I have no doubt that Sue got a huge pay off from Mark.
I have no doubt that Sue got a huge pay off from Mark.
"Charla is intelligent and beautiful and I just felt really stupid for picking ... for, you know... liking someone that wasn't available really.. certainly not to me." Quote from Dave (Paradise Hotel).
Okay, I agree that Richard's behavior is definitely wrong.
However, it must be taken in context of the game. Outside the game, if anyone were to walk about naked in front of others, that would be an offense, wouldn't it? So Rich exposing himself to all the contestants, including Jeff, the producers and crew, does it mean that all of them should sue him?
The point is that for whatever reasons, he was allowed to go naked on the show in Survivor 1 and then All-Stars. Now in this particular challenge, there is the unfortunate accident of him using his nakedness in a physical way on another player. But he did this in the context of the game.
I don't think it is fair for us to say Sue should sue CBS/MB/Richard or demand apologies from who-and-who. The point is that an unfortunate incident happened, the parties involved have had their discussions, and the matter has been resolved. Just as we respect Sue for having the right to get upset over the incident, now we should also respect her decision to let it rest.
I am in fact quite glad that the incident has resolved itself peacefully.
Your post was thoughtful and well-written. I didn't think of all of your points before. Sue is harsh and was playing the innuendo game with her suggestive comments, but she did not ask for the extent of what happened to her. I do think that she overreacted just a bit--even if it had been me and I had been grossed out, I would not have wanted to quit. After seeing that Hatch was gone, I'd have voiced my disapproval and disgust of the incident, hoped that Hatch would be repremanded, and kept on playing. Of course, it wasn't me and perhaps I would've been just as traumatized as Sue, but I am competitive and wouldn't let a pervert drive me out of a game that I wanted to play. That would be letting him completely win the entire situation, and that seems unacceptable.
So, in essence, while I think that what happened to Sue was wrong, I still think she is a quitter.
Can Ya Dig It?
It's also her perogative if she wants to settle this matter privately. Some people might want her to stand up in court because it sends a message to CBS, to the public. I think she should do it if she wants to. People deal with it in different ways... I'm not sure if going to court is going to help people deal with sexual assault issues. It might give the victim some sense of satisfaction in the end but it's not going to settle the matter in the victim's mind. There's wayy more to it than that.Originally Posted by caper
Yeah I think it was kind of insulting to make that one of the first questions to ask, and to ask it almost patronizingly. But it also gave her a chance to say to viewers who were thinking the same thing that it wasn't the food deprivation. It gave her a chance to defend her leaving. But if she was to go to court she would be grilled even more harshly than that, unfair as it may sound, so I understand why Sue won't want to go to court. I'm glad she was able to move pass it and that's the most important thing.Originally Posted by caper
"Just kiss my toes and I'll be happy." - Dex
No, tons of people here have said they were also offended.Am I the only one, other than Sue, who is offended by what Richard did?
Time has passed since the incident, and both Sue and Richard conceded that they had made amends of sort. Would you have preferred they wheel in a Hannibal Lecter-style strapped up Richard Hatch to ensure Sue's safety?I was extremely surprised and disappointed in the manner in which Harry Smith conducted the interview with Susan Hawk and Richard Hatch this morning. First of all just making her sit beside Hatch was insensitive and obviously done simply for dramatic effect.
It was Sue's outburst that was the focal point of last night's episode, and it was Sue's decision to quit the game. Richard Hatch said he had no idea that she'd had a problem with him at the time, and most (if not all) of the other survivors, and Jeff Probst himself, didn't seem to know that it was much of an issue either. So yeah, since Sue was the one who left the island last night, by her own choice at that, of course she was the focus of the interview.Secondly, the onus seemed to be totally on Sue to explain how she felt, why she reacted the way she did, etc. I felt that Harry put her on the defensive and made her try to justify her behaviour while Richard's behaviour wasn't really analyzed at all. It was as if he was a bystander insead of someone who had intentionally done something to offend and insult Sue Hawk.
Okay, this is where your e-mail seems to degenerate into a gender-motivated, opportunistic soapbox speech. Most opposition to Richard Hatch's behaviour is linked by this common thread. I don't think anyone thinks what Richard Hatch did was appropriate. Some feel, however, that the issue was made from a molehill into a mountain.CBS just doesn't seem to get it. Just as it was with Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson, the emphasis is on the female's role
There was the context of the incident to consider. Sue herself said they came to a reconciliation after hearing one another's perspective. The most outraged in this incident always seem to liken Hatch's actions to that of a subway pervert, or an overbearing employer. Or whichever stereotype leaps to mind. I am certain the similarities are distant at best. Blanket statements such as, "There is no place for that anywhere in society." are great as just that--general statements that don't go into specifics. This was a game, there were factors involved, not the least of which was that Richard hadn't meant any harm. Before you dismiss that consideration, realize what sort of legal floodgate you'd open if "perception" overruled "motivation".Obviously Harry Smith and Richard Hatch do not get it. What Richard did to Susan was disgusting and by legal definition was sexual assault. Not as extreme as rape for sure, but still sexual assault. If he had done that in North America anywhere he would be in jail today - not sitting on TV saying he has nothing to apologize for.
Well, here we go again. With the subway comparison to boot. Listen, I'm a supporter of women's issues, and that's not just lip service. But the fact is that some people need to choose their outlet a little more carefully. This issue doesn't speak up for womens' rights. This was about as far from an actual incident as you can get, and it doesn't do well to trivialize actual sexual assaults by comparing them to the naked guy on a reality TV show. Basically all I'm saying is that by failing to choose your battles more carefully you risk jeopardizing credibility on a very serious issue.Ask any woman who has been assaulted, even just had some sicko expose themselves to her in the subway. It is a very upsetting occurrence and very debilitating. No one should put her in the position of having to sit next to the perpetrator and defend her emotional reaction. In Sue's case she had to do that on national television. That was the ONLY thing that Harry Smith (one of the most insensitive interviewers I have ever seen) did pick up on - that Sue was not comfortable or happy to be sitting next to Richard Hatch. Well DUH, Harry!!
By that rationale every other contestant and crew member would likely have to apologize, which would cheapen whatever purpose a public apology might serve. Jeff Probst is not omnipotent--he's a guy hired to do a job to the best of his ability. Once he noticed that there was a little bit of screwing around he called them on it and basically told them to get back to the game. Aside from handcuffing Richard Hatch on the spot, I'm not sure what you'd rather him have done.This morning on CBS, instead of having to defend her actions while Richard Hatch sat there acting innocent, Sue Hawk should have received an official and public apology from:
a) Jeff Probst for not catching the offense in the first place
"Your honor, I hereby sue Richard Hatch for being disgusting." It's a little flimsy, and all speculation on your part as to as grave an issue it might be. As far as holding the network accountable, I think we're about a hop-skip away from lawyers having more money than the rest of the planet combined. I think once you hold the network accountable for the actions of one of its contestants on one of its shows, you're really setting up the pins for some real legal wheeling and dealing later on down the line.b) Richard Hatch for being so disgusting, insensitive and offensive - and an acknowledgment that it was a serious offense.
c) CBS for allowing the situation to develop
I think this is a moot point, as Richard has known Sue for years and was playing along the same spirit that motivated her, "You don't have a bone for me, Richard" comments. Richard stepped over the line, but I seriously doubt he would have done anything of the sort to a total stranger.1. What do you think would have happened if Richard had rubbed himself up against one of the men?
See above.2. What if it had been one of the other women - one not as "tough" as Sue Hawk? What if it had been Amber Brkych? Do you think Rob Mariano would have thought that was okay and not retaliated.
I think this is reaching a little too far and spreading your point a little thin.3. Do you think the incident would have been viewed differently if Richard was not gay? Perhaps some people think it wasn't as offensive because being gay, it would "mean nothing to him".
Outrageous misuse of context. "You girls be good, or Dirty Hatch will come for you in your sleep."4. How would the men of Survivor (or Harry Smith) feel if Richard had rubbed his genitals against their wives, girlfriends, mothers, sisters or daughters? Indeed how would Richard have felt if one of the other men had done that to his mother?
I know you'll have supporters here, but in all honesty, I doubt the e-mail will be taken seriously. Once you twist the happenings of a reality TV show to support and validate your pre-existing viewpoints and perspectives, it's hard to prove your point. There are serious issues out there to rally behind--this simply isn't one of them.I wish Sue Hawk HAD decided to sue Richard Hatch and I'm very interested to know if CBS made some monetary arrangement with her. That would indicate that CBS DID know that it was a serious offense, but any such settlement shouldn't occur behind closed doors. Sue Hawk deserves public vindication and Richard Hatch should be punished, or at the very least be made to feel as humiliated as Sue felt.
Last edited by Green Imp; 03-05-2004 at 01:15 PM.
That's more objective. I agree with Green Imp.Originally Posted by Green Imp
I disagree with you Greenimp and I think Caper made very good points that you failed to logically dispute.
You may think it is a "molehill," but it really was not. People can be (and are) arrested for such behavior.
I can't see any good reason that CBS, Mark Burnett, etc. should not take the email seriously. It is thoughtful and well-written. CBS and Survivor, and Jeff as a moderator, are responsible to run the contest in an appropriate manner. No one seems to want to rein in Hatch because it is good tv, but they did let it go too far. I can totally see why Sue was offended with Jeff's wimpy comment: Hatch acted "sort of" inappropriately.
Hm, I wonder if Sue was paid off by the producers as well or perhaps they intimidated her into not filing a lawsuit..can you imagine the controversy if a Survivor contestant sued the producers/Hatch for sexual harassment? It'd be huge and I'm sure Burnett wanted to avoid that at all costs. It's just weird to me that after what we saw last night that she was able to sit next to Richard and nonchalantly discuss the incident, it makes me wonder what happened behind the scenes and if the conditions perhaps exasperated her reaction.
And did anyone else notice Hatch wouldn't apologize for what he did? He said I'm sorry Sue felt that way, he never said "I'm sorry I did that, it was out of line" which to me suggests that he feels there was nothing wrong with his conduct, and then he went and played the victim as well. Says a lot about a person if he/she thinks rubbing their genitals against someone is ok behavior...
It also kinda uneases me that what happened has not been taken more seriously, that this is the last we'll hear of it...I mean someone was sexually violated on national television and there were no repercussions.
Last edited by haerpino; 03-05-2004 at 01:25 PM.
Thank you for writing such a well-thought out, eloquent letter, AND for sending it to CBS! People are arrested for exposing themselves, and for one, I do not think Richard should be naked throughout this show. Just having the blur is not enough. It still brings up questions that have to be answered for children. (Please do not remind me that children should be in bed, they sometimes sneak out and surprise you!) In addition, I am offended by his nakedness. I have been trying to avoid scenes with him in them, and therefore, have missed a lot of the show.
IMO, what Richard did was beyond offensive. It was sexual harrasment. It does not matter at all if Sue is a tough person or not. It was unwanted sexual contact, whether he was trying to be sexual or not.
Richard Hatch's sexual orientation has nothing to do with this. He rubbed himself on another person~ it does not matter WHO that other person is! Richard has paraded around naked as part of his "strategy," and sexually harrased a woman in the process. If it had been a man he touched, it would still be harrasment.
I did not see the Early Show this morning, but by all accounts, the interview was bogus, misleading, and fell short of truly addressing the harm that was inflicted on Sue.
I have never cared for Sue as a Survivor player, but no woman OR man should be sexually harrased.
I think Jeff Probst (and CBS) is very unfairly criticised.
Everyone seems to be saying as if they should "catch" and blame Richard for his behaviour. And I don't see anything wrong with his using the words "sort of".
Jeff Probst is not the Police, or Prosecuter or Judge. He should not be the one who is judging who is right or wrong. Even if Sue wants to sue Richard, it's up to the courst to decide if she has a case.
Suppose Jeff were to say something like "Richard was wrong. He shouldn''t have molested you, Susan", and if in the end the court decide there is no sexual offense, Jeff would have been in trouble. Then Richard could sue him!
So I think Jeff as the host had done no wrong and the "wimp" calling against him is unwarranted.