Between the Shadows
- Apr 18, 2010
- MBTI Type
- Instinctual Variant
It's not so much that their contributions are unique or irreplaceable, more that they can in fact contribute. If an apple has a bad spot, we can easily throw away the whole thing and take another, but some people consider that wasteful, preferring to cut out the bad spot and salvage the rest. Is there anything salvageable about people who really are guilty of sexual harassment?I don't know. I think you would have to be more specific: I can't conceive that offending "performers, politicians and CEOs" have talents that are so unique that someone else that cannot do what they do or do it better. Performers especially seem to me to be perfectly interchangeable; politicians' policies or causes are usuallty bigger than a single person; and CEOs are, in my opinion, quite overrated with regard to the performance of their companies and overpaid anyway.
The highlighted most directly answers my question. I understand it to mean that you consider people who truly are guilty of sexual harassment, to include demanding sexual favors as a condition for hiring, retention, or promotion, to be irredemable. Are they capable of making any positive contribution to society after dismissal from the environment in which they imposed themselves?Concerning those who took advantage of their position in order to exploit women's weakness and demand sexual favors before giving them a promotion or other benefits, the guilt and responsibility is divided between them both. The man for abusing his position and using it for frivolous ends, and the woman for going with it as if she didn't have any other choice.
There should be a committee that takes care of these cases. If the woman said "No" and had proof that she was harassed, she'd have the upper hand. In this case she can either:
-Forgive him and let him know that she would file for harassment if he repeats the behavior again. Chances are, he might repeat this behavior with another woman. Mercy is nice but some people do not appreciate it. This one is completely up to her.
-Or, file for harassment with proof and give him a warning for abusing power without revoking his privileges. Should this behavior happen again he will be digging his own grave and he should either resign by himself or have his position automatically taken away. His professional credibility will be at stake since he's now labeled a sexual perpetrator and people will assume that he's likely to repeat that behavior in a different environment.
The question is, how can you utilize the latent abilities of a highly competent individual in the workplace knowing that they have the potential to harm your work environment?
They will be offered the benefit of the doubt and should get some professional help. Since raw discipline is not meant for everyone, adequate and honest professionals should take care of such cases in order to vouch for the patient's psychological sanity after a rehab program.
Whom it may concern can now hire the individual, a hopefully functional one. If his case seems helpless, he is to be discharged immediately.
If they're going to compromise the sane atmosphere of the work environment, their competence matters not.
If the woman said yes and went on with it expecting something to gain, she will be punished as severely as the man for contributing in scandalous acts, bringing drama, and wasting our time. Say "No" next time.
If these women knew they had nothing to gain, they wouldn't have attempted these dramatic stunts. If they knew that they would be blamed and had to take responsibility for saying yes, they wouldn't have mentioned it.
As for the rest of your comments, ideally the women faced with such a choice should say no and move on to greener (fairer) pastures. In practice, especially among the ordinary workforce rather than the wealthy and famous, many cannot afford to because they need the job. Even in the higher profile situations, proving that a manager or supervisor made career progress conditional on sex can be near impossible to do. The manager can usually readily find other factors to justify a decision not in the woman's favor. Especially for junior positions sought by young people starting out, a woman who refuses "to play ball" can easily be replaced by one who will, or by a man. Some women have the fortitude to keep trying, and keep turning down these kinds of arrangements, the kind of fortitude not generally required of (at least straight, white, Christian) men. Many don't, and both they and their potential employers lose out as a result.
My question does touch on the broader issue of rehabilitation, in this case whether someone guilty of sexual harassment or coercion, whether convicted in court or not, can be rehabilitated in such a way that they can continue or resume contributing to society, either in their original position or some other that takes advantage of their skills and experience.I know this was directed elsewhere, but I see the issue is the role of the public and social media on 'justice'. If all of these accusations were being submitted to the justice system and those found credible enough by experts in law can be taken to court. If the person is found guilty and placed in prison, then their career is over or hugely interrupted, but it is the result of due process.
I was thinking less of "cancelling" past contributions that are now part of the historical record, or the "literature" in a given field, and more of the possible future contributions of current perpetrators. Also, what do you think of sexual imposition that falls short of breaking the law? How great an impact on the perpetrator's career should that have, assuming it can be proven, especially if they refuse to curb the behavior when confronted about it?These accusations would mostly not be in any headlines whatsoever if submitted to due process. They would never even make it into court.
In cases where sexual harassment and assault are actually happening, then yes, I think it's reasonable for the media to announce that a public figure is on trial. If they are convicted, report it. What is happening now is people are chiming in with anecdotes that are supposed to prove scandal, but are often not even against the law. Then a person's career is ruined and they might have not done anything illegal at all.
As far as cancelling, I am very resistant to that idea. Even studying music history there are several who contributed to the evolution of musical style who did commit murder. The Renaissance composer Carlos Gesualdo murdered his wife and her lover. Studying his scores helps to understand the range of thinking and expression going on at that point in history. Contributors help us understand the bigger picture of a culture and people. If you remove some contributors because of their crimes, then an understanding of the culture is limited.
Canceling is certainly a right on a personal level, so an individual can choose to vote for someone else, but this large scale destroying of careers over accusations is wrong.
I agree. So many of the high profile cases that have come out (e.g. FOX news, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby) were like cans of worms that stayed tightly sealed until one or two courageous women put their careers on the line to speak out. Do you agree with [MENTION=34448]Sacrophagus[/MENTION] that these women were complicit in the situations?What happened and what can be legally proven to have happened are not always the same -- especially in cases like these where there are active efforts to cover up what happened or victims are intimidated into silence, and can only safely make an accusation when the powerful perpetrator is weakened for some reason (often, other accusations). I wouldn't go so far as to say that we should lower the standard of proof for rape and sexual assault cases -- in contexts that can result in prison time, at least -- but there has to be SOMETHING to hold perpetrators accountable, and social sanctions, public shaming, ostracism is the best we have right now.
Didn't your Mother ever tell you: bad behavior on someone else's part doesn't excuse bad behavior of your own.Yes, the law should be changed to to bring sexual assault to justice, and in the meantime we protest.
At the same time we have the untrammelled right to wear what we like, to get as drunk as we like, and to be as sexy as we like. And always remembering to be sexy but not sexual.
Being sexy but not sexual can be confusing to another drunk, so we should have a campaign to assert our right to be sexy but not sexual.
Indeed, we should amend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to include the Right to be Sexy but not Sexual.
Wow. As a manager I would refuse to hire a man who insisted on such protocols. It is unworkable always to have to bring along a buddy for a simple business meeting. Throughout my career I have routinely had lunch or dinner meetings alone with a male colleague, plus meetings at work sites separate from meals. I have never had any problem, nor have they. Bringing along a third wheel would in many cases have been impossible, preventing a very necessary and productive meeting from taking place. Anyone who cannot act professionally with the opposite/other sex has no business working outside the home.Unfortunately I have to agree that the Pence/Billy Graham rule is not a bad idea for some men to follow. Iâ€™ve adhered to it myself, refusing to go out to eat alone with female clients for business lunches, or alone with female coworkers for after work drinks. Itâ€™s not that I think men and women cannot be alone together in professional settings, itâ€™s just a matter of self preservation
I agree with this. Many of these accusations involve behavior that, while not very professional and occasionally even juvenile, does not rise to the level of true harassment. It should be handled like any other annoying workplace behavior, by politely expressing concern and asking for it to stop.As someone who was groomed by an actual predator, I find some of the things they call sexual assault to be downright demeaning to what really happens to other people. It is awful to use it as a weapon and invalidates people who really have suffered at the hands of someone. Then we get someone like Amber Heard who was so obviously lying now and people still want her to be some ambassador. Metoo is a prop for vengeful exes to fuck over someone for looking at them wrong. It disgusts me what it became.
I might be a little mad too.
Just to help calibrate the notion of sexual harassment, I will relate an anecdote shared at my workplace, as part of sexual harassment sensitivity training. This happened to the instructor earlier in her career.