Someday (and even now in some cases) the backlash may be that women won’t hire men unless they clean up their act as a group. Heck, it wouldn’t surprise me if voters make that choice in the next couple of elections, and vote for women candidates because they are less likely to sexually harass others, this saving valuable time and public money from settlements or lawsuits. (And yes, I know one woman dropped out of a race this week because she harrassed a guy in the past, but statistically it is 95%+ the other way).
@“Snowball City”
Thank you for posting the link to the LA Times article about Hoffman and the hurdles to publication. Post 481 if anyone missed the link.
Momof3boys - I don’t care if the HR department classifies it as harassment or not; MORALLY and ETHICALLY speaking it is not okay for supervisors to ask their subordinates for sex.
My father-in-law had a hero’s send off with gun salute. (He never saw active combat but he had a term or two as a public “servant.”)
I knew him as a verbally abusive drunk who put down his wife constantly. Apparently, when their kids lived at home, he’d mock her at dinner until she cried.
He was also addicted to pornography and peeping through windows with binoculars. He attempted to grope me and made suggestive comments. My daughter was 10 when he groped her at my ex’s remarriage reception.
When I saw the respectful, admiring obit online it made me sick.
That’s part of what we’re up against folks: The public image vs the private reality.
^^^OMG.
Suppose my boss tries to sleep with me. And suppose
(1) I agree because I’ve always had the hots for him, or
(2) I agree because I think he’ll fire me if I say no, or
(3) I agree because I think he’ll help my career if I say yes, or
(4) I say no, but don’t tell anyone because I believe that he is protected by his superiors and my telling will only hurt me, or
(5) I quit silently, or
(6) I get an NDA and quit
NONE of my reactions make it right for him to have asked to sleep with me. If I now, years later, tell the story, nothing I did makes what he did right. Back then, people wouldn’t have believed me if I exposed him, and I would have suffered. Now, in this moment, people will believe me, and he will get his rightful punishment.
Given the above scenario, I think if 1 or 3 is the case, and the woman comes forward years (or decades) later to try to ruin the man, she is part of the problem. Whether what he did was right or not, what she did was also not right, and the sex was obviously consensual, and thus not harassment or assault. Next.
If 2 is the case, I feel a little sorry for this person but really - there is a very thin line between 2 & 3. Unless the boss gave a verbal threat of loss of job, the sex doesn’t seem compulsory here, in my opinion. And if he/she did, the subordinate should have reported it right away. I guess I just don’t buy that women are so meek and lack control over whom they sleep with. Or maybe that’s just me.
If 4 is the case, then kudos for having the courage to say no, but really, coming forward years later and telling people what happened doesn’t make sense. Again, under this scenario, the “boss tried to sleep with me.” We don’t know if this meant he/she asked once, or pestered on and on about it. But let’s say he asked once and was declined and never asked again. And you went on to enjoy normal business dealings for years. Is this worth ruining someone’s life years later? in today’s climate it appears so.
If 5 or 6 is the case, then probably the nature of the boss’ asking was more severe to necessitate quitting or getting a NDA. Correct: None of what was done back then make the boss’ actions right. But likewise, women’s actions aren’t always right either.
“Back then, people wouldn’t have believed me, and I would have suffered” – I don’t know why you think that? As far as I know, the definition of actual, legitimate harassment and assault hasn’t changed over the years. I’ve been in HR management for a Fortune 100 company since 1994, and have dealt w/ some real doozies over the years - many involving local law enforcement. “Now, in this moment, people will believe me and he will get his rightful punishment” – That’s because what what HAS changed is what we are calling much of this behavior now.
Experience?
It’s not only that “people wouldn’t have believed me, and I would have suffered” – even if they did believe you, the behavior would be excused with the old “boys will be boys,” or “you probably were asking for it,” or “boy, are you sensitive,” or “that’s just what men do!” It would have been greeted with a big shrug.
So what I’m getting from #505 is all the women were wrong for coming forward. They should not have come forward.
Weinstein should still be making movies (and harassing/assaulting women). O’Reilly should still be reporting news (and harassing women). Roy Moore should be sworn in to the Senate today (sorry about that, girls he molested and tried to rape). Mario Batali should still be cooking and making TV shows (and harassing women). Matt Lauer should still be on the air (and harassing women).
Charlie Rose should still be interviewing people (and harassing women). A Louis CK Comedy Special should be airing right now (and Louis CK should still be harassing women). Mark Halperin should still be working (and harassing women). Judge Alex Kozinski should remain on the federal bench (harassing his women clerks).
According to the logic in @mommajes, the women were wrong to come forward. Therefore the men should still be harassing-- that is the right result. Interestingly, in some cases, as the story gets reported we discover that women did come forward before, but they were ignored.
Judge Kozinski has resigned. He said he had a “broad sense of humor”.
Some in the Senate are asking Franken to reconsider.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/18/manchin-franken-senate-resign-300843
Oh, what a mess.
I never suggested women shouldn’t come forward based on actual harassment or given an actual assault situation. That’s laughable. I simply offered my opinion on the scenario you presented, which btw, as far as I know, isn’t real. To equate your scenario to the HW deal or any of the others is absurd and grasping. And idk what you do for a living but I’ve seen a lot of this close up and personal. My opinion is informed by having witnessed a lot of things over the years. I also am a woman who has been on the receiving end of a bit of inappropriate behavior by men myself, in and out of the workplace, which most women have (NOT harassment, although I am pretty sure many women today would call it that), so I believe I am well suited to give an opinion, whether it jives with yours or not. I also have a daughter and two sons. I want the same safe world for my sons as I do for my daughter, but I simply recognize men can be victims too, and that outside of harassment and assault (which we have laws against) there are gray areas. What one woman considers inappropriate, another might not — as we are seeing in this very thread. However, In situations where women came forward and were ignored, that’s fully wrong. Wrong!! That wasn’t on your scenario, tho. I can assure you, at my company, that type of thing is never ignored. And should not be at any company or in any organization.
Sad to see so many more disappointing allegations but also pleased to see more men and women unafraid to speak out. Since the Harvey Weinstein fiasco, it’s been bittersweet, if you will.
If you are on the receiving end of behavior that you personally do not believe rises to the level of harassment then simply don’t report it. It’s not an issue for you.
But if a woman does believe she is being harassed then she should report and let the powers that be sort it out in accordance with company policy. If someone doesn’t like what results from that report I don’t think you can hang it on the woman who complained. Take it up with whomever sets company policy or the individual who decided what the penalty would be for that specific behavior. The complainant is simply exercising their rights pursuant to company policy and laws which govern the workplace. I think we all believe women have the right to do so.
People disagree on the penaties that are resulting from these complaints, something the complainant doesn’t control.
What do we all think about the attempt to frame Chuck Schumer with the (apparently sloppily forged and fact-checked) court document? And Blumenthal who was accused of sexual misconduct by what appears to be a Twitter bot?
Could there be more of this type of weaponizing of these claims?
I didn’t take it that way. Maybe because i, too, think that in Weinstein’s case, and I’ve said it before…some of the women consented and some did not. I think this may be true of alot of the me too stuff…but to paint it with as broad a brush stroke as “no women should have told their stories” is no different than painting with a broad stroke that “all men are predators”
In addition to the faked-up charges about Chuck Schumer, the Washington Post received a James O’Keefe-backed attempt to fake up accusations on Roy Moore, presumably to discredit the real accusations. The Post was not fooled. The phony tried to videotape them, but they videotaped her, too, and posted the video.
There are good reasons for nefarious people to manufacture false allegations. It’s not so easy to escape detection, though. The news organizations are checking up accuser’s stories.
As well they should and probably are after the RS scandal. If only we could “shut off” Twitter. The problem is that if someone wants to make a stink and they can do it anonymously and they have no scruples…they will do it. They may do it using their own name if they have no scruples. I am sure there are equally as many unscrupulous people that howl with glee everything someone rich and famous get taken out at the knees. Understanding that accusations should and need to be verified and carefully considered is not doing women a disservice in my opinion although that seems to be a tone deaf rallying cry of the hard core advocates. To not do so is unjust to both people who are victims and those that are accused.
I think the lust to expose these accused is distasteful and ethically sometimes repugnant. I really appreciated the Boston Globe’s response to a barrage of negative publicity because they did not “disclose” the name of a fired employee who had been accused of harassment.
I’m stunned by the Kozinski retirement. This doesn’t happen. More than any other single event, this makes me think that we’ve got a real cultural shift here, not just a flash-in-the-pan scandal.
I have to wonder whether his colleagues pressured him. I cannot believe that this Congress would actually impeach him – they can’t agree on anything at all, and they have a full plate at the moment. So it doesn’t seem plausible to me that he feared a forcible removal. The other judges on a court may more or less silence a judge by not assigning him any cases. AFAIK, this is used mainly when a judge is incapacitated (like with dementia) and won’t retire.
Under other circumstances, a retired feeder judge of this stature would be welcomed into virtually any legal employer he wanted. He could teach at the law school of his choice; he could join any number of firms. The last big feeder on the job market was Judge Luttig of Virginia; he became the General Counsel of Boeing. What will happen here, though?