gym boss sacked for sending a message suggesting a woman who missed class should be raped

[Toni]

Sometimes things are just as they seem, but sometimes things are not as they seem, so while a threat seems like a threat, it is also just that, a threat, but something that is not a threat yet seems to be is not what it seems, even if it seems like it is. You characterize the utterance of what seems like a threat as being a threat, and it may be, for it seems like it is, but things are not always like they seem, so what you characterize as a threat may not in fact be.

Basically, if you hear the words, “rape others,” you see it in the worst possible light no matter what light was intended. It takes more than words to conclude another called upon others to rape. What was in the mind of the speaker matters.

I agree. It wasn't a threat. It was grossly inappropriate and unprofessional language that reflects terribly on the company he worked for. That his mind would even casually jump to rape for such a casual reference speaks volumes to his character.

It would definitely be seen as a threat to any woman who read that, whether she believed it was an actual call to rape her or another woman or not.

It was a threat. Maybe he didn't mean it seriously or literally but definitely well beyond the realm of grossly inappropriate into threatening language.

Suppose the person had been black and he had written: Let's gather to burn a cross in his yard? Wouldn't that have been taken as a threat?

Suppose the person had been male and he had written: Let's tie him down and lob off his balls: Wouldn't that have seemed pretty threatening?

 

[Toni]

To compel submission? That’s like imbuing an actor in the movies as having the qualities of the character. You’re talking about the guy as having the same mindset as a rapist despite whether he has that mindset. That’s why knowing the context in which he uttered the words is so important. What he thinks inside or how he is as an actual person says much more about him than any words he might have ignorantly blurted out. It says he’s a dumbass, but we cannot conclude a diseased mind without a good bit more to go on. It’s also why I’m not inclined to overreact. I don’t see the mountain. All I see is the mole hill that will predictably be inflated by others.

Keep in mind that I have a running caveat. It may very well be the case that he is as awful as you make him out to be, but my point is that it’s not outside reason to think things have been blown completely out of proportion. Based on what was in the OP, there is not sufficient information to make him out to be a monster, as the words uttered by him alone with no supporting context allows us to infer he has inner demons commensurate with what a truly ugly minded person might.

Threats work even without actual violent actions.

Just ask the KKK why they burn crosses on people's lawns instead of starting out with a lynching.

In the scenario laid out, the person blowing things out of proportion was the person suggesting to many others that someone should be raped. Full stop. For a minor offense. And then tried to say that this was a joke.

Jokes are supposed to be funny. Threatening to rape someone is not funny.

Sometimes things are just as they seem, but sometimes things are not as they seem, so while a threat seems like a threat, it is also just that, a threat, but something that is not a threat yet seems to be is not what it seems, even if it seems like it is. You characterize the utterance of what seems like a threat as being a threat, and it may be, for it seems like it is, but things are not always like they seem, so what you characterize as a threat may not in fact be.

Basically, if you hear the words, “rape others,” you see it in the worst possible light no matter what light was intended. It takes more than words to conclude another called upon others to rape. What was in the mind of the speaker matters.

Even if he did not mean literally: let's rape her, it would have been an extremely threatening thing for her to read or hear about.

I mean: why didn't he say something like: let's make her run extra laps? Or let's dump a bucket of ice on her head? Or give her a wedgie? Or fill her locker with dog poop?

No: he said: let's rape her. That's a pretty specific kind of statement that cannot possibly be taken as anything other than a threat.

 

[fast]

Sometimes things are just as they seem, but sometimes things are not as they seem, so while a threat seems like a threat, it is also just that, a threat, but something that is not a threat yet seems to be is not what it seems, even if it seems like it is. You characterize the utterance of what seems like a threat as being a threat, and it may be, for it seems like it is, but things are not always like they seem, so what you characterize as a threat may not in fact be.

Basically, if you hear the words, “rape others,” you see it in the worst possible light no matter what light was intended. It takes more than words to conclude another called upon others to rape. What was in the mind of the speaker matters.

Even if he did not mean literally: let's rape her, it would have been an extremely threatening thing for her to read or hear about.

I mean: why didn't he say something like: let's make her run extra laps? Or let's dump a bucket of ice on her head? Or give her a wedgie? Or fill her locker with dog poop?

No: he said: let's rape her. That's a pretty specific kind of statement that cannot possibly be taken as anything other than a threat.

It is threatening language. On that, we agree. That fact actually makes my position problematic, as the language supports the contention he made a threat. What I want to impart is the notion that language alone doesn’t itself make that strung together set of words a bonified threat. It has the ring of a threat. The words are there. It’s my position that some but not all necessary conditions are knowingly met based on what I read in the OP.

People can often be temperamental and spout a threat even when they would never act on it, yet even in those situations, I would support the contention that it was in fact a threat despite whether they would follow through or not. To say of something that is, is, and to say of something that it is not, is not. Nothing changes something from being what it is (at least in the moment). I highly question whether what he said was a defacto threat.

Group1)
Position A) a threat — seems like a threat
Position B) a threat — doesn’t seem like a threat

Group 2)
Position C) not a threat—seems like a threat
Position D) not a threat—doesn’t seem like a threat.

Your position is ‘A’. My position is ‘C’. We both agree that it seems like a threat, but I belong to an entirely different group. You think it was a threat, and you base that on the fact threatening language was used. I say people people use threatening language all the time but doesn’t actually or shouldn’t actually be classified as a genuine threat.

“Come near me and i’ll kill you” has very clear threatening language, but I think that alone is insufficient to imply or entail or conclude that a genuine threat has been made. Sounds like a duck. Smells like one. It’s just that it so happens to not be a duck. Or at least there’s nothing beyond the language to further support the contention communicated.

Yes, he could have said any number of other things that wouldn’t have been taken as a threat, but it’s still possible he’s just a dumbass and doesn’t harbor a desire for her to be controlled or raped.

It’s cause for concern, but until I have clear evidence that he meant

 

[Angry Floof]

What on earth was this guy thinking ?

Edinburgh University dismissed Ross Brain without notice after more than 800 students signed an open letter to principal and vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson demanding his sacking. He sent the message in a WhatsApp group to colleagues at Edinburgh University Sports and Exercise club, discussing potential punishment for a woman who missed an exercise class. One message believed to be from Brain said: ‘Lets rape her. Or give her the choice of 600 burpees or rape.’ When no one responded, he was accused of sending another, saying: ‘No-one up for this then?’.

Metro

I am astounded that anyone would write that out and post it publicly. What is he missing, aside from a few marbles ?

I know, right? Rapists and rape supporters ought to know to keep their depravity secret. What was he thinking?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There's an interesting dynamic happening in this thread if I may, two different discussions. On one hand a discussion is occurring over a person making the statements cited and how it impacts the individuals directly involved. There is also happening a discussion about the implications of those statements within a larger society, how the society should think about such language.

Decades ago it used to be that statements of intent did not matter, such language was basically treated as free speech. Nothing mattered unless there was some greater behavior involved, behavior which made the statements meaningful, hence enforceable. But even back then the statements weren't that important, just the behavior, the carrying out of the language.

We live now in a time when the language matters because we wish to intercept the behavior before it occurs. We wish to do that because we have become aware that such language is a real indicator of eventual behavior. It has taken us a long time to wake up to that reality but it seems we have awoken.

At least in my community the police take such language very seriously because they are trying to keep people safe. I have had such incidents that I have felt threatened by language others have used against me and that language was taken seriously. When someone said they were going to run me down on my bike that was enough for the police to respond, I didn't have to wait for the event to occur before the threat was taken seriously.

This gentleman was sacked. I think he got off pretty easy considering the threat he made. Maybe he should be given a chance to apologize and retain his job. If so he could possibly become another tool in the arsenal we have to protect ourselves from using such language against fellow citizens because that's where we should want to be and need to be.

 

[Bronzeage]

You need to get out more.

I've worked in plenty of environments where this kind of behavior is the norm, normal but certainly not desirable. It's that it has gone on for so long that people do it without even thinking of how wrong it is or the effect it has on another person. It's sad. That it is changing, albeit glacially, is a good thing. For the most part the people who do it aren't criminal, just ignoramuses.

I've spent a lot of time in gyms and health clubs. I've worked most of my life in automotive shops where the entire crew was male. I've never been in any shop, weight room or locker room, with any group of men where this kind of comment would have been considered acceptable on any level.

I'm talking about places like mills and other manufacturing environments that had few if any women around ever and the behavior evolved. I've known one person who got fired over it because he happened to be the unfortunate idiot on the cusp of change regarding the behavior. It could have been any of a group of idiots.

This stuff was once tolerated just like domestic abuse was once tolerated.

As I said, I've spent a lot of time in environments with few women. I have yet to be in one where the men didn't have either a mother, sister, wife, daughter, and talk of rape as retribution in such a cavalier manner would be seen as a threat.

As for domestic abuse, my observation has been that economic dependence made women feel they had to be complicit and endure the abuse. In every case where the victim refused to endure the situation, the abuser did not feel the least bit tolerated.

I've always been told the southern US maintains a more chivalrous attitude toward women, so Louisiana may just be a special case.

 

[TSwizzle]

Yes, he could have said any number of other things that wouldn’t have been taken as a threat, but it’s still possible he’s just a dumbass and doesn’t harbor a desire for her to be controlled or raped.

It’s cause for concern, but until I have clear evidence that he meant

I agree, he is more likely to be a dumbass and he didn't mean it as a serious threat/punishment. But rape is a sinister term to use.

 

[Angry Floof]

Yes, he could have said any number of other things that wouldn’t have been taken as a threat, but it’s still possible he’s just a dumbass and doesn’t harbor a desire for her to be controlled or raped.

It’s cause for concern, but until I have clear evidence that he meant

I agree, he is more likely to be a dumbass and he didn't mean it as a serious threat/punishment. But rape is a sinister term to use.

Anyone who doesn't grasp the effect of rape threats must be a brain damaged, utterly unaware moron indeed. Men know the effect of that kind of language on women. That's why he chose that particular language.

She must have seriously triggered his insecurities that day.