Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Brad Johnson on November 29, 2017, 08:07:57 AM
-
Wonder of wonders, NBC canned Matt Laur for "sexually inappropriate behavior". Musta been one helluva complaint with a metric buttload of substatiation for them to let their Golden Boy go.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/11/29/nbc-announces-today-show-co-host-matt-lauer-fired-due-to-inappropriate-sexual-behavior-at-work.html
Brad
-
PLEASE let Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews be next!
PLEASE!
It's all I want for Christmas!
-
I can see Matthews getting in trouble, but I don’t see Maddow getting busted.
-
How about Ellen for her frankenesque admiration of Katy Perry's rack?
I really don't see Maddow putting a tingle in anyone's leg.
-
Without knowing any facts other than the very limited information in the media, my opinion is that Lauer may be the first high profile accused person who falls into what I said in the Weinstein thread in politics:
On the general topic, sadly, this is turning into quite a McCarthy-like witch hunt. It looks like a lot of innocent people are going to get hit for things as benign as touching a shoulder, giving a hug, or just saying the "wrong" thing. The real offenders will be lost in the mass.
Perhaps something will come out that has me eating my words, but at this point this doesn't feel right to me.
-
I'm inclined to disagree, Ben. NBC didn't suspend him while they investigated. They got the notification on Monday night, and Tuesday night they fired him. Lack's memo to the staff indicated sufficient information to suggest that the incident at Sochi was not an isolated incident. I don't think they would have outright fired him unless the evidence was fairly strong. I'm sure they called him in to confront him, and I'd guess that either his defense was unconvincing, or he just confessed.
I'm sure there will be innocent people swept up in this, and perhaps have been already, but I don't see this as being a likely candidate.
-
I wonder if they canned him just as much for making way too much money while ratings were not really very good.
IMO, they really don't need a high paid person just to sit there and read a teleprompter.
-
I'm inclined to disagree, Ben. NBC didn't suspend him while they investigated. They got the notification on Monday night, and Tuesday night they fired him.
I'm just not sure a one day investigation for a single incident follows "innocent until proven guilty". Maybe they have concrete information, but for all the other high profile stuff, that information immediately made it into public view.
An example of getting railroaded:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/28/tucker-carlson-not-every-accuser-tells-truth-should-know.html
-
How many times have we seen false accusations of sexual assault? Duke Lacrosse team, Rolling Stones U-Va rape scandal...
As for Lauer, my guess is that NBC had enough dirt to justify canning the dirtball and what is very telling is that Lauer has not made a statement denying the accusation or crying about his getting fired.
-
It does now look like my opinion is wrong. Still no actual data, but it looks to be becoming an "everybody knew" thing, ala Weinstein.
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/11/29/evil-frightening-stuff-matt-lauer-is-just-the-latest-example-of-everyone-knew/
-
Accusations are cheap. Defense is expensive.
-
I'm just not sure a one day investigation for a single incident follows "innocent until proven guilty".
Innocent until proven guilty only works in the justice system. Lauer was accused, tried, and convicted in the corporate system. The corporate lawyers wouldn't sign off on firing Lauer unless it was a rock solid case.
-
Without knowing any facts other than the very limited information in the media, my opinion is that Lauer may be the first high profile accused person who falls into what I said in the Weinstein thread in politics:
Perhaps something will come out that has me eating my words, but at this point this doesn't feel right to me.
This is not completely out of the blue. There's been a context of scandal and sexual impropriety around Lauer for years now.
And frankly, this sexual harassment tsunami seems to be taking out Leftists at a better than 10-1 ratio over Conservatives, so I'm good with it. We've been dealing with Alinsky tactics, double standards, and Kafka trap catch-22's from the Leftist-MSM-academia axis for so long, we are WAY past the whole "stick to our standards" and "lets be better than they are" phase of things.
We've been in an alleyway broken bottle knife fight with the Left for the past 50 years, and all the time, we've been indignantly filing written complaints that they aren't following Marquess of Queensberry rule.
I know that many of us, at least since the Clinton Administration have been frustrated to the point that we've been willing to see it all burn down, rather than have the Left win.
Well, this is a major fire, mostly for the Left so far. And we didn't even need to attack to set it off.
A new sexual harassment McCarthy era, enduring the not-insignificant downsides of the Trump Administration... these are really quite peaceful and bloodless alternatives to what we've ALL been thinking about, but rarely discuss, or only obliquely, which is namely, shooting all the leftists we can once everything goes to hell.
-
I always sort of wondered why Lauer always dressed up in drag for the Halloween show. =D
-
His contract probably makes it difficult to fire him without severance. An accusation like this that allows them to fire him outright due to a morality clause can be worth tens of millions of dollars.
-
I'd be willing to bet that when they handed him his discharge papers there was a very large check with it in order to keep him quiet.
-
I heard an ABC reporter, on the radio this morning, state that there are rumors going around that the New York Times was going to do an article on Lauer and that they had more evidence against him.
-
AJDual
And frankly, this sexual harassment tsunami seems to be taking out Leftists at a better than 10-1 ratio over Conservatives, so I'm good with it. We've been dealing with Alinsky tactics, double standards, and Kafka trap catch-22's from the Leftist-MSM-academia axis for so long, we are WAY past the whole "stick to our standards" and "lets be better than they are" phase of things.
We've been in an alleyway broken bottle knife fight with the Left for the past 50 years, and all the time, we've been indignantly filing written complaints that they aren't following Marquess of Queensberry rule.
Everyone: Don't forget your anger and let the 2018 elections slide right by.
They sure know how to win elections.
Terry, 230RN
-
And frankly, this sexual harassment tsunami seems to be taking out Leftists at a better than 10-1 ratio over Conservatives, so I'm good with it. We've been dealing with Alinsky tactics, double standards, and Kafka trap catch-22's from the Leftist-MSM-academia axis for so long, we are WAY past the whole "stick to our standards" and "lets be better than they are" phase of things.
A new sexual harassment McCarthy era, enduring the not-insignificant downsides of the Trump Administration... these are really quite peaceful and bloodless alternatives to what we've ALL been thinking about, but rarely discuss, or only obliquely, which is namely, shooting all the leftists we can once everything goes to hell.
While I admit that I have reveled in schadenfreude since the election, I do take a step back regarding AJ's quote above. While I can sympathize with "fight fire with fire", I get a little scared when we start talking about things like "10-1 ratios" and acceptable collateral damage.
It begins to sound not much different than what this person said:
I'm actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/11/21/teen-vogue-columnist-not-at-all-concerned-about-innocent-men-and-false-harassment-allegations/
As a, "better 99 guilty men go free than one innocent man wrongly accused" kind of guy, that bothers me.
-
While I admit that I have reveled in schadenfreude since the election, I do take a step back regarding AJ's quote above. While I can sympathize with "fight fire with fire", I get a little scared when we start talking about things like "10-1 ratios" and acceptable collateral damage.
It begins to sound not much different than what this person said:
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/11/21/teen-vogue-columnist-not-at-all-concerned-about-innocent-men-and-false-harassment-allegations/
As a, "better 99 guilty men go free than one innocent man wrongly accused" kind of guy, that bothers me.
I think his point is that he (and I) are fairly certain that the truly guilty (and "known" guilty) harassers/abusers are going to be overwhelmingly Democrat/Liberal because the press not only won't protect a Republican/Conservative, they will actively investigate them.
So, in that vein, I am also not very concerned that there will be much coming out about "conservative Republicans" because if it was "known", it also would already be reported and known.
-
we still have the problem where all it takes is an allegation to torpedo a Republican (at least to try to; Roy Moore seems to be rebounding rather well), but it requires an investigation and preponderance of evidence against a Democrat.
-
Like I said over on Facebook, Lauer wasn't exactly hiding his creepiness very well. His interview with Anne Hathaway was pretty damning in and of itself.
-
So, in that vein, I am also not very concerned that there will be much coming out about "conservative Republicans" because if it was "known", it also would already be reported and known.
I think I'm looking at it contrary to most of the rest of you. I'm not looking at progressive vs conservative or any political aspect; I'm looking at actual predator vs somebody getting railroaded for a hug, or even totally false allegations. Speaking out is becoming the cool thing to do, almost like a fad. It will hurt innocent people and dilute any justified anger towards the actual perpetrators.
I realize I'm bucking the APS trend, but lynch mobs scare me.
-
I think I'm looking at it contrary to most of the rest of you. I'm not looking at progressive vs conservative or any political aspect; I'm looking at actual predator vs somebody getting railroaded for a hug, or even totally false allegations. Speaking out is becoming the cool thing to do, almost like a fad. It will hurt innocent people and dilute any justified anger towards the actual perpetrators.
I realize I'm bucking the APS trend, but lynch mobs scare me.
I am also a little concerned that this is or will all turn into accusations for much less serious behavior that still gets people fired. So far it appears to simply be accusations against people that deserved it and should have been called out for it a long time ago. I hope it doesn't get carried to far as the liars and "me too" types are encourages to get it on the action.
-
I think I'm looking at it contrary to most of the rest of you. I'm not looking at progressive vs conservative or any political aspect; I'm looking at actual predator vs somebody getting railroaded for a hug, or even totally false allegations. Speaking out is becoming the cool thing to do, almost like a fad. It will hurt innocent people and dilute any justified anger towards the actual perpetrators.
I realize I'm bucking the APS trend, but lynch mobs scare me.
I totally agree with this and have all along.
I am highly suspicious of any claim made by Gloria Allred, which is not good because some of those claims (against nobody in particular) are probably true. How to separate the signal from the noise?
-
While I admit that I have reveled in schadenfreude since the election, I do take a step back regarding AJ's quote above. While I can sympathize with "fight fire with fire", I get a little scared when we start talking about things like "10-1 ratios" and acceptable collateral damage.
It begins to sound not much different than what this person said:
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/11/21/teen-vogue-columnist-not-at-all-concerned-about-innocent-men-and-false-harassment-allegations/
As a, "better 99 guilty men go free than one innocent man wrongly accused" kind of guy, that bothers me.
That's why I edited AJ Dual's remarks to include only the street fight analogy and stuff about "their" tactics.
That reflects the reason for our anger over the years, which came to the rolling boil of 2016. I was hoping we wouldn't rest on our laurels in 2018. 2017 was a bit of a warning that we might actually forget "Why Trump" and MAGA and just sit on our back porches plinking at tin cans next November 6th.
WRT to the "10:1" ratio, the numbers will fall the way they fall, bearing in mind that out of 100 high muckey-mucks including journalists nowadays, a majority will probably be leftists. Thus, the sampling will reflect the population.
WRT the innocent versus guilty, I hope the population starts to remember how many times high-profile false accusations have been uncovered.
Accusations are cheap. Defense is expensive.
Terry, 230RN
-
I think I'm looking at it contrary to most of the rest of you. I'm not looking at progressive vs conservative or any political aspect; I'm looking at actual predator vs somebody getting railroaded for a hug, or even totally false allegations. Speaking out is becoming the cool thing to do, almost like a fad. It will hurt innocent people and dilute any justified anger towards the actual perpetrators.
I realize I'm bucking the APS trend, but lynch mobs scare me.
I agree with you completely, Ben. I have become exceedingly conscious about this lately, what with being an educated affluent middle-aged white male professional who works in a female-dominated profession. I can say with certainty that I have never grabbed or assaulted any woman in my life, but I am equally sure that I have said inappropriate, unkind, unthoughtful or even sexually-oriented comments to women.
-
Jeeze, the worst I used to do was tip my hat at ladies and smile. I quit raising an eyebrow at them while doing that as being too suggestive.
-
I've just about stopped inviting them into my windowless van.
-
It does now look like my opinion is wrong. Still no actual data, but it looks to be becoming an "everybody knew" thing, ala Weinstein.
Unfortunately for Mr. Lauer, at least one of the young ladies he sexted seems not to have hit "Delete":
https://pagesix.com/2017/11/29/matt-lauer-accused-of-sexting-nbc-intern-and-staffers/
A source told Page Six, “There’s at least one picture [sent to her by Matt] which was a major part of the evidence, which is why the firing came so quickly … my understanding was it was so damning that it was unquestionable whether or not he should be fired.
“I think everyone was a bit surprised how quickly this all turned around. No one expected his termination to happen that quickly. I believe the silver bullet was the photo and that was so damning that they had no other option but to fire him.
And then there's the coup de grace:
“Plus, the girl had a high-power attorney and so everyone knew if NBC didn’t make a decision and push it out quick, they would have arranged for a sit-down interview with a competitor [and the messages could be made public]. Matt took the news well once he realized he was in a corner. He was very apologetic.”
Maybe he can hang out with Anthony Weiner ...
-
What's the endgame? Do we die as a species because the formerly known as men are afraid to express any sexual interest ever? This is a damn mess. Thinking of Scott Adams and hysteria bubble, we're damn close to stacking rocks on a guy until he confesses.
-
Maybe he can hang out with Anthony Weiner ...
And this line made me spit on my monitor, ya jerk. ;)
-
What's the endgame? Do we die as a species because the formerly known as men are afraid to express any sexual interest ever? This is a damn mess. Thinking of Scott Adams and hysteria bubble, we're damn close to stacking rocks on a guy until he confesses.
More weight!
-
It's all okay, though, because Lauer says he's "truly sorry."
https://pagesix.com/2017/11/30/matt-lauer-breaks-silence-i-am-truly-sorry/
Sure he's sorry -- that he just lost a $25 million/year gig, and is likely unemployable in his chosen profession for the foreseeable future. You bet he's sorry, but not for the hurt he caused to other people.
-
Unfortunately for Mr. Lauer, at least one of the young ladies he sexted seems not to have hit "Delete":
https://pagesix.com/2017/11/29/matt-lauer-accused-of-sexting-nbc-intern-and-staffers/
And then there's the coup de grace:
Maybe he can hang out with Anthony Weiner ...
So what was this horrible picture he apparently sent, and what were the circumstances surrounding it's sending?
-
It's all okay, though, because Lauer says he's "truly sorry."
https://pagesix.com/2017/11/30/matt-lauer-breaks-silence-i-am-truly-sorry/
Sure he's sorry -- that he just lost a $25 million/year gig, and is likely unemployable in his chosen profession for the foreseeable future. You bet he's sorry, but not for the hurt he caused to other people.
Like most criminals I see in court, they are sorry. Sorry they got caught, not necessarily sorry for committing the act that led to them facing the consequences.
A local radio station was having an interesting conversation about this trend this morning. It came down to a discussion of the cases where the victim acknowledges that the acts were consensual, but after the fact indicate that the consent was based on fear of retribution/career damage/etc. This boiled down to a question: is it now unacceptable for a person with authority (real or apparent) to seek or engage in a romantic relationship with someone in the workplace? IMHO, it is foolish to do so in this day and age, because of the way these situations are playing out. As I once heard said, don't fish off of the company pier.
That said, SWMBO and I started dating when we were both employed as prosecutors in the same office, but in different units. I was a supervisor (not her supervisor). So, I guess I would be in deep these days. :laugh:
-
Sure he's sorry -- that he just lost a $25 million/year gig, and is likely unemployable in his chosen profession for the foreseeable future. You bet he's sorry, but not for the hurt he caused to other people.
Like most criminals I see in court, they are sorry. Sorry they got caught, not necessarily sorry for committing the act that led to them facing the consequences.
These remarks illustrate once again the difference between one's behavior being regulated by an internal code of ethics versus being regulated by an external monitoring entity.
A trivial and obvious point, of course...
...yet too many people just don't get it.
Terry, 230RN
-
is it now unacceptable for a person with authority (real or apparent) to seek or engage in a romantic relationship with someone in the workplace?
Yes, but that's not really new. ???
That has been the case everywhere I have worked for the past ~10 years. It is very strongly discouraged regardless of any disparity in authority. Relationships, especially ending ones, tend to create a lot of drama that doesn't belong at work.
-
Don't *expletive deleted*ck where you work.
This is not a new concept in workplaces.
-
A local radio station was having an interesting conversation about this trend this morning. It came down to a discussion of the cases where the victim acknowledges that the acts were consensual, but after the fact indicate that the consent was based on fear of retribution/career damage/etc. This boiled down to a question: is it now unacceptable for a person with authority (real or apparent) to seek or engage in a romantic relationship with someone in the workplace? IMHO, it is foolish to do so in this day and age, because of the way these situations are playing out. As I once heard said, don't fish off of the company pier.
That said, SWMBO and I started dating when we were both employed as prosecutors in the same office, but in different units. I was a supervisor (not her supervisor). So, I guess I would be in deep these days. :laugh:
Many companies have rules prohibiting ANY relationships between employees. Thirty-plus years ago I worked for a company that did not have any such rule. I was a project architect, and I entered into a relationship with a colleague who was also a project architect. We were at the same level, so (one might be tempted to think) there was no problem, since it wasn't against the rules, and I had no authority over her.
Except that about the time the relationship ended the owner unexpectedly restructured the organization, and named me as "Director of Technical Services" -- which put me over all the project architects (and everyone beneath them). In essence, I supervised everyone except the boss's personal assistant, and the marketing department. And this became a problem because my former girlfriend was doing a piss-poor job of keeping a couple of major contracts on time and within budget, and this was discussed during her annual review. As might be expected, her response was "You're just making this up because you don't like me any more."
:facepalm:
-
There are a ton of intra-staff romantic relationships in hospitals, and most healthcare facilities have the prohibition about not directly supervising your romantic interest. The tricky part is when things fall apart and one party gets a no-contact/anti-harassment/domestic violence order against the other. In Washington state, these orders often have a distance provision; i.e.: party A needs to stay at least 200 feet away from party B at all times. This is a head scratcher when both party A and B work on the same unit and you have to figure out who gets transferred, if one party does not volunteer to go.
-
Heh. I found my wife the easy way. I crashed into her car with my police cruiser. Her very first words to me were "You dumb sonofabitch, look what you did to my car." A few months later I saw a young woman in a local pub. She looked familiar as well as attractive. I walked up and smoothly remarked, "Don't I know you from someplace?" She looked me up and down and said, "Yeah. You're the dumb sonofabitch who smashed up my car."
6 months later we got married. 51 years later, we're still married.
-
Heh. I found my wife the easy way. I crashed into her car with my police cruiser. Her very first words to me were "You dumb sonofabitch, look what you did to my car." A few months later I saw a young woman in a local pub. She looked familiar as well as attractive. I walked up and smoothly remarked, "Don't I know you from someplace?" She looked me up and down and said, "Yeah. You're the dumb sonofabitch who smashed up my car."
6 months later we got married. 51 years later, we're still married.
And during arguments she still brings up the smashed car....
-
^^^^ :facepalm: [popcorn] :P :'( :laugh:
-
erections have consequences
-
Heh. I found my wife the easy way. I crashed into her car with my police cruiser. Her very first words to me were "You dumb sonofabitch, look what you did to my car." A few months later I saw a young woman in a local pub. She looked familiar as well as attractive. I walked up and smoothly remarked, "Don't I know you from someplace?" She looked me up and down and said, "Yeah. You're the dumb sonofabitch who smashed up my car."
6 months later we got married. 51 years later, we're still married.
:rofl:
-
Don't *expletive deleted*ck where you work.
This is not a new concept in workplaces.
I always heard it as "Don't dip your pen in the company ink well"
Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk
-
In general good advice but the flip side is here is a group of people somewhat like you that you spend a lot of your life with. Relationships will happen. Jobs change, and it is worth getting a new job if it is the relationship of a lifetime. And there is a wrong and a right way to do it. Okay, many wrong ways. In the Navy dating was discouraged, but they couldn't stop it. Only thing that was hard and fast was fraternization issues due to difference in grade or senior/subordinate. Never really had much trouble, I did have one married couple which isn't supposed to happen. The dumb husband worked for me and the New Jersey italian wife would make her way across the hangar to rip him a new one with regularity. But mostly entertaining. And once people were married and at different commands? Best thing ever for me, way less personal outside of work issues coming out of dual military families, and often your most professional folks, usually because they were competing at home to see who advanced first.
-
These remarks illustrate once again the difference between one's behavior being regulated by an internal code of ethics versus being regulated by an external monitoring entity.
A trivial and obvious point, of course...
...yet too many people just don't get it.
Terry, 230RN
Well, I have had at least one liberal tell me bad personal conduct by a Republican was worse because they claim to have good values and Democrats don't. When you have a chunk of your base who believe the ends justify the means, things can get out of control.
The main thing I would keep in mind with regard to accusations and false accusations is not to jump to conclusions at the first report of scandal. If the accusations are false, the story usually breaks down eventually. If the news only breaks within 30 days or so of the election, it might be best to ignore it altogether and don't let it affect your choice.
I haven't seen any actual stories, but I keep hearing bits and pieces saying the accusations against Moore in Alabama are falling apart. The accuser isn't trustworthy and the evidence they supposedly had is not panning out. One of you may be paying closer attention to this.
-
So, I guess nobody hangs mistletoe at the office Christmas party this year?
-
So, I guess nobody hangs mistletoe at the office Christmas party this year?
Depends on which Christmas party you're going to attend. =D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdt0MqalPZk
-
A local radio station was having an interesting conversation about this trend this morning. It came down to a discussion of the cases where the victim acknowledges that the acts were consensual, but after the fact indicate that the consent was based on fear of retribution/career damage/etc. This boiled down to a question: is it now unacceptable for a person with authority (real or apparent) to seek or engage in a romantic relationship with someone in the workplace? IMHO, it is foolish to do so in this day and age, because of the way these situations are playing out. As I once heard said, don't fish off of the company pier.
The question of this intrigues me, partially because I'm not entirely certain where I stand on it.
Partially because it has many levels. I don't think Matt Lauer was seeking romantic relationships, but just wanted a grab and tickle with woman he could manipulate. So, you have a question of degrees. I think we can all say that using your position to manipulate someone into giving you sexual favors is wrong, but when it comes to real interest in someone but you happen to be their boss, it does get tricky.
My concern is the other side of the argument and the giving of consent. I want to say that if you give consent, regardless of the situation, you can't take it back later, even if you were manipulated into saying yes out of fear of losing job, position, whatever.
Even before this current witchhunt, for the past 20 or so years, someone who used their position to manipulate someone into giving sexual favors was treading into dangerous territory if their potential victim spoke out and I don't see how any sane adult doesn't know this. Furthermore, if your career is so important to you that you would allow yourself to be manipulated into such things... Well, you have made a choice, you consented and you live with that.
I'm not saying that the person who's doing the manipulating is right. He/She is a rat bastard, but unless the victim speaks up *AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE THREAT IS MADE* I don't see how anything can be done.
At the same time, I can see how in situations were ones job is vitally important to a persons welfare that causes them to be trapped into doing something they really don't want to do.
Ultimately, I think it does boil down to the victim. I'm not victim blaming when I say this. I just don't see any other way to stop such things from happening unless the person who is being cornered speaks up and says no, because once they say yes, there just isn't anything to be done from a legally ethical standpoint.
The current trend of polarizing an issue is strong in this one, but the thing is it's not a black and white, one person is right one person is wrong issue. Once consent is given, unless given under real forced threat (in which case this becomes criminal and actual rape) it's done and if you regret it, well, we all make mistakes and we have to live with them.
-
Pamela Anderson agrees with Liz:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/pamela-anderson-harvey-weinstein-victims-blame-controversy-should-have-known-a8086996.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/pamela-anderson-harvey-weinstein-victims-blame-controversy-should-have-known-a8086996.html)
I agree with both Liz and Pam. We don't live in an ideal world where anybody can afford to be in condition white all the time. Sexual assaults happen, and I prefer to let the guy try to explain why he's missing certain body parts.
And grampster has the best love story I've read in years. =)
-
The question of this intrigues me, partially because I'm not entirely certain where I stand on it.
Partially because it has many levels. I don't think Matt Lauer was seeking romantic relationships, but just wanted a grab and tickle with woman he could manipulate. So, you have a question of degrees. I think we can all say that using your position to manipulate someone into giving you sexual favors is wrong, but when it comes to real interest in someone but you happen to be their boss, it does get tricky.
My concern is the other side of the argument and the giving of consent. I want to say that if you give consent, regardless of the situation, you can't take it back later, even if you were manipulated into saying yes out of fear of losing job, position, whatever.
Even before this current witchhunt, for the past 20 or so years, someone who used their position to manipulate someone into giving sexual favors was treading into dangerous territory if their potential victim spoke out and I don't see how any sane adult doesn't know this. Furthermore, if your career is so important to you that you would allow yourself to be manipulated into such things... Well, you have made a choice, you consented and you live with that.
I'm not saying that the person who's doing the manipulating is right. He/She is a rat bastard, but unless the victim speaks up *AT THE TIME IN WHICH THE THREAT IS MADE* I don't see how anything can be done.
At the same time, I can see how in situations were ones job is vitally important to a persons welfare that causes them to be trapped into doing something they really don't want to do.
Ultimately, I think it does boil down to the victim. I'm not victim blaming when I say this. I just don't see any other way to stop such things from happening unless the person who is being cornered speaks up and says no, because once they say yes, there just isn't anything to be done from a legally ethical standpoint.
The current trend of polarizing an issue is strong in this one, but the thing is it's not a black and white, one person is right one person is wrong issue. Once consent is given, unless given under real forced threat (in which case this becomes criminal and actual rape) it's done and if you regret it, well, we all make mistakes and we have to live with them.
I like it. There also needs to be a continuum of harm established for these issues and other sex crimes. Such as, it is a skeezy human that is 40 and has sex with a 14-17 year old. But, entirely different class of scum that goes for the 6 year old. We set that one on fire! So, it is one class of creep to be a boss and ask your employees out, and/or comment on them physically or even minor physical contact that is unwanted. It is a whole different class that does a Weinstein or Lauer where you show up to advance your career and suddenly the door locks behind you or is blocked. That is close to a shooting offense to for whatever reason indicate to me that I am detained. And above that is the Weinstein/Congress/Clinton class where we pay off victims or destroy their lives.
In this current hysteria lives of predators will be ruined. My issue is the penalty shouldn't be the same. If you played grab ass with your subordinate co-workers, or were a 25 year old teacher sleeping with the high schooler, lose your job, serve the penalty, but then get on with life. Our treatment of sex crimes in this country is as perverse as the perverts. Lifetime registry and monitoring? No, if they are a true danger to random little kids, keep them locked up. Otherwise, there has to be balance, because it appears that a whole lot of people are heading for the registry.
-
I like it. There also needs to be a continuum of harm established for these issues and other sex crimes. Such as, it is a skeezy human that is 40 and has sex with a 14-17 year old. But, entirely different class of scum that goes for the 6 year old. We set that one on fire! So, it is one class of creep to be a boss and ask your employees out, and/or comment on them physically or even minor physical contact that is unwanted. It is a whole different class that does a Weinstein or Lauer where you show up to advance your career and suddenly the door locks behind you or is blocked. That is close to a shooting offense to for whatever reason indicate to me that I am detained. And above that is the Weinstein/Congress/Clinton class where we pay off victims or destroy their lives.
In this current hysteria lives of predators will be ruined. My issue is the penalty shouldn't be the same. If you played grab ass with your subordinate co-workers, or were a 25 year old teacher sleeping with the high schooler, lose your job, serve the penalty, but then get on with life. Our treatment of sex crimes in this country is as perverse as the perverts. Lifetime registry and monitoring? No, if they are a true danger to random little kids, keep them locked up. Otherwise, there has to be balance, because it appears that a whole lot of people are heading for the registry.
^^^ Pretty much agree with the above. There's a huge difference between a boss asking a subordinate out to dinner vs. locking the office door and telling her either puts out or she doesn't have a job or a career.
I confess to being of mixed emotions regarding the teacher thing. My high school French teacher was smokin' hawt, and if she had come on to me (as unlikely as that was to happen ... and it didn't), I don't think I would have felt "victimized." In fact, there were several of us in French class who shared similar fantasies regarding Mademoiselle Cuomo.
Which may explain why, today, about the only complete phrase I remember in French is "Voulez vous couchez avec mois ce sois?"
-
My Spanish teacher had the run of the football team. I think they survived, for her part no damage other than being an extreme Facebook Christian which is part for the course. Then of course we could be sexist as hell and say a female teacher preying on a teen boy is different than a male teacher preying on a teen girl. World is not fair. None of the situations are right, but we need to recognize the difference in severity and punish accordingly.
-
*shrug* Too be honest, my bigger issue with this whole fad of sexual assault witchhunting is where are all the female predators? You know they're out there.
Because I do not believe for one solitary second that not *one* high profile female in those circles hasn't pulled a Matt Lauer in her time.
I really dislike the mentality that the issue of sexual assault is one of men vs. woman and I'm getting crankier by the moment that it's becoming more and more so by the minute.
-
*shrug* Too be honest, my bigger issue with this whole fad of sexual assault witchhunting is where are all the female predators? You know they're out there.
Because I do not believe for one solitary second that not *one* high profile female in those circles hasn't pulled a Matt Lauer in her time.
I really dislike the mentality that the issue of sexual assault is one of men vs. woman and I'm getting crankier by the moment that it's becoming more and more so by the minute.
That double standard was all too evident when I did a bit of work with the personal crimes unit. Juries saw a male victim of a female as not a victim, but a guy getting lucky, unless the male was exceptionally young. I remember one case, a 15 year old boy, and a 45 year old teacher at his school. Several members of the jury that acquitted the woman of sex charges made comments about the boy getting lucky, getting life lessons, etc.
-
*shrug* Too be honest, my bigger issue with this whole fad of sexual assault witchhunting is where are all the female predators? You know they're out there.
There seem to be plenty of them among high school faculty.
(and sometimes junior-high faculty ...)
-
Another discussion of the issue, and one that shares the concerns expressed by some on this forum:
https://www.apnews.com/61132b41eb624f4eb0ebba88a3f6dec9/In-wake-of-Weinstein,-men-wonder-if-hugging-women-still-OK
“Have we gotten to the point now where men can’t say, ‘That’s a nice dress’ or ’Did you do something with your hair?’” says the veteran sales associate for a Los Angeles company. “The potential problem is you can’t even feel safe saying, ‘Good morning’ anymore.”
I reached the point of being afraid to comment on a nice dress several years ago. The way too many women act/react today, if you say "You like really nice today," the response is likely to be, "Oh! and I DIDN'T look nice yesterday?!?!" Either that, or "What's it to you?" I've never understood women who spend a lot of time and money dressing up and trying to look good, and then [claiming they] resent any male noticing.
“What I see in terms of my male friends now is an, ‘Oh, my gosh, I hope I didn’t.’ There’s a sense of shame,” says independent filmmaker Laura Lee Bahr.
She says she has been reassuring male friends that giving her a friendly hug when they greet her isn’t harassment. It’s the flat-out propositions and the unwanted grabbing of body parts that need to stop, she says.
Well, that is what needs to stop but, as usual, once something gets rolling it turns into an uncontrollable juggernaut and God help you if you happen to be in its path when it goes roaring through.
It’s those cases that have everyday guys sweating as they wonder whether they might have leaned in a little too close for that hug. Or if they should have kept that oral sex joke to themselves, or just between them and their male friends.
:old: Really? Somebody has to ask if it might be inappropriate to make jokes about oral sex in mixed company? I thought I was 73 years old. Maybe I lost count somewhere and I'm really 173 ...
My late wife was from South America. One of the great things about her country is that the everyday mode of greeting women -- even when being introduced in a social context -- is to kiss them (on the cheek). In fact, a friend of ours here in the U.S. who is also from her country was recently hospitalized for a stroke and a heart attack. He's in a rehab facility, and I went to visit him yesterday. There were two women already with him, also from his native country. It was simply expected that I would kiss them on the cheek when we were introduced, and again when they left. Little girls grow up to automatically present a cheek for a kiss when being introduced. It's innocuous, and very nice ... and it would never go over in 21st century United States.
-
One of the benefits of my shift is that I don't work around any women, Or other men for that matter. =D
There is on woman on the crew that on rare occasions I have some direct interaction with but I've taken to running the voice recorder on my phone the entire time.
She has a bit of history of making false accusations against male co-workers.
-
She says she has been reassuring male friends that giving her a friendly hug when they greet her isn’t harassment.
That's exactly the kind of thing I was referring to in my worry on where this is all going, and from personal experience.
I worked where there were a lot of huggers. In the office, if I was out on a field assignment or something for more than a week, there was a line of huggers when I got back. Women from other offices around the country would always initiate hugs (with men and women) whenever they came into town.
I never thought anything of it until one time I was driving with some of the women and they were complaining about how "creepy" it was when one of the guys in the office would hug them whenever he showed up (he worked remotely and only came in every couple of weeks). Yet I had absolutely seen them initiate hugs with him. It's when he initiated the hugs that it apparently became "creepy" to them.
After that, I went out of my way to avoid hugs, because just because they liked hugging Ben one day, didn't mean they wouldn't turn around and not like it another. I went to either a handshake or just stepping back with a head nod and a "hey, how's it going?" I'd heard talk my last couple of years about how I had gotten "cold", but I didn't care. If I were still working today, I would initiate a "ten foot pole" policy.
Even after all this hysteria dies down over time, you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Many guys now know that an innocent hug today can easily be blown into sexual harassment tomorrow, or a year from now, when they get a raise or promotion or something that pisses a female coworker off.
Maybe nine out of ten women in the workplace would never do that, but after all this, who is going to take a chance on their life being ruined over the one who will? And again, it completely takes away from dealing with real harassment on the job.
-
I think I am extraordinarily lucky that I didn't grow up in a touchy-feely-huggy sort of family. Grandma got a kiss on the cheek, Grandpa got a handshake, and everyone else got a nod and a "Hello, ___"
-
We've been ripping on my dad, named him Mike Pence because he has a decades long policy of arms length for any woman not his wife or daughter. Of course he is also the guy who figures if a woman can't dress herself she must be inviting comment, so he does. Hilarity ensues.
-
'Twuz quite a while ago I discovered the mental "preloading" some women had about "harassment."
Cute little lady, middleaged, married, at the office. She came in one day dressed in an elegant long skirt down to her ankles, moderate heels.
I spotted her standing and talking to someone, in bare feet. I thought it was amusing, as elegantly dressed as she was, but running around the office barefoot, so I took a picture of her that way.
Well, she blew up over it, accusing me of being some kind of pervert, and suggesting that I might put the pictures of her feet all over the internet, blah blah. She really kind of went off her rocker about it.
Well, it all settled down and I deleted the pix, and she apologized after one of the ladies there said she thought she was over-reacting.
But jeeze, talk about "triggering."
So I'm pretty circumspect around ladies anymore. Like I said, I'll tip my hat at them and smile, but I ain't raising my eyebrow any more.
In fact, I'm thinking of layin' off the hat-tipping nowadays altogether.
Sort of like keeping your finger off the trigger.
And every gun is always loaded.
-
'Twuz quite a while ago I discovered the mental "preloading" some women had about "harassment."
Cute little lady, middleaged, married, at the office. She came in one day dressed in an elegant long skirt down to her ankles, moderate heels.
I spotted her standing and talking to someone, in bare feet. I thought it was amusing, as elegantly dressed as she was, but running around the office barefoot, so I took a picture of her that way.
Well, she blew up over it, accusing me of being some kind of pervert, and suggesting that I might put the pictures of her feet all over the internet, blah blah. She really kind of went off her rocker about it.
Well, it all settled down and I deleted the pix, and she apologized after one of the ladies there said she thought she was over-reacting.
But jeeze, talk about "triggering."
So I'm pretty circumspect around ladies anymore. Like I said, I'll tip my hat at them and smile, but I ain't raising my eyebrow any more.
In fact, I'm thinking of layin' off the hat-tipping nowadays altogether.
Sort of like keeping your finger off the trigger.
And every gun is always loaded.
Too be honest, I would find that one a little odd myself. Not worth blowing up over, but politely request that you delete the picture odd.
-
My New policy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uGnENk7GUI
-
Too be honest, I would find that one a little odd myself. Not worth blowing up over, but politely request that you delete the picture odd.
Much later I figured the way she focused on her feet she must have been preloaded with that concept. At the time I wasn't even aware there was such a thing as a foot fetish, let alone that it was on the net. Then again, it might have just been one of those 13 deadly days. No'ffense, but...
-
*shrug* Too be honest, my bigger issue with this whole fad of sexual assault witchhunting is where are all the female predators? You know they're out there.
Because I do not believe for one solitary second that not *one* high profile female in those circles hasn't pulled a Matt Lauer in her time.
I really dislike the mentality that the issue of sexual assault is one of men vs. woman and I'm getting crankier by the moment that it's becoming more and more so by the minute.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587142/Policeman-awarded-567-000-sexual-harassment-suit.html
Here is one I remember from a few years ago that made the local news. They do come up occasionally, but I would agree not as often. I would think as a matter of averages, you would see more men doing such things than women, but that may be just a cultural thing.
-
Aaaaaand... lets bring the NRA into it. ;/
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2017/12/05/trying-way-too-hard-professional-comedienne-likens-nra-members-to-sexual-predators/
-
Aaaaaand... lets bring the NRA into it. ;/
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2017/12/05/trying-way-too-hard-professional-comedienne-likens-nra-members-to-sexual-predators/
Well, gun=penis and you must have a penis to be a sexual predator.
-
They got that all wrong! The gun is good, the penis is evil!
-
They got that all wrong! The gun is good, the penis is evil!
And the photo appears in
3
2
1
-
They got that all wrong! The gun is good, the penis is evil!
Ask a soldier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U
-
And the photo appears in
3
2
1
Please. No dick picks...
-
They got that all wrong! The gun is good, the penis is evil!
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O_kP5p9p8Zo/hqdefault.jpg)
-
Please.
No banana hammock pics, either.
-
Please. No dick picks...
Too late.
(https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/photo-gallery-images/37-whpo-4973-10-a.jpg)