. that only women who show such an overt interest could be romantically or sexually interested - problematic and resting on outdatedstandards of "sexual" and "chaste" women), and that the power, which used to be entirely with men has now perversely switched to women (at least when this is all happening legally - which is not to suggest that it does not often happens otherwise); and how does this apply when the two parties are not of opposite gender?
I am putting this out there not to defend any of the clearlallegations of impropriety against Weinstein, Rose, Spacey etc.., but to ask how the rules apply in less clear circumstances. Is it always wrong for a man to make an advance twoarda woman in a workplace unless the woman has already made clear her interest? If so, how is the woman making clear her interest not perhaps a potentially unwanted sexual advance toward the man itself? Or is this rule not about male v female but about someone in a position of authority versus someone operating "under" that authority?
Either way, if an advance by itself is not what makes it unlawful but ratherthat advance'sbeing "unwanted," how is the person who makes the advance supposed to know that the move is wanted or not until it's been made and responded to?
Again, these questions may not be significant under the rules as they now exist (my understanding of the rules may be very incomplete), but the media coverage is certainly making it sound like "unwanted" is the dispositive factor. That seems a very problematic standard as it in many circumstances would, as Gaveston said, require the initial mover to be telepathic.
"
Thank you, counselor. That's exactly what I meant. I doubt most of us could tell you the difference between "harassment" and "assault", much less when flirting becomes a tort. And that's despite the fact that most of us have had umpteen sexual harassment seminars with HR.
#32I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 7:36am
SonofRobbieJ said: "Focusing on and shaming a woman who is 92 years old and spent the first part of her life as a dress up doll in the old Hollywood system is completely off point (I believe). Women have been shaped by this world that we've created. Her advice may seems sensible and pragmatic...but it's cause we've allowed a world that is beyond f*cked up.
Also...I work at a very large, world-wide law firm. There are many instances of office romances leading to marriage. There are many work places where that isn't allowed. But here, it is. There is, for want of a better phrase, a chain of command in how unwanted sexual advances are reported. No one here is fired if they make a romantic overture that was a misread or something that was unwanted. Either the woman handles it herself, or takes the issue to a superior who will address it with the other party. In most cases, that's where it ends. No one is fired for something like that, let alone subject to the legal system. This is not the way these things work (at least in major corporations)."
I'm sure that's true in most cases and thank you for spelling it out. In large corporations, reporting the harassment/assault is often the BEST thing a victim can do because the existence of a record protects that victims from future recriminations. Nonetheless, I have worked for a senior partner (this was in LA) who invited young men to come to his office and do push-ups. It's hard to know exactly what a senior associate will do when he or she has eight years and thousands upon thousands of hours invested at a firm, yet can't become a partner without a recommendation from her team leader.
#33I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 7:39am
kdogg36 said: "People should be able to wear anything they want - or nothing at all - without being assaulted byanyone (including the police). I absolutely believe this to be true.
"
Does that go for Matt Lauer, too? Because MSNBC just reported that among his accusers is a woman who says he called her into his office and when she met him there his penis was hanging out his fly.
#34I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 7:46am
ErikJ972 said: ""
xMisconception
Women entice men to sexually assault them by dressing a certain way or by leading them on.
?Truth
People may experience sexual assault no matter what they are wearing or how they were acting; what the survivor was wearing in no way makes them responsible for the assault. No person deserves to be assaulted, asks to be assaulted or wants to be assaulted. This misconception again shows the extent to which sexual assault is sexualized in our society. Sexual assault does not occur because of uncontrollable sexual desire. People commit sexual assault because they feel entitled to other people’s bodies and disregard other people’s right to consent. Perpetrators often use the excuse of how the survivor dressed or acted as way to avoid taking responsibility for their own criminal sexual behavior. But perpetrators are responsible for their own desires and actions."
Sexual Assault Misconceptions
https://sapac.umich.edu/article/52"
Eric, I don't think Angela Lansbury or anyone in this thread has said otherwise. I know I'm not talking about rape or sexual assault, just your garden-variety hostile work environment claim. But it's an odd culture we have that argues women should spend small fortunes on their appearance and also that their appearance has no impact on others.
#35I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 7:47am
While it may be difficult to determine if a first (gentle, verbal) advance is unwanted or not, it is staggering how often a plain statement that advances are unwanted in response to a first advance does not result in a lack of further advances, but instead, is ignored. Such cases are pretty unambiguous.
The nature of the first advance also matters. The person has to have the opportunity to decline an advance in a civilized conversation. If the first advance involves flashing a colleague, or worse, a subordinate, then that is also pretty unambiguously f-ed up.
#36I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 7:47am
"I doubt most of us could tell you the difference between "harassment" and "assault", much less when flirting becomes a tort."
Gaveston you're a lyricist.
#37I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 7:59am
GavestonPS said: "Does that go for Matt Lauer, too? Because MSNBC just reported that among his accusers is a woman who says he called her into his office and when she met him there his penis was hanging out his fly."
Of course, but termination from a job is not assault. People can get fired for all sorts of behavior that is perfectly legal, including violations of dress codes. If Lauer did that, I have no problem with him being fired, but I don't think he should be be prosecuted for it (though I suspect he could be under current law).
#38I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 8:03am
All these apologists (or minimizers) of male sexual misbehavior go a long way towards explaining the president we currently have.
Updated On: 11/30/17 at 08:03 AM
yankeefan7
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/14/12
#39I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 9:00am
"I'm not defending the men involved in these cases. I'm suggesting that women should take precautions here, knowing how a revealing outfit could tempt a guy. You take precautions.
Look, I'm visually impaired and night driving is a horror for me. I sing in a choir that rehearses 6 miles from my home and the roads are rural and twisting--and go through deer-heavy woods. I know what the problems can be here, so I take the PRECAUTION of driving another route that takes me five miles out of my way but is straighter, better lit and not populated by deer.
Do you understand what I'm saying?"
Not really. It seems that you are still saying women are part of the problem because of the way they dress. In most of the recent cases we have heard about in the workplace, I truly believe most if not all of these women were dressed rather conservatively which defeats your point.
#40I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 1:03pm
Miles2Go2 said: "All these apologists (or minimizers) of male sexual misbehavior go a long way towards explaining the president we currevtjy have."
I know you may not be responding to me, but since your post is right below mine and that conversation went in sort of a weird direction, I want to make it clear that I'm not one of those people. My original post was in agreement with others who believe women should be able to wear whatever they want without getting assaulted or harassed.
#41I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 2:10pm
Look, I'm visually impaired and night driving is a horror for me. I sing in a choir that rehearses 6 miles from my home and the roads are rural and twisting--and go through deer-heavy woods. I know what the problems can be here, so I take the PRECAUTION of driving another route that takes me five miles out of my way but is straighter, better lit and not populated by deer.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
Yes. Women should dress more modestly when driving around deer at night. And I think I can safely say Angry Deer would concur.
#42I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 2:16pm
yankeefan7 said: " It seems that you are still saying women are part of the problem because of the way they dress."
No, they are not "part of the problem".
Are black boys who challenge police part of the problem? No, but the ones who cooperate with the police are the ones still alive.
Are kids who talk to strangers part of the problem? No, but the one's who avoid strangers are still home with their parents unharmed.
The point being, don't wait for someone to ride up on a white horse and change the world. Take responsibility for your own safety and do what you have to do to get through the day and come home safe at night.
AEA AGMA SM
Broadway Legend Joined: 8/13/09
#43I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 3:12pm
CallMeAl2 said: "Are kids who talk to strangers part of the problem? No, but the one's who avoid strangers are still home with their parents unharmed."
Except for all those kids who are abducted by people they know, including family members. So what did those kids do wrong that you are going to blame them for?
#44I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 3:34pm
"Except for all those kids who are abducted by people they know, including family members. So what did those kids do wrong that you are going to blame them for?"
Exactly. And the same is true of harassment/assault/rape victims. Many many many many women are sexually harassed, assaulted, or raped without having ever dressed revealingly, without ever having flirted, without ever having tried to look beautiful, without ever having encouraged the behaviour in any way at all with their predators.
And it is relentless. It starts in childhood/early teen years (e.g. truck drivers honking horns and yelling lewd x-rated threats to girls out running for their high school cross-country team practice while wearing loose sweats), continues into middle age and beyond, happens to people wearing no makeup and baggy clothes, happens to people considered conventionally ugly as well as those considered conventionally beautiful. It happens repeatedly to asexual people who not only never flirted with their harassers but literally never flirted with anyone in their entire life, never wore make-up, never wore miniskirts, never wore low-cut tops to any event ever.
If they try to ignore an advance on the street or politely say 'no thanks' and keep walking, men regularly grab women's arms and yank them back, or stand in front of them to block their paths and keep moving left-and-right menacingly when she tries to get around them, or throw things at her and hit her with them: physically assaulting those who say no. Sometimes full-on raping them. It happens because there is an evil, pervasive, inaccurate-but-hard-to-get-rid-of sense of entitlement that many men feel towards women's bodies, from publicly policing women's appearances (yelling unsolicited comments and declaring either their approval or disapproval of the appearance when neither is wanted or justifable) to physically attacking women if they don't agree willingly to let a random man take possession of their bodies.
In the workplace, you could do everything right - report it through the proper channels, and still have it ignored, as in the Gloucester theatre case or in the CBC case in Canada. It is all so g**d**mn relentless, and having anyone say that the recipients of all the harassment share some of the blame is so f***king exhausting and infuriating. People who do everything 'by the book' still have to deal with tons and tons of crap. So instead of trying to spot some examples of survivors who didn't do everything by the book, teaching all humans never to be predators would be much more effective.
Maybe this current media attention will help with that, as it doesn't seem to have done much in the past, when reports were infrequent enough that the implicated places could try to ignore them. Besides which, it already been pointed out by others that the "book" itself is sexist and wrong in its own right if it includes rules on how to dress, etc. beyond what is already deemed acceptable in public or in the specific workplaces involved.
#45I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 3:38pm^This. Exactly this.
#46I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 3:59pm
Well said, Adam.
#47I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 5:36pmI mean, both Adam’s and CallMeAl’s posts will be true depending on the specific case. I assume Lansbury was tapping into CallMeAl’s reasoning...
#48I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 11/30/17 at 11:37pm
qolbinau said: "I mean, both Adam’s and CallMeAl’s posts will be true depending on the specific case. I assume Lansbury was tapping into CallMeAl’s reasoning..."
Exactly. Similarly, I don't believe a young woman who passes out drunk at a frat house "invites" rape; but I also don't think we do her any favor by telling her the government can or will protect her if she engages in that sort of high risk behavior.
And this has been a civil discussion without blaming any of the accusers or excusing any of their abusers--civil with the exception of a few posters who apparently can't accept the existence of cause-and-effect in the real world.
#49I really hope Angela Lansbd in my churchury was misquoted
Posted: 12/1/17 at 8:32am
In some countries, women are expected to cover themselves almost completely from head to toe so very little of their skin or bodies is visible. This is because of the belief that the sight of more of these women’s bodies would cause men to commit impure thoughts and lewd actions. The posts of some on this thread are akin to this: blaming women for men’s behavior and asserting that a woman can control the behavior of a sexual predator if she only makes sure to downplay her attractiveness and presents herself to the world in the most homely way possible. It seems that some believe that if she does this then she will no longer receive pinches and pats on the buttocks, unwanted sexual advances from superiors, and he will no longer pull his penis out in front of her at work. She just has to help him control these behaviors, see? Hogwash! That’s some special magical thinking right there. Men are responsible for their own behavior. We cannot control the actions of others. I’m the only one who can control myself. Women have full, vibrant lives and don’t have time to be controlling their lives as well as all the other men around them, even if they magically could.
Updated On: 12/1/17 at 08:32 AMVideos