Harvey Weinstein megaproducer and executive ousted over sexual harassment

[skatfan]

Gah, the crazy Pence rule. I want to scream! There are plenty of solutions to prevent opportunities arising. Like these:

1. No offices with out clear windows to the hall/outer office. Stay visible.
2. No couches, only chairs in the offices. Remove them if you need to!
3. If you are meeting with someone of the opposite sex, later in the day, try to do it in a more public place, not alone in the building, or keep doors open. Set a professional tone.

I'm a pastor, so I am already talking with folks around intimate issues and concerns. It's my job to keep the space safe.

 

[snoopy]

Garrison said he touched a woman's back. If that is grounds for firing and other life destroying, y'all are crazy.

 

[BlueRidge]

Garrison said he touched a woman's back. If that is grounds for firing and other life destroying, y'all are crazy.

Tell it to Minnesota Public Radio.

 

[VGThuy]

I hope that MPR has more information about the situation, including but not limited to her side of the story, than we do and didn't make its decision lightly.

 

[Japanfan]

I can't stand Pence, but isn't what you are stating above just taking his "no dinners alone with females" to the next degree of paranoia?

You are assuming that tons of women are basically making shit up about innocent encounters. Even though there is ample evidence that this is not the case in pretty much of all these situations. Most of the men have admitted they did these things. Even Garrison Keillor said the encounter happened. All he disputed was his motives not that he touched someone inappropriately.

I thought Peter G. was being facetious. But maybe I got it wrong.

 

[MacMadame]

Garrison said he touched a woman's back. If that is grounds for firing and other life destroying, y'all are crazy.

No, he said he aimed for her back but missed and slide somewhere inappropriate. That he apologized at the time and later in writing.

But that's what he says. We haven't heard from the woman.

 

[snoopy]

He didn't use the word inappropriate. He said he touched her back but seemingly on her skin. Even so, it was one incident and an accident. This is not sexual harassment - which is a concept that has legal meaning. It requires quid pro quo or creating a hostile environment (usually meaning multiple instances).

Targeting him for this is crazy and if this is the road we are now going down, we are simply witch hunting.

 

[PeterG]

I can't stand Pence, but isn't what you are stating above just taking his "no dinners alone with females" to the next degree of paranoia?

Let me think about it. I do a weekly paranoia check and let's see where this one ends up on my list this week. Often there isn't enough time to cover all of them.

I thought Peter G. was being facetious. But maybe I got it wrong.

After being compared to Mike Pence and realizing how stupid my post was, can I go with this and say that all along my post was just me at my most facetiousnessy?

 

[once_upon]

I was not surprised by the Matt Lauer thing, if you read all the headlines on those gossip papers while standing in lines at the grocery store, they've been running stuff like this for at least 3 years. I heard on the Rachael Maddow show that Sochi is where some of the abuse was described.
Ann Curry left the show with claims of harassment (not claimed sexual), mean and mistreatment by Matt.
I hope people are heard..

 

[cocotaffy]

This two pieces are interesting in the light of the Matt Lauer case:
first Colbert report this interview back in 2012 of Katie Couric talking about Matt's bad habits and this guy who called it back in 2013, quite interesting.

 

[Jenny]

I'm surprised we are this far along in this thread before someone brought up the "Mike Pence/Billy Graham Rule" - I have heard discussions elsewhere about the need for people to create boundaries in their professional lives.

Gah, the crazy Pence rule. I want to scream! There are plenty of solutions to prevent opportunities arising. Like these:

1. No offices with out clear windows to the hall/outer office. Stay visible.
2. No couches, only chairs in the offices. Remove them if you need to!
3. If you are meeting with someone of the opposite sex, later in the day, try to do it in a more public place, not alone in the building, or keep doors open. Set a professional tone.

No, no, and no!

Putting rules like these in place is like putting bandaids on someone with a broken limb. The rule is simple: be a decent and professional person.

The more physical and theoretical walls are placed between men and women in the workplace, the more doors are physically and theoretically shut for women to succeed. Women will not be invited to meetings, not be asked to work on important projects, and not given opportunities if everything is measured in terms of making sure they are never alone with a male colleague without witnesses.

Over the decades of my working life I can't even begin to count the number of times I have been in closed door meetings with male colleagues, had meals together to discuss business or simply relax after a long day, travelled and even met in one another's hotel rooms to prepare presentations on the road, stayed late while no one else was in the office to make a deadline, met privately with male colleagues for performance reviews (mine and theirs), and shocker, sat next to male colleagues on couches in their offices and mine.

Not all men are assholes - most of them in fact are good people who conduct themselves accordingly, without the need for "rules" to keep them in line.

 

[skatesindreams]

Jenny,
Entire post:

 

[LilJen]

If I was a famous person, I think I'd have a "one table policy" for whenever I am in the public. I would want one table between me and anyone I came across. You can take a photo with me, but there would be no touching. And I will be on this side of the table and you will remain on that side of the table. Plus I think I might make sure I had a personal assistant with me whenever I was outside of my home and their main responsibility would be to film me at all times and to repeatedly state that anyone who gets within two meters of me must back away immediately. And they must repeat that phrase until no one is within two meters of me.

No, no, and no!

Putting rules like these in place is like putting bandaids on someone with a broken limb. The rule is simple: be a decent and professional person.

The more physical and theoretical walls are placed between men and women in the workplace, the more doors are physically and theoretically shut for women to succeed. Women will not be invited to meetings, not be asked to work on important projects, and not given opportunities if everything is measured in terms of making sure they are never alone with a male colleague without witnesses.

Over the decades of my working life I can't even begin to count the number of times I have been in closed door meetings with male colleagues, had meals together to discuss business or simply relax after a long day, travelled and even met in one another's hotel rooms to prepare presentations on the road, stayed late while no one else was in the office to make a deadline, met privately with male colleagues for performance reviews (mine and theirs), and shocker, sat next to male colleagues on couches in their offices and mine.

Not all men are assholes - most of them in fact are good people who conduct themselves accordingly, without the need for "rules" to keep them in line.

I would agree EXCEPT. . . some people DO make false allegations. (More often than not, though, they are true, unfortunately.) Like Jenny, I've had meetings and dinners with male coworkers and no problems whatsoever. But I have been fortunate to work with DECENT PEOPLE. Not all people are decent; there are a few people out there who do not keep to rules of common decency.

*If* you take just a few measures as skatfan suggests, at least nobody can accuse you of something that you didn't do. I think this is where the Pence/Graham rule comes in--yes, it reeks of misogyny and can hold women back from career advancement (and probably does), and it perpetuates the "women are temptresses/men just can't resist" lie, BUT at least nobody can make an accusation that would ever stand up.

 

[skatesindreams]

I agree substantially more with this point of view - this NY Times Op-Ed is from a woman who works as an editor-at-large at Christianity Today: A Christian Case Against the Pence Rule.

This speaks for me:

The Pence rule arises from a broken view of the sexes: Men are lustful beasts that must be contained, while women are objects of desire that must be hidden away. Offering the Pence rule as a solution to male predation is like saying, “I can’t meet with you one on one, otherwise I might eventually assault you.” If that’s the case, we have far deeper problems around men and power than any personal conduct rule can solve.

Most female Christian leaders I know find the Pence rule frustrating. (All the people I know who keep the rule are men.) Imagine a male boss keeps some variation of the rule but is happy to meet with a male peer over lunch or travel with him for business. The informal and strategic conversations they can have is the stuff of workplace advancement. Unless there are women in senior leadership positions — and in many Christian organizations, there are not — women will never benefit from the kind of advancement available to men.

The answer is not to ask women to leave the room. It’s to hold all men in the room accountable, and kick out those who long ago lost their right to be there.

 

[jeffisjeff]

He didn't use the word inappropriate. He said he touched her back but seemingly on her skin. Even so, it was one incident and an accident. This is not sexual harassment - which is a concept that has legal meaning. It requires quid pro quo or creating a hostile environment (usually meaning multiple instances).

His own explanation, according the the Washington Post story, is "I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled."

I don't understand the explanation. He was patting her on the back, so where was her shirt open? At the back? And the hand sliding up 6 inches by accident seems a bit unbelievable.

Also, he is quoted in the Washington Post story as once saying "A world in which there is no sexual harassment at all, is a world in which there will not be any flirtation." To me this statement indicates that he is someone who does not fully understand what sexual harassment is and, perhaps, that he is someone who would tend to downplay accusations of harassment (I was just flirting!). So I'm not sure I'd trust him to judge whether his own conduct could be viewed as harassment or inappropriate or just an innocent accident.

That said, I would assume that, based on their actions, MPR has some evidence to justify severing ties with him. According to the Washington Post story, MPR "declined to give additional details on the accusation in question" and they have hired a firm to investigate. Declining to offer details is entirely appropriate in situations like this. Even if the alleged harasser is a public figure, the victim deserves privacy and I see no need to reveal the alleged sordid details of these kinds of incidents (even though some in the media apparently love to do so).

I am not sure why some people are assuming that MPR has no evidence or that the incident occurred exactly as described by Keillor. If that happens to be the case, then I will happily agree that what MPR is doing is very wrong. But how can we tell that that is the case? Why do some presume that that is the case? Just because they refuse to reveal details?

 

[snoopy]

I am not sure why some people are assuming that MPR has no evidence or that the incident occurred exactly as described by Keillor. If that happens to be the case, then I will happily agree that what MPR is doing is very wrong. But how can we tell that that is the case? Why do some presume that that is the case? Just because they refuse to reveal details?

I was responding to a poster who said Keillor admitted it so he wasn't being mis-treated. If there are more details, fine, but the comment only referred to what he admitted....which isn't enough to punish him.

*******
I had a boss that loosely followed the Pence rule and stagnated. Then I transferred to another boss and got two awesome promotions within 3 three years of working with that boss. Now I am back under the Pence boss. Which sucks for both the Pence rule and the fact he is generally not that competent. But at least I made a name for myself and am not as limited as I would be if I hadn't gotten out from under Mr. Pence. Socializing and relationships are a BIG part of work and if women are restricted from it, it will definitely impact advancement and money.

I do understand men's concern of being falsely accused, so I think it is our collective responsibility to not believe every rumor we hear and to not act like babies if someone makes an honest mistake.

 

[LeafOnTheWind]

I was wondering the other day why the film industry (and the television industry to a lesser extent) has so many claims of harassment (as well as some in the political field), but why no (or little) information from the music industry and sports field?

Maybe it's starting.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/new...sault-allegation/ar-BBFYfQO?OCID=ansmsnnews11

 

[VALuvsMKwan]

Maybe it's starting.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/music/new...sault-allegation/ar-BBFYfQO?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Just for the record, Jenny Lumet's mother is the daughter of Lena Horne, the singer/actress who was among the first people of color to be featured in Hollywood films, though mostly in featured specialty sequences which could be removed in theaters, mostly Southern, which did not want African-Americans to be shown as equals with Caucasians in films.

 

[Artistic Skaters]

Apparently Alaska Airlines permitted "extra perks" for a man in first class because he is a frequent flier.

*** Ex-Facebook exec says she was sexually harassed on Alaska Airlines flight — and attendants did nothing :
https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...-sexually-harassed-on-alaska-airlines-flight/

Randi Zuckerberg, a Silicon Valley executive, described Wednesday how, on an Alaska flight that day, a male passenger constantly made sexually-explicit and lewd comments to her and others in the first-class section while being served multiple alcoholic drinks — and that flight attendants had dismissed her complaints.

She said the crew responded to her complaints by saying that the man was a frequent flyer and brushed off his behavior as “oh, he just doesn’t have a filter.” During the three-hour flight, the man was given multiple alcoholic drinks, she said, and continued to harass her the entire time.

His comment on all the sexual-harassment news in the media was that “these millennial women” just aren’t willing any longer to trade sex for a job.

 

[Japanfan]

Apparently Alaska Airlines permitted "extra perks" for a man in first class because he is a frequent flier.

This brings some bad memories. I took an airport shuttle in Saskatoon once with a bunch of unpleasant men who had clearly been on a fishing/drinking vacation. When they got in they shuttle, where I was the solo woman, they started making jokes about whether the 'little lady' was going to serve them coffee and breakfast. The driver, a young man, said nothing, and you bet he got an earful from me and a threat to call the company after the assholes had got off the shuttle.

Then, on the plane, one of the Westjet flight attendants started telling jokes that were clearly offensive to women. I went up to her and asked why she would do that, and she pointed to all the men sitting in the rows of first class at the front of the plane. It was very disheartening, but I'm glad to saying that I've not had that same experience on Westjet again.

 

[Choupette]

I had started thinking I should perhaps create an "apology generator", consisting of an online form where you would pick a sentence out of multiple choices for each of these: 1) the introduction in which you claimed to be deeply sorry; 2) acknowledgement that the behavior was hurtful (as in "... if I happened to perhaps hurt a couple of sensitive people who did not understand me"); 3) mentioning that not all allegations were entirely true; 4) explaining that it wasn't all your fault ("I thought I was funny, but times have changed"), then ending with a variation of that "now time to work on myself" thing.

It turned out that others had already had the same idea, and did it much better anyway: https://apologygenerator.com/

I'm finding these people's actions completely repulsive, but really, I find it feels good to get a laugh out of their hypocrisy and lack of sincerity. Their reactions are almost all so predictable.

 

[Nmsis]

There is this french tv show that is called "Dix pour cent" (10%), aka "Call my agent" on Netflix.
It's a dramedy, very smart and funny about an agents' office in the cinema industry.

During season 2, the sixth episode (broadcasted in May 2017) revolves around Juliette Binoche who (in one of the subplots) is being cornered by a super-rich media mogul to "have a lunch on his yacht" at the festival de Cannes "to eventually discuss the financing of the movie she wants to direct". He uses this pretext, his acquaintance with the producer of the opening ceremony (as Binoche never answered his multiple phone messages) and his perfect and suspicious knowledge of her schedule to make sure she can't say no. Binoche and her agent try a lot of ways to turn him away and nothing works.

The agent tries to get the producer of the ceremony (who is a 60 yo woman well aware of the ways of the industry, honeyed, smart, but business-minded and pragmatist) to tell "nicely" to the obnoxious mogul that Binoche won't go, that this is not the 19th century and that actresses are not courtisanes.

And this is what the producer answers as a friendly warning :

"But of course, we still are in the 19th century, Andrea.
You are quite naive. You're defending your actress' interests. OK. But only for tomorrow.
What about the next day ? The next 10 years ?
...
You don't want to humiliate that kind of man, Andrea. You don't want to test his capacity to be harmful.
You give him a little and make him think that's a lot in order to avoid losing everything."

Of course, the rest of the subplot is how Binoche and her agent are going to turn the tables.
But I think the scene is brilliant and the subplot kind of prescient of what is happening right now.
The last two sentences sum up the dynamic that has been playing for long in the cinema industry.
The serie is produced and inspired by the memories of a real ex-agent of many french movie stars and has a great knowledge of the business.

 

[puglover]

One time I was flying to Vancouver - more years ago then I would like to remember - and a drunk guy sat beside me and initiated a conversation. As the flight progressed he got more drunk and more insistent on talking with me. I just stopped listening and busied myself in my book. When I stood up to reach my bag in the overhead bin he appeared right beside me and as I reached up he placed both of his hands on my breasts. I was stunned and sick. My friend was there to pick me up and even though I had looked so forward to seeing her, I wasn't myself for days. I can only imagine what it would be like if this was a person of influence over me. I admire these women who have come forward so much and I hope men so inclined will remember how their brothers-in-crime have crashed and burned and if the only deterrent is that they could be punished - so be it.

 

[MacMadame]

The rule is simple: be a decent and professional person.

Also, don't show them your penis:

https://medium.com/@chrisrosenthall...ur-newfound-wealth-and-influence-132708f771b9

 

[becca]

One thing is men can be harassed to. A friend of mine was telling me a story of how he was harrassed by a female coworker and when he reported it to their female supervisor she laughed at him. Finally she was talked but not written up. So we need to remember this.

I frankly do think developing boundaries is a good thing but that's for men and women. And heck not everyone likes the opposite sex.

I think refusing to met alone in a public place is stupid.

 

[MacMadame]

@becca's comment had me flashing to Pence taking a dinner meeting with some guy and then later having that guy accuse him of misconduct. Or the two of them getting so turned on by creating legislation to screw over the little guy that they retire to a hotel room for hot & heavy action.

 

[becca]

@becca's comment had me flashing to Pence taking a dinner meeting with some guy and then later having that guy accuse him of misconduct. Or the two of them getting so turned on by creating legislation to screw over the little guy that they retire to a hotel room for hot & heavy action.

You don't know. I personally think boundaries are appropriate for example two married to other people who may be attracted to each other meeting in a hotel room. There is a reason why adultery is so prevalent. Many people don't set out planning adultery.

So I don't think Pence saying there should be some boundaries is wrong. But he goes to far. We live in a secular world. Men and women interact and we need to learn to do so professionally.

We are not animals but our society is so super sex crazed is what you get.

 

[VGThuy]

I think if one can’t control oneself without boundaries then one wasn’t considering the seriousness of the commitment that one makes when deciding to get married. If someone has the propensity to cheat then they’ll do it no matter how you chain and bind them literally and figuratively.

 

[skatesindreams]

You are falling prey to the specious argument that men (and women) are too weak to control their "urges"; and are unable to respond appropriately when "tempted".
That is just an excuse to "limit" professional opportunities for women; and return them to their "place", dictated by a society which wants to destroy social progress made in the last 100 years.

 

[becca]

I think if one can’t control oneself without boundaries then one wasn’t considering the seriousness of the commitment that one makes when deciding to get married. If someone has the propensity to cheat then they’ll do it no matter how you chain and bind them.

I disagree. Yes people can still say no when they are tempted but a lot of affairs happen because people crossed lines a lot earlier. For example relaying on the married guy friend and telling him all your problems eventually emotional affairs start etc. So for me I start the boundaries a lot sooner.

For example If I am close friends with a married couple I will always text the wife about meeting. If I run into one at work sure will have lunch. But I actually do try to mindful so the emotional affair does not even start. So I try to make sure the friendship is always with the couple. As much as possible.

I firmly believe men and women can be friends but I do think it is wise to have boundaries.

And yes I believe urges can be controlled but people are weak too. And a lot of times physical affairs happen because emotional boundaries were crossed way sooner.

So I do have different rules for guy friends than female friends I just do.

And yes urges can be controlled I am pretty good at doing so but it is wise to be careful about situations you are in.