NBC Fires Matt Lauer.

[AxelAnnie]

AA, you may believe that you are "stronger/above all this".
However, if you found yourself in the identical time, place, and circumstances as the victims of these abuses; how can you know how you would have reacted, or what you would have done?

The "remedies"which exist now, were not always available.

WOW. Now that is a leap. Similar circumstances? Goodness. I would have found work elsewhere were I a regular person
We're I Angelina Julie, Jane Fonda (Weinstein) or Katie Couric, Meridith Viera with a world platform (fame) and money (tons) I would have used those thing to expose these men and put on enough pressure to get them out of their powerful positions so they could not hurt women felt they had to put up with shit or lose their jobs

 

[skatesindreams]

I stand by my comment.
Would you be prepared to be arrested for assault if/when you "resist"?

 

[rfisher]

WOW. Now that is a leap. Similar circumstances? Goodness. I would have found work elsewhere were I a regular person
We're I Angelina Julie, Jane Fonda (Weinstein) or Katie Couric, Meridith Viera with a world platform (fame) and money (tons) I would have used those thing to expose these men and put on enough pressure to get them out of their powerful positions so they could not hurt women felt they had to put up with shit or lose their jobs

Um, it's my understanding women did report the issues to network management who chose not to act on it. Which places network executives in a precarious legal situation even after they fired Lauer. I'm sure they're scrambling to CYOA at the moment.

 

[attyfan]

Also, clout and/or money does not necessarily equate to the power to do anything. For example, Lauer had the clout to get rid of Curry; it is highly doubtful that any of the women you cited could get Lauer out at an earlier date.

 

[snoopy]

WOW. Now that is a leap. Similar circumstances? Goodness. I would have found work elsewhere were I a regular person
We're I Angelina Julie, Jane Fonda (Weinstein) or Katie Couric, Meridith Viera with a world platform (fame) and money (tons) I would have used those thing to expose these men and put on enough pressure to get them out of their powerful positions so they could not hurt women felt they had to put up with shit or lose their jobs

You are full of beans, Ms. I dropped Megyn Kelly like a box of rocks when she dared to challenge Donald Trump.

 

[MacMadame]

There have been case after case where a woman complained about Weinstein and then ended up losing their career in Hollywood and dropped out of sight. But, sure, all these women should have risked the same happening to them to complain about something that too many people considered "boys will be boys" behavior and were quite willing to blame the victims (they must have done something to bring it on).

It's easy enough for us to say what we would have done in their place from behind our computer screens.

Btw, if you ever had a guy get handsy with you and you didn't yell for him to stop or smack him or any of the other things you claim you would have done if you were these women, then you are full of it.

 

[AxelAnnie]

You are full of beans, Ms. I dropped Megyn Kelly like a box of rocks when she dared to challenge Donald Trump.

What do Megyn Kelly and Donald Trump have to do with Matt Lauer.
IIRC....after Gretchen Carlson made her allegations against Roger Ayles....Megyn chimed in with me too.

How do you remember what I said 2 years ago? That is one heck of a recollection.

And yes I did expect more from Megyn as a debate moderator.

 

[snoopy]

Megyn called Trump out for his sexist and rude comments toward women in the debate. And you did not support her for it, but the contrary. And here you are supporting Bill O'Reilly when women DID speak out against him for sexual harassment.

Bill O'reilly fired from Fox News for being like Trump

You never support the women, and I doubt you'd support your own bum either.

 

[overedge]

In other Lauer news, his plans to lease a farm in New Zealand may now be falling through. He may not pass the "good character" test required for foreign buyers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/business/matt-lauer-new-zealand.html

 

[AxelAnnie]

Megyn called Trump out for his sexist and rude comments toward women in the debate. And you did not support her for it, but the contrary. And here you are supporting Bill O'Reilly when women DID speak out against him for sexual harassment.

Bill O'reilly fired from Fox News for being like Trump

You never support the women, and I doubt you'd support your own bum either.

I stand by everything I said. I don't know how that goes to not supporting women.
I think Megyn put up with whatever she felt was inappropriate to make it to the position she had at FOX. She was a super star. Bill O'Reilly is slimebag...(as are all the pedophile priests).

As to the debate that Megyn moderated. Megyn IMO was playing "gotcha" with Trump. As I recall, there was only one allegation on the table with Trump---the disgusting stuff he said in that bus. Megyn just kept at him and at him. And, nothing came of it. There were many other things to discuss, which did not get discussed because the moderator wanted to bring Trump down.
From an interview Megyn and Newt Gingrich

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich unleashed a tirade on the Fox News host during an interview on her show after she mentioned Trump’s sexual abuse accusers, with Gingrich saying she was “fascinated with sex.”

“I mean, do you want to go back through the tapes on your show recently?” he asked. “You are fascinated with sex, and you don’t care about public policy.”

Kelly questioned whether Trump was a “sexual predator” after mentioning a hot-mic “Access Hollywood” tape from 2005 in which he boasted of being able to grope women without their consent because of his stardom. He has defended his comments as nothing more than “locker room banter.”

“You cannot defend that statement,” Gingrich said of Kelly’s “sexual predator” comment. “I’m sick and tired of people like you using language that’s inflammatory, that’s not true.”

The stuff with Trump is separate from her accusations of Sexual Harassment at Fox. She said that:

"He (Ailes) was always bawdy and had an inappropriate sense of humor," Kelly said of Ailes. As someone who didn't easily take offense to those kinds of remarks, Kelly said she brushed it off.
Kelly said she reported Ailes' behavior to a supervisor but was told to "steer clear of him."

Kelly said she was uncomfortable, and, because of the powerless position she was in at the time, it seemed like good advice, but in retrospect she said the advice was "terrible."

She wasn't powerless? Why did she think she was? Because she wanted to get to the top, and that was the price.

I admire Jacyee Duggard, Elizabeth Smart they fought. They did not stay quiet. It is hard to know what other women to be proud of....since the woman's name is kept quiet, while the man is publicly skewered. I think women have a presumption of truth when accusing men of harassment. And, interesting that the women who accused Clinton were generally disregarded and discredited while those accusing others were believed.

 

[LilJen]

Things to Do at Work Besides Showing Coworkers Your Penis

 

[once_upon]

I think it is easy to say you would not tolerate and would punch someone (I believe that's what you recommended Axel Annie) when not in that situation. But in reality you might react differently.

Most of the men in these scenarios are what I consider groomers. You know "you are special" promise roles or favors, etc. Then if you refuse do punishment - like destroying your career.

All those men knew what they were doing to women was wrong. Didn't stop them.

It's not just famous. One of my in-laws made extremely inappropriate remarks when I was breastfeeding my oldest. I left the room to discreetly feed him. When I rejoined the family, this man said "got any leftover? It's been a long time since I got any breast milk". His mother later apologized - I gather not the first she apologized for his behavior. Rather than being called, it was a boys will be boys situation. I was too shocked to say anything or call him out on that. I certainly wasn't equipped to punch him.

Boys or men need to be made responsible for their actions and I'm happy that finally they are being named. Matt Lauer knew his actions were wrong. But as @rfisher said the powers that be at NBC are going to be in CYA mode. And I hope they are called to be responsible for their inaction on these things.

 

[overedge]

I admire Jacyee Duggard, Elizabeth Smart they fought. They did not stay quiet.

I guess you missed where Elizabeth Smart talked about how her church's culture made her feel like a sinner because she was raped and was no longer "pure".
http://www.ldsliving.com/Elizabeth-...ture-Can-Have-Harmful-Lasting-Effects/s/83107
She suffered for speaking out, even though she did nothing wrong. Does that give you some idea of why other women might not want to resist or to be vocal about what happened to them?

It is hard to know what other women to be proud of....since the woman's name is kept quiet, while the man is publicly skewered.

Are you serious? Here's a list of the names of women who have accused Trump of assaulting or harassing them. It's in Wikipedia FFS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

I think women have a presumption of truth when accusing men of harassment.

Well, yes, because it's highly unlikely that someone would voluntarily expose themselves to that level of attention and hatred.

And, interesting that the women who accused Clinton were generally disregarded and discredited while those accusing others were believed.

Does the name "Monica Lewinsky" ring any bells with you? Her story was so disregarded that Clinton underwent an Congressional investigation because of it.

 

[snoopy]

Elizabeth Smart didn't fight back while she was with her captors. It was reported she was in public with him several times and never tried to scream or get away. I don't even understand her reference in this thread. She fought back only AFTER she was no longer under the threat of her perp. Exactly like many of the women AA criticizes.

Like I said, AA is full of beans.

 

[viennese]

NBC got a credible complaint one day and within 24 hours, Lauer's fired. Good. Except...how long the company have some idea that he was a problem - a danger, even?

Other women who worked there are going to come forward and say they reported and no one listened to them

 

[VALuvsMKwan]

NBC got a credible complaint one day and within 24 hours, Lauer's fired. Good. Except...how long the company have some idea that he was a problem - a danger, even?

Other women who worked there are going to come forward and say they reported and no one listened to them

Again, my take, for what little it's worth:

I have heard that many incidents of Matt Lauer's actions (and those of other famous people such as Weinstein, Spacey, etc.) were an open secret in whatever companies and industries these people worked.

What about those people, men and women, who worked in those companies and industries who did not call out or act against these individuals? The issue of complicity and responsibility of those people surrounding these situations is an interesting and important one - but it is also potentially explosive.

In WWII, people who have strong or even weak ties to Axis forces in occupied countries (I am thinking of France, specifically) were called collaborators and were shamed publically (i.e. women having heads shaved, people accosted in public upon the country's liberation from the occupiers). I am not saying that this should happen to the people surrounding the situation I refer to above, but in the current hot-button public media activity, do you think that there should be or will be consequences for them as well, justified or not?

 

[clairecloutier]

What about those people, men and women, who worked in those companies and industries who did not call out or act against these individuals? The issue of complicity and responsibility of those people surrounding these situations is an interesting and important one - but it is also potentially explosive.

I think often, in these situations, people may strongly suspect something is going on, or may hear gossip about it, but usually don't have any actual proof. So how can they accuse the "guilty party" when they have no proof?

 

[overedge]

In Weinstein's case, there were members of his staff who knew very well what was going on - because it was their job to set up the situations where he would be alone and undisturbed with his targets (e.g. inviting them to a "party" when they knew it was just him in a hotel room). And there were others who also knew full well what had happened because they negotiated the payoffs and non-disclosure agreements that kept those women quiet.

 

[Japanfan]

She wasn't powerless? Why did she think she was? Because she wanted to get to the top, and that was the price.

But that price shouldn't be acceptable or necessary. The fact that it is, is the problem. And if that was the price, she was put in a position of powerlessness.

I admire Jacyee Duggard, Elizabeth Smart they fought. They did not stay quiet. It is hard to know what other women to be proud of....since the woman's name is kept quiet, while the man is publicly skewered.

Why shouldn't the man be publicly skewered? It's about time that men learned sexual harrassment is wrong. Though it's more often that the victim is publicly skewered. That's why so many do not come forward.

I think women have a presumption of truth when accusing men of harassment.

You're saying a presumption of lying is preferable?

But I don't agree with you on this. I think women tend are much more likely to be disbelieved and dismissed if they accuse a man of sexual assault. Coming forward can often lead to humiliation and contempt. There is a reason why so many rapes go unreported.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Thanks. No I am saying women should be believed when they report .

The skewered part is fine if they are guilty. Just as the woman should be believed...the man should have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Think Duke La Crosse team.
The man's name is released and the woman's is not. How bout keep them both out of the news until charges are proven?

 

[overedge]

The skeward part is fine if they are guilty. Just as the woman should be believed...the man should have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Think Duke La Crosse team.

The lacrosse players were charged, and then the charges were dropped when the evidence was found to be unreliable. Why are you using that as an example of unfairness? That's how the justice system is supposed to work.

 

[Vagabond]

I have heard that many incidents of Matt Lauer's actions (and those of other famous people such as Weinstein, Spacey, etc.) were an open secret in whatever companies and industries these people worked.

What about those people, men and women, who worked in those companies and industries who did not call out or act against these individuals? The issue of complicity and responsibility of those people surrounding these situations is an interesting and important one - but it is also potentially explosive.

There's a difference between calling out and acting against. Even if there are hard facts, there may be little point (and great personal risk) in calling someone out unless either the victim speaks up for herself (or himself) first or the person doing the calling out is in a position to do something about it, like firing the misbehaving employee.

The skeward part is fine if they are guilty. Just as the woman should be believed...the man should have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

That standard applies in criminal prosecutions, not in other settings. In the United States, most employment in the private sector is terminable at will. Employment contracts that aren't terminable at will commonly have a morals clause that would permit the employer to discharge the employee for, among other things, sexual harassment, lewd acts, and criminal conduct.

 

[snoopy]

That standard applies in criminal prosecutions, not in other settings.

As a legal standard yes. But it's a cop out IMO to say the concept of fairness applies no where else but criminal prosecutions.

I agree with Axle Annie on this one. Do unto others. People should get fired or destroyed without suffucient evidence.

 

[Miintx]

I am thrilled that Matt will NOT be getting a payout from NBC. He reportedly asked for 30 million! His morals clause will be enforced.

Bully Bush got millions to go away. So have many others.

 

[Vagabond]

As a legal standard yes. But it's a cop out IMO to say the concept of fairness applies no where else but criminal prosecutions.

I agree with Axle Annie on this one. Do unto others. People should get fired or destroyed without suffucient evidence.

I once worked at a firm where a male employee said to a female employee (at the same level), "I'm going to kill you." No one else was around at the time. She was genuinely terrified. He was quite convincing when he said, afterwards, "I didn't mean it like that!"

What would you do if you were the Director of Human Resources or the Managing Partner? Wait around to see if he killed her?

 

[snoopy]

So he admitted saying it? Then you have evidence.

Heh. I did actually have a male co-worker say to me he was going to get his gun and start shooting. I told my boss and he did nothing.

 

[AxelAnnie]

There's a difference between calling out and acting against. Even if there are hard facts, there may be little point (and great personal risk) in calling someone out unless either the victim speaks up for herself (or himself) first or the person doing the calling out is in a position to do something about it, like firing the misbehaving employee.


That standard applies in criminal prosecutions, not in other settings. In the United States, most employment in the private sector is terminable at will. Employment contracts that aren't terminable at will commonly have a morals clause that would permit the employer to discharge the employee for, among other things, sexual harassment, lewd acts, and criminal conduct.

Oh, I wish. Terminate at will it rather a myth. (I am an employer in the US). And, if you fight a firing with "I am being fired because I accused my boss of..............." It puts a pause on everything. I am not quite sure to whom you refer to Re the morals clause. Are you saying if I reported harassment the perp could be fired at will for lewd acts? I assure you it doesn't work that way. The allegations have to be proven. Think Ryan Lochte. That is what you DON'T want to have happen. A moral's clause means that if an employee is proven to have acted in a manner that embarrasses or harasses an employee he or she can be fired for cause..............but after the claims are investigated.

 

[AxelAnnie]

So he admitted saying it? Then you have evidence.

Heh. I did actually have a male co-worker say to me he was going to get his gun and start shooting. I told my boss and he did nothing.

Well, stupid boss. Did you call the police? You did not mention the circumstances, but if it was serious enough to go to your employer, it must have been serious enough to call the police.

 

[Vagabond]

So he admitted saying it? Then you have evidence.

Evidence of what, exactly? Evidence that he threatened to kill her? Or evidence that he was exasperated with her?

Heh. I did actually have a male co-worker say to me he was going to get his gun and start shooting. I told my boss and he did nothing.

And did the co-worker grab his gone and start shooting?

Oh, I wish. Terminate at will it rather a myth. (I am an employer in the US). And, if you fight a firing with "I am being fired because I accused my boss of..............." It puts a pause on everything.

Sometimes, I wonder about you.

If you go back and read the posts, you'll see that we were discussing firing people who were accused of sexual harassment, not those who made accusations.

What if you fight a firing with "I didn't touch her" or "She's lying" or "She groped me before I ever laid a hand on her"?

 

[Japanfan]

The skewered part is fine if they are guilty. Just as the woman should be believed...the man should have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

I agree with you in principle, and that's the way our law system works in Canada.

But on a emotional level, I am angry that so many, many men have gotten away with and continue to get away with harassing and raping women. Very often women who come forward are condemned and humiliated, and if the case goes to court, it very often ends up being they who are on trial.

So many men harass/abuse/rape women, and think it's perfectly okay to do so. Especially men in positions in power, and its time they were held accountable for it. And that men as a class of people recognize the problem. White people collectively are expected to take responsibility for racism in the sense of challenging it and acknowledging their privilege, and I think men collectively need to do the same. Male privilege exists, just as white privilege does. IMO.

I edited a paper some years ago about how the justice system in Canada was oriented to favor the accused in sexual assault cases. It presented a very compelling and persuasive case in delineating how the system itself and the way in the cases were adjudicated were constructed to do that.

As I've said before, there is reason why most rapes go unreported.

The man's name is released and the woman's is not. How bout keep them both out of the news until charges are proven?

The names of people who are charged with various crimes are made public, so I don't see why men accused of sexual assault should be given an exemption.