Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7160)

Bloggingheads 11-08-2011 07:53 PM

Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 

T.G.G.P 11-08-2011 09:31 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
She's right that it doesn't make much sense for Occupy Wall Street to be taking a stand on an issue like Israel-Palestine. But O.W.S has always been exceptionally, even explicitly, inchoate. And it was common at Iraq war protests for A.N.S.W.E.R or the Revolutionary Maoist Party to show up and advocate communism, and some Palestinian supporters in keffiyehs (if you're in Frisco, perhaps the odd Queers For Palestine) to show up.

She also mentions the suspect motivations of Christian Zionists that "at the end, you all convert". Michael just goes "yeah". But my recollection is that he's a serious Christian (albeit Catholic, ho ho), and Christian doctrine says you can only be saved by accepting Christ as your savior, salvation is for everyone and it is incumbent upon Christians to spread the faith. So shouldn't Michael similarly support the idea of massive (voluntary!) conversions to Christianity?

Sulla the Dictator 11-08-2011 10:09 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
This Cain business is absurd on its face. There has never been a serious chance Cain was going to win the nomination. Cain's poll positions are better seen as a vote of no-confidence in Mitt Romney. I've done that myself when polled, though not for Cain, for Gingrich. But Cain has no real organization in Iowa, or NH, or South Carolina, or anywhere else. Which means he has never had any chance.

On the issue of sexual harassment, let me take the unpopular position. I *do not* believe in most modern claims of sexual harassment. Grabbing women, attempting to establish a sex/work quid pro quo, repeated explicitly sexual jokes and advances after rejection are obviously sexual harassment. But from my experience in the corporate world, that is not the majority of cases. We have advanced far from the 1960s.

These days, sexual harassment claims mostly seem to be made by the hyper sensitive, or the rent seekers, or the prudish. Asking someone out on a date once isn't sexual harassment, nor is being bumped, nor is a bawdy joke told after the end of work. I can assure you, these are far more common than the serious variety. And we need to be far more serious in how we treat false claims of this type. This has changed from an attempt to address wrong doing into a scalpel with which feminists can continue their furious effort to feminize men within the culture.

Ocean 11-08-2011 10:21 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230774)
This Cain business is absurd on its face. There has never been a serious chance Cain was going to win the nomination. Cain's poll positions are better seen as a vote of no-confidence in Mitt Romney. I've done that myself when polled, though not for Cain, for Gingrich. But Cain has no real organization in Iowa, or NH, or South Carolina, or anywhere else. Which means he has never had any chance.

On the issue of sexual harassment, let me take the unpopular position. I *do not* believe in most modern claims of sexual harassment. Grabbing women, attempting to establish a sex/work quid pro quo, repeated explicitly sexual jokes and advances after rejection are obviously sexual harassment. But from my experience in the corporate world, that is not the majority of cases. We have advanced far from the 1960s.

These days, sexual harassment claims mostly seem to be made by the hyper sensitive, or the rent seekers, or the prudish. Asking someone out on a date once isn't sexual harassment, nor is being bumped, nor is a bawdy joke told after the end of work. I can assure you, these are far more common than the serious variety. And we need to be far more serious in how we treat false claims of this type. This has changed from an attempt to address wrong doing into a scalpel with which feminists can continue their furious effort to feminize men within the culture.

There again, sexism and distracting from the real issue.

The women that brought up allegations against Cain aren't talking about jokes after work. So, why get off on a tangent? What are you trying to do? See if you can discredit the whole category of "sexual harassment" so that people don't think about what the actual allegations are?

And you really seem to have such problems with feminists. What have they done to you?

Don Zeko 11-08-2011 10:37 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230774)
These days, sexual harassment claims mostly seem to be made by the hyper sensitive, or the rent seekers, or the prudish. Asking someone out on a date once isn't sexual harassment, nor is being bumped, nor is a bawdy joke told after the end of work. I can assure you, these are far more common than the serious variety. And we need to be far more serious in how we treat false claims of this type. This has changed from an attempt to address wrong doing into a scalpel with which feminists can continue their furious effort to feminize men within the culture.

Well I'm sorry to hear that you're upset, Sullla, but I've got good news. It turns out that none of those things are actually going to allow you to win a sexual harassment suit. This is right up there with the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit myth. Also, what does it mean for men to be "feminized?"

miceelf 11-08-2011 10:44 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230774)
These days, sexual harassment claims mostly seem to be made by the hyper sensitive, or the rent seekers, or the prudish. Asking someone out on a date once isn't sexual harassment, nor is being bumped, nor is a bawdy joke told after the end of work. I can assure you, these are far more common than the serious variety.

I agree that the latter occur far more often, but in my experience, the bar is pretty high for people to complain about sexual harrassment, so the milds stuff you talk about occurs far more often but gets reported as sexual harassment far less often.

That, or you and I have had very different forms of luck in our workplace experiences.

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 01:35 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 230776)
There again, sexism and distracting from the real issue.

Distracting from the real issue? The topic of the portion of the diavlog was "Do Conservatives even believe in sexual harassment?"

I'm saying that I believe in a small amount of real harassment claims, but the majority are rubbish.

Quote:

The women that brought up allegations against Cain aren't talking about jokes after work.
How would you know, exactly?

Quote:

So, why get off on a tangent? What are you trying to do? See if you can discredit the whole category of "sexual harassment" so that people don't think about what the actual allegations are?
What are the actual allegations?

Quote:

And you really seem to have such problems with feminists. What have they done to you?
They're fantasists who engage in a war with reason. They seek to blur gender distinctions, and shame men. I have never been one for shame.

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 01:37 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 230779)
Well I'm sorry to hear that you're upset, Sullla, but I've got good news. It turns out that none of those things are actually going to allow you to win a sexual harassment suit. This is right up there with the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit myth.

Actually Don, you're confusing "winning a suit" with making a claim. What I described make up the lion's share of actual claims. Do you dispute that? Is that a myth?

Quote:

Also, what does it mean for men to be "feminized?"
fem·i·nize

   [fem-uh-nahyz]

verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -nized, -niz·ing.
to make or become feminine.

Don Zeko 11-09-2011 01:52 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230801)
Actually Don, you're confusing "winning a suit" with making a claim. What I described make up the lion's share of actual claims. Do you dispute that? Is that a myth?

I don't dispute that there are some cases of spurious sexual harassment claims being brought, but I do dispute that such claims are common or that they result in large out-of-court settlements or what have you. Given the cost of hiring a lawyer and filing suit at all, plus the near-certainty that bringing a suit will have negative consequences for that person's work environment, I think the burden is on you to provide evidence supporting your prejudices.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230801)
fem·i·nize

   [fem-uh-nahyz]

verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -nized, -niz·ing.
to make or become feminine.

Well that wasn't a waste of anyone's time, no sir. Let me wring an answer out of you then. What qualities do you consider feminine that feminists are trying to foster in men? Why do you find those qualities undesirable?

Wonderment 11-09-2011 02:55 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

What are the actual allegations?
Sexual assault.

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 04:50 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 230810)
Sexual assault.

Do you really believe that story?

Let me be clear, I have no interest in Herman Cain. I find the number of women complaining to be indicative of some kind of misconduct, as far as I'm concerned.

But that yarn yesterday was ridiculous. Just the physical description of events is absurd.

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 05:34 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 230804)
I don't dispute that there are some cases of spurious sexual harassment claims being brought, but I do dispute that such claims are common or that they result in large out-of-court settlements or what have you. Given the cost of hiring a lawyer and filing suit at all, plus the near-certainty that bringing a suit will have negative consequences for that person's work environment, I think the burden is on you to provide evidence supporting your prejudices.

Problems started for Reeves in 1999 after the firm fired a receptionist, who retaliated by telling the EEOC she was fired because she was pregnant. According to Savitt, the woman was fired because she was a horrible receptionist, did not get messages correct and had trouble pulling files for attorneys.

The EEOC did nothing with the complaint for two years, until the girlfriend of a former associate called the agency to complain about sexual harassment.

The judge found that the associate and the girlfriend schemed . . . to elicit the EEOC to expand the [pregnancy discrimination allegation] to include alleged sexual harassment, even though the receptionist's claim eventually proved to be so baseless that the EEOC did not even appeal from Tevrizian's summary dismissal of the claim.

The EEOC first filed suit against Reeves' law firm in 2001 on behalf of about 10 people who were identified by two associates and the girlfriend, even though the EEOC did not interview those individuals before filing suit, Savitt said.

Tevrizian dismissed the case in 2002 and ruled that the commission should pay Reeves $363,000 in legal fees. At the time, Tevrizian said the EEOC had made it impossible for the law firm to settle out of court, it had proposed unrealistic fines, was uncooperative with the defense and accused the commission of mean- spirited conduct.

The EEOC appealed that ruling, and the 9th Circuit reversed the decision, returning the case to Tevrizian.

Ruling for the second time, Tevrizian was even harsher on the commission. He wrote that either the EEOC knew it was being used as a primary weapon in a campaign to destroy [the law firm], or it maintained a studied and inexcusable ignorance of this fact.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n16184818/

Now consider how far that suit got. To the federal government pushing the case. And what's more, the company was prepared to settle the case, but couldn't because of the fines the EEOC was trying to assess. This on a case where there was obviously no sexual harassment.

Quote:

Well that wasn't a waste of anyone's time, no sir. Let me wring an answer out of you then. What qualities do you consider feminine that feminists are trying to foster in men? Why do you find those qualities undesirable?
This game is unnecessary. Unless you are denying the difference in gender attributes and the way those differences manifest in behavior.

And I find it undesirable for the same reason I would find it undesirable for someone to insist I act as a Chinese man, or a Bulgarian, or a Martian. I am not these things.

sugarkang 11-09-2011 06:00 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230811)
I find the number of women complaining to be indicative of some kind of misconduct, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree, though we might disagree on the further implications. Number four seems like a typical rent seeker. "I don't want any money." Sure you don't, lady. You just want the whole world to know what a victim you are.

What this tells me is that there aren't just four women. There were probably forty women and most of them did want the job.

Peter Sibley 11-09-2011 07:07 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230811)
Just the physical description of events is absurd.

That was my first thought, too. One hand under the skirt, another on the back of the woman's head or neck. Not impossible, of course, but more likely a conflation of events, or non-events.

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 07:31 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Sibley (Post 230822)
That was my first thought, too. One hand under the skirt, another on the back of the woman's head or neck. Not impossible, of course, but more likely a conflation of events, or non-events.

Exactly. But the boldness of such a thing sounds like a cartoon. What exactly is the point of upgrading someone to a suite if you're going to swive them in a parking lot in front of an office? What is the point of driving to the office from a hotel to do this? Couldn't wait until in an actual office?

I can't conceive of a man who isn't either a frustrated fifty year old virgin or a rapist opening a sexual advance in the manner this woman describes. And nothing suggests Cain is either.

This woman strikes me as a flake. Her narrative makes little sense: She meets Cain at an after conference party one time, years before, and believes this is the basis upon which she can get a job recommendation or an actual hire? And based on one phone call she flies to DC and gets a hotel room to meet him? In the lobby of her own hotel?

Ocean 11-09-2011 08:56 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230799)

They're fantasists who engage in a war with reason. They seek to blur gender distinctions, and shame men. I have never been one for shame.

Whatever wounds these alleged feminists have inflicted on you are interfering with your capacity to reason or you truly believe that men (and not women) hold the gold standard of all appropriate behavior.

miceelf 11-09-2011 10:36 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230817)
[This game is unnecessary. Unless you are denying the difference in gender attributes and the way those differences manifest in behavior.

People talk a lot about these differences, but to the extent to which I can see them, in terms of evidence, they're in terms of relatively modest differences in means at a population level. What differences in particular do you have in mind, in terms of behavioral manifestations?

You gave one example of a possibly frivolous allegation, and the link notes that it set records in terms of the settlement against the EEOC. The existence of this case seems hardly probative to the claim that frivolous claims of sexual harrassment are more common than legitimate ones.

miceelf 11-09-2011 10:37 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Sibley (Post 230822)
That was my first thought, too. One hand under the skirt, another on the back of the woman's head or neck. Not impossible, of course, but more likely a conflation of events, or non-events.

1. Did she claim that both happened exactly simultaneously?
2. I tried this out with a willing partner, seated beside me in a car. It's not really all that difficult.

bkjazfan 11-09-2011 10:46 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Like Bil Clinton when confronted with all his infidelities Cain too is following the same defense: lying threw his teeth. Do these pols expect us to be total morons that they are to be believed not all these women with coherent and believeable accounts of what really happened? Please, just tell the truth, we are not that stupid.

badhatharry 11-09-2011 10:51 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230823)
I can't conceive of a man who isn't either a frustrated fifty year old virgin or a rapist opening a sexual advance in the manner this woman describes. And nothing suggests Cain is either.

Perhaps he got caught up in the moment and couldn't wait any longer. She is, after all, quite well endowed. And she may have been flirting with him the whole time. If things were as she said they were, as in upgraded suite, fancy restaurant, she'd be an idiot not to know something was up.

I really hope Cain is as innocent as he claims to be. That would be a first in this type of scenario.

miceelf 11-09-2011 11:00 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 230833)
I really hope Cain is as innocent as he claims to be. That would be a first in this type of scenario.

As a believer in original sin, I have to say that there isn't a human being on earth who is as innocent as Cain claims to be.

badhatharry 11-09-2011 11:28 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 230835)
As a believer in original sin, I have to say that there isn't a human being on earth who is as innocent as Cain claims to be.

I can only hope. There's got to be someone, somewhere.

Don Zeko 11-09-2011 11:28 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230817)
Problems started for Reeves in 1999 after the firm fired a receptionist, who retaliated by telling the EEOC she was fired because she was pregnant. According to Savitt, the woman was fired because she was a horrible receptionist, did not get messages correct and had trouble pulling files for attorneys.

The EEOC did nothing with the complaint for two years, until the girlfriend of a former associate called the agency to complain about sexual harassment.

The judge found that the associate and the girlfriend schemed . . . to elicit the EEOC to expand the [pregnancy discrimination allegation] to include alleged sexual harassment, even though the receptionist's claim eventually proved to be so baseless that the EEOC did not even appeal from Tevrizian's summary dismissal of the claim.

The EEOC first filed suit against Reeves' law firm in 2001 on behalf of about 10 people who were identified by two associates and the girlfriend, even though the EEOC did not interview those individuals before filing suit, Savitt said.

Tevrizian dismissed the case in 2002 and ruled that the commission should pay Reeves $363,000 in legal fees. At the time, Tevrizian said the EEOC had made it impossible for the law firm to settle out of court, it had proposed unrealistic fines, was uncooperative with the defense and accused the commission of mean- spirited conduct.

The EEOC appealed that ruling, and the 9th Circuit reversed the decision, returning the case to Tevrizian.

Ruling for the second time, Tevrizian was even harsher on the commission. He wrote that either the EEOC knew it was being used as a primary weapon in a campaign to destroy [the law firm], or it maintained a studied and inexcusable ignorance of this fact.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n16184818/

Now consider how far that suit got. To the federal government pushing the case. And what's more, the company was prepared to settle the case, but couldn't because of the fines the EEOC was trying to assess. This on a case where there was obviously no sexual harassment.

This isn't what you were talking about before. The first woman claimed that she had been fired because of her pregnancy. If this had been true, then the suit absolutely wouldn't have been frivolous. The fact that people who have not actually been harassed but who falsely allege serious claims can get into court isn't a problem with sexual harassment litigation, it's a problem with any kind of legal action. I'd also point out that EEOC's behavior was extraordinary and that the law firm was eventually compensated for the fraudulent claim. And again, this is only one case and it's not an example of someone bringing suit merely for "Asking someone out on a date once isn't sexual harassment, nor is being bumped, nor is a bawdy joke told after the end of work."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 230817)
This game is unnecessary. Unless you are denying the difference in gender attributes and the way those differences manifest in behavior.

And I find it undesirable for the same reason I would find it undesirable for someone to insist I act as a Chinese man, or a Bulgarian, or a Martian. I am not these things.

This is totally necessary. It's not at all obvious to me what aspects of men Feminists are trying to change other than things like proclivity to commit rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. You appear to disagree, but aren't identifying any of the ways in which men are being feminized. I suspect that once you are specific it will be clear that nothing objectionable is actually happening, but we can't have a meaningful discussion about men being feminized unless you're actually specific about what it is that you don't like.

miceelf 11-09-2011 11:34 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 230839)
I can only hope. There's got to be someone, somewhere.

As I understand it, He was crucified more than 2000 years ago.

badhatharry 11-09-2011 11:43 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 230842)
As I understand it, He was crucified more than 2000 years ago.

Wait just a minute. So you think that it's impossible that a man accused of sexual harassment could be innocent of the charges? That seems quite illiberal of you.

miceelf 11-09-2011 11:53 AM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 230843)
Wait just a minute. So you think that it's impossible that a man accused of sexual harassment could be innocent of the charges? That seems quite illiberal of you.

I didn't say that. i said it's impossible for any human being to be as innocent as Cain claims to be. He has recently claimed to not only be innocent in these particular cases, but to have "never acted inappropriately with anyone ever."

It's certainly possible for someone to be innocent of the specific charges in this case (although as the number of separate accusations increases, the odds of innocence seem to go down).

But his blanket claim of metaphysical innocence is what I was talking about.

badhatharry 11-09-2011 12:06 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 230844)
I didn't say that. i said it's impossible for any human being to be as innocent as Cain claims to be. He has recently claimed to not only be innocent in these particular cases, but to have "never acted inappropriately with anyone ever."

It's certainly possible for someone to be innocent of the specific charges in this case (although as the number of separate accusations increases, the odds of innocence seem to go down).

But his blanket claim of metaphysical innocence is what I was talking about.

I still think it is possible for a man in high office to claim that he never acted inappropriately and be correct. The problem lies in the word inappropriate. I guess Cain should have stipulated that he never acted inappropriately in a sexual way. That, I believe is possible.

badhatharry 11-09-2011 12:13 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 230840)
This is totally necessary. It's not at all obvious to me what aspects of men Feminists are trying to change other than things like proclivity to commit rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. You appear to disagree, but aren't identifying any of the ways in which men are being feminized. I suspect that once you are specific it will be clear that nothing objectionable is actually happening, but we can't have a meaningful discussion about men being feminized unless you're actually specific about what it is that you don't like.

Why do people who are trying to change other than things like proclivity to commit rape,(?????) sexual assault, and sexual harassment.
need to be referred to as feminists? Why aren't they just people who don't like rape, sexual harassment and assault? I can see that people fighting for women's rights in places like the middle east could be called feminists but why in America do we need feminists any longer?

miceelf 11-09-2011 12:28 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 230848)
I still think it is possible for a man in high office to claim that he never acted inappropriately and be correct. The problem lies in the word inappropriate. I guess Cain should have stipulated that he never acted inappropriately in a sexual way. That, I believe is possible.

Yes, or he could have stipulated in a work context, or as an adult, or any of another variety of stipulations that would have made his claim less nonsensical.

miceelf 11-09-2011 12:29 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 230849)
Why do people who are trying to change other than things like proclivity to commit rape,(?????) sexual assault, and sexual harassment.
need to be referred to as feminists?

They DON'T need to be. But sulla made a claim about feminists, and Zeko was noting the kinds of behaviors that feminists want to change. I didn't understand the conversation to be about how to label people who want these changes, but the scope of changes that feminists (among other people) want.

stephanie 11-09-2011 01:02 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 230784)
I agree that the latter occur far more often, but in my experience, the bar is pretty high for people to complain about sexual harrassment, so the milds stuff you talk about occurs far more often but gets reported as sexual harassment far less often.

People sometimes confuse sexual harassment law with company policy. IME, many companies try to have clear boundaries to prevent any potential claims, give themselves as much latitude as possible with a troublesome employee, protect themselves if someone does sue, and -- perhaps most significantly -- protect against employee interactions that detract from work getting done or otherwise hurt the interests of the company.

Such companies sometimes have strict policies against dating or, more commonly, dating between people at different levels. Such policies are, IME, frequently ignored, and sometimes people get in trouble when it comes out, but that's not sexual harassment law, that's corporate policies. Similarly, the harassment/discrimination seminars often warn against actions that are unlikely to upset anyone, let alone allow you to win over jurors in a lawsuit.

miceelf 11-09-2011 01:13 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230855)
People sometimes confuse sexual harassment law with company policy. IME, many companies try to have clear boundaries to prevent any potential claims, give themselves as much latitude as possible with a troublesome employee, protect themselves if someone does sue, and -- perhaps most significantly -- protect against employee interactions that detract from work getting done or otherwise hurt the interests of the company.


Yes, this.

In a previous job, I dated a co-worker. The company I worked for at the time had no particular policy or issue with such, neither did my department. My immediate supervisor, however, was incredibly upset about the possibility that two of his underlings were dating, and alluded to vague possibilities that someone would get sued, so was adamantly against the notion. I guess I could have challenged him and gone to higher ups or gotten HR involved or whatnot, but we otherwise had a really good work relationship.

So instead, my then-girlfriend and I just engaged in the high theater of the downlow relationship, taking separate elevators in the morning, never eating lunch alone together, making sure we staggered our leaving, etc. This went on for more than a year in the office, until she moved away. Then I moved away to be with her, we got married, and the rest is history.

But yes, it seems to me like this perception that a frivolous lawsuit is right around the corner is perpetuated mainly by the fears people have that it is going to happen and the actions they take to prevent it.

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 04:13 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 230829)
1. Did she claim that both happened exactly simultaneously?

Yes.

Quote:

2. I tried this out with a willing partner, seated beside me in a car. It's not really all that difficult.
It is an implausible configuration for anyone familiar with how sex should go. It isn't impossible, or "difficult", but it is clearly awkward and unnecessary.

Sulla the Dictator 11-09-2011 04:37 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 230840)
And again, this is only one case and it's not an example of someone bringing suit merely for "Asking someone out on a date once isn't sexual harassment, nor is being bumped, nor is a bawdy joke told after the end of work."

No this is fraud reaching a level where federal workers advocate in its defense against an innocent private actor. This is worse.

Quote:

This is totally necessary. It's not at all obvious to me what aspects of men Feminists are trying to change other than things like proclivity to commit rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment.
Case in point; what is this business about rape? Feminists seek to expand the definition of rape to include things like "forced by word pressure without threats". This:

http://www.childtrends.org/files/Chi..._ForcedSex.pdf

....is meant to imply rape.

Or this:

Of the rape studies by nongovernment groups, the two most frequently cited are the 1985 Ms. magazine report by Mary Koss and the 1992 National Women's Study by Dr. Dean Kilpatrick of the Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center at the Medical School of South Carolina. In 1982, Mary Koss, then a professor of psychology at Kent State University in Ohio, published an article on rape in which she expressed the orthodox gender feminist view that "rape represents an extreme behavior but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture"

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html

Feminists see masculinity as a precursor to rape, it would seem. As I'm sure you know, I can produce ridiculous statements by feminists about men until this board runs out of bandwidth. It isn't as though we need feminists in order to oppose rape, in any case. :rolleyes:

At least, we don't need them to oppose real rape. We do need feminists if we are to consider anything other than a watery eyed plea for sex as rape.

sapeye 11-09-2011 04:58 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 230835)
As a believer in original sin, I have to say that there isn't a human being on earth who is as innocent as Cain claims to be.

LOL

bkjazfan 11-09-2011 05:01 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
These women who come forward with truthful tales of philandering by power ful men are subject to all kinds of derision. No wonder many women are reticent to do so.

The Chicago woman who had a press conference concerning Herman Cain was called a troubled woman with a checkered financial history. Clinton's accusers were given the names - bimbos and trailer trash.

These guys should be ashamed of themselves.

sapeye 11-09-2011 05:03 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 230839)
I can only hope. There's got to be someone, somewhere.

Why must there be someone somewhere? It seems to me that that's like saying the moon must be made of green cheese just because someone said it. We've all got shadows, it's just that many try to deny it.

I sort of like that Cain's response to the accusations was to sing a hymn with a tune pretty much lifted from Oh Danny Boy, the pipe(s) the pipe(s) is (are) calling.

stephanie 11-09-2011 05:25 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 230840)
It's not at all obvious to me what aspects of men Feminists are trying to change other than things like proclivity to commit rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment.

Oh, good, another discussion about "feminism" in which there's no effort to define "feminism" or to distinguish between different types of "feminism." Obviously, there's no unanimous "feminist" view. (I believe this was discussed to death in the Sarah Palin: feminist? thread, but I suppose that was some time ago.) ;-)

For the record, I don't think feminism is about trying to change men. It does, IMO, include a recognition that certain things, including sexual assault, employment discrimination, and sexual harassment are wrong. As a result of these ideas and their influence in the culture, routine behavior in and related to the workplace seems to me quite different than it was even in the '90s and based on what others have told me more so if one goes back farther.

There also have been a variety of changes wrt the law of sexual assault and domestic violence, including the rejection of the notion that one must physically fight back or it can't be rape.

Back in the '90s I remember lots of men's movement stuff which did seem about trying to change men (arguably the Promise Keepers stuff was related to that too). My impression was that although the men's movement was often hostile to feminism (and often to women more generally) that it was in many ways the flip side -- there were lots of complaints about the burden on men that seemed to result from the same kinds of societal pressures (or average differences and related expectations) as what feminists were talking about. But it presented as anger at women. Either that whole thing is less common now or I'm no longer in the circles where one notices it.

stephanie 11-09-2011 05:33 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sapeye (Post 230913)
I sort of like that Cain's response to the accusations was to sing a hymn with a tune pretty much lifted from Oh Danny Boy, the pipe(s) the pipe(s) is (are) calling.

The funniest bit of any of the stories I've read (which, to be fair, is not actually about a sexual harassment accusation) is this, from the Washington Examiner:

Quote:

Cain exhibited no inappropriate sexual behavior during the dinner, though he did order two $400 bottles of wine and stuck the women with the bill, she said.

The next time the women heard from Cain was Christmas, when he sent them his gospel CD.

sapeye 11-09-2011 06:06 PM

Re: Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 230917)
The funniest bit of any of the stories I've read (which, to be fair, is not actually about a sexual harassment accusation) is this, from the Washington Examiner:

That's Great. Apparently Cain is a master of euphemisms as well as sly humor.

"And after the seminar was over," Donella told The Washington Examiner, "Cain came over to me and a colleague and said, 'Could you put me in touch with that lovely young lady who asked the question, [wait for it...] so I can give her a more thorough answer over dinner?'"

I suppose the women should be grateful that he stuck them only with the bill. But $800 is still a pretty sharp prick. Guy seems sleazy to me. And I am sick to fucking death of hypocrisy.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.