Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-16-2017, 05:39 AM
Ale Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by treis View Post
Continuing my post because I accidentally submitted the previous.

Personally, I don't ascribe a huge amount of risk to being falsely accused. However, I see that the results of one would range from bad to devestating. It legitimately could cost my career and effectively ruin my life.

It hasn't had a huge impact on how I act, but I definitely am conscious of the risk. Doing things like never meeting alone with a woman is ridiculous. But I'm often in situations where I'm having drinks and dinner with coworkers. I don't think I would risk doing that alone with a young female subordinate.
It would seem, then, that this sort of policies inevitably end up creating gender inequality in the workplace.
  #52  
Old 11-16-2017, 07:31 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I'm channeling him now. Here he comes--I can feel him!


The spirits have spoken.
It turns out you had a bad connection. You got some medieval prankster. The real Emmett Till would point out that the interplay of race and sexual relations is real and complex and you cannot consider one without the other. This also extends to other oissues. Did you know that the era I lived in the maximum number of executions for rape were of black men for raping white women. Ok maybe one or two were guilty, but seriously, use your noggin and consider everything dispassionately and don't rely on conjctures and surmises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector_St_Clare
Minus the thing about 'feminists' (I don't think this has anything to do with 'feminism' per se, it has to do with understanding of statistics), your claim is true. That being said, while the actual underlying false accusation rate is higher than "two to eight percent", it's still not that high. Lisak is the originator of the "2% to 10%" meta-analysis, he did an original study in 2010, and if you look at his tables and take out the "equivocal" cases, the rate of false accusations goes up from 6% to 17%. Which means that any given rape accusation is still five times more likely to be true, than not. ]
That was an FBI study which he relied on a sudy which found that an average of 8% of rape allegations were unfounded. This is often bandied out sans context, but it was using FBI's standard defination of unfounded, which means made knowingly it was untrue. Whats often left out is that rape had by far the highest rate of deliberatley false allegations, everything else was less than 1%. The actual rate of cases which were dismissed is highter, about 40%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdname
You could just as easily assume the undetermined rape accusations are all false, and assert that 90+% of accusations are false since they were not proven true in a courtroom. (Not to mention that some people get falsely convicted-rape is the most common crime the Innocence Project exonerates people for-and also 8 percent is not an insiginificant number, it is one in 12.5.)
(Bolding mine)
Thats correct. Again, like the above, presented sans context. First, a signifacnt proportion of rape exonerations are of the "rape and murder" variety. Where chances of a purposely false allegation are well nil. (Typically in those kind of miscarriage case, police railroad the first viable susphttps://www.innocenceproject.org/ind...-didnt-commit/ect they have, often the husband). Another large proportion of exonerated rapes are either black men accused of raping white women* and or stranger rape where conviction was based solely or mostly on indentifcation. Both of those kind of cases are known to have high probabilities of miscarriage of justice**.

TL: DR, while purposely false allegations are a concern, the biggest cause of miscarriages of justice in rape cases tend to be police misconduct.
Also Innocence Project (and other studies where convicted rapists have been exlcuded by DNA evidence) will concentrate on cases where there already is some major questions as to the safety of the convictions. They don't go around randomly checking dudes convicted of rape/sexual assualt.

Also, since rape convictions typically result in some serious jail time means that a lot more resources are devoted to examining these cases. No one at the Innocence Project or elsewhere is going to spend much time chrecking the safety of a convcition for handling stolen goods where the accused got a 6 month suspended sentence and community service.

*In the US, but it holds elsewhere, just substitite "black" with "relevant disadvantaged minority group" and "white" with "relevant majority group".

** For intance, this case.

Last edited by AK84; 11-16-2017 at 07:36 AM.
  #53  
Old 11-16-2017, 07:45 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,023
Missed Edit: I do expect a rash of exonerations for rape and sexual assualt convictions as more and more doubt has been placed on the reliability of forensic methods, inlcuding DNA, which have been used since the 1990's and since the last 25 years have seen extedsive use in sex crime cases (bite marks and hair samples), I am looking at you). But again, in those cases it is not a purposely lying woman who doomed the poor bugger, but errors made by the police + investigators. And note, they did try and corroborate the allegations, as in the linked case above. Corroberation should not be seen as a paneca.
  #54  
Old 11-16-2017, 08:54 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
You are correct. And when a wrongfully terminated employee sues and shows that the company applies their policy unevenly there's a good chance a settlement of some kind will be reached. Even in right to work states a company generally needs to make their policies available to their employees and apply them consistently.
ISTM that the details of these cases vary to the point that it would be very difficult to prove that the policy was applied unevenly.
  #55  
Old 11-16-2017, 08:58 AM
Dangerosa Dangerosa is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 21,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by treis View Post
I think people are missing some things when analyzing this risk:

(1) Sexual harassment claims that reach the news are by definition against famous and, therefore, powerful men. They are much more likely to fend off a single accuser.

(2) The world has changed even from a few months ago. Sexual harassment was a lot more tolerated and the likelihood of a single accuser being believed is much higher.

(3) Even if the false accusations rate is only 2% that still will work out to thousands of cases a year.

IMHO, if corporate manager drone #4298 is accused by corporate drone #33164 of sexual misconduct they are in serious Jeopardy. It's a lot less risky for the company to just fire the guy. They avoid a lot of legal and public relations liability. It's only high demand employees that are worth that risk.
You are missing something here. Firing a guy when a woman accuses him of sexual harassment empowers the woman. If she has that sort of power, she can cause a lot of trouble for the company. Don't like someone - accuse them of sexual harassment and they are gone. If companies functioned like that, women could overset the power base - even just by knocking out other drones.

Corporate America is not interested in giving female (or male) corporate drones veto power over employment decisions. They aren't interested in the churn, gossip, turnover and lost productivity of such an environment. Nor do they want the counter suit sexual harassment claims - when he declares that she came onto him, and rejected, went to HR with the harassment claim.

My experience - and I've been involved in this topic for 30 years - including spending time counseling women going through this - is unless you have witnesses, other victims, or evidence, corporate HR will "investigate" by taking to both parties, and any witnesses identified, but will not generally interview people unless they believe they can provide evidence since they don't want gossip to get out of hand, give the guy some sexual harassment training (regardless of the outcome of the investigation) and very likely put the whole department through it, and lay the accuser (and possibly the accused) off in the next RIF. But they'll wait for a RIF to do it.

If the company is big enough, they'll do the sexual harassment training, and reassign one person to a different department. That's how I got into IT from Accounting.

This is complicated now by a lot of people not actually being employees of the company. With contract staff, vendors providing services, people interviewing for gigs (as actresses do), it becomes very difficult for two organizations to coordinate a response - and one organization usually has the power. When I was in a tight spot at my last client (not sexual harassment, but they were likely committing fraud and breaking federal regulations which put public safety at risk - and expecting me to participate), my company couldn't do anything to protect me - I either quit that client, and stopped getting paid until the firm could find me another client, or sucked it up.
__________________
One day, in Teletubbie land, it was Tinkie Winkie's turn to wear the skirt.
  #56  
Old 11-16-2017, 08:59 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 38,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
It turns out you had a bad connection. You got some medieval prankster. The real Emmett Till would point out that [I]the interplay of race and sexual relations is real and complex and you cannot consider one without the other.
The real Emmett Till was a 14-year-old-boy who died scared and alone. I don't think he'd have provided quite that level of social commentary.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #57  
Old 11-16-2017, 09:06 AM
Dangerosa Dangerosa is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 21,500
Oh, my experience on sexual harassment claims with evidence.

He will be fired.
You will end your career with that company. You won't get fired. You will be branded a troublemaker, given assignments designed to drive you out, and never get any raise that is above standard. The company may try to drive you out.
If you sue, you will see very little money - most of the cash will end up in the hands of your attorney. You will be lucky to see enough to cover your lost work hours.

My advice is if you are being sexually harassed, assemble as much evidence as possible - and look for another job. This one is over regardless of what the outcome of any investigation is.
__________________
One day, in Teletubbie land, it was Tinkie Winkie's turn to wear the skirt.
  #58  
Old 11-16-2017, 09:42 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,023
Depends on the evidence. My sister's harasser was stupid enough to leave text messages. Her boss told her not to come for three days and fired his ass. Has not hurt her career one bit as far as I can tell. So she actually got a nice break out of it (seriously, she went with friends to a mountain resort).

Glad she got off easy, she can laugh about it now. Does not always happen.
  #59  
Old 11-16-2017, 10:38 AM
Dangerosa Dangerosa is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 21,500
If it doesn't hurt her career, she works for a good company. Many corporations will label an accuser a troublemaker - even when there is evidence. A woman harassed who complains - if she gets harassed again, she has a good hostile environment claim. "Look, these idiots keep hiring harassers" - even when the firm is ethical and trying to do the right thing, some guys (as recent media coverage lets us know) are scumbags, and sometimes a hiring manager doesn't do a good job for screening out a scumbag (it can be really hard to tell, after all "Bill Cosby, scumbag" is not something many people anticipated). And therefore, the companies often look for an opportunity to get rid of the victims rather than risk a scumbag slipping through, targeting someone they know will stand up for herself, and ending up with another, this time bigger because its a pattern, problem.

From a companies point of view, their goal is to keep risk low, and they'll make the decisions that have the lowest risk while maintaining the corporate ethical culture (which may or may not be actually ethical). But they'll add in variables that you might not think of - and HR and Legal will add different variables.

(From a mental health perspective, if a woman has been traumatized by her harassment, its often a good idea to find a different job - on her own, not getting pushed out - anyway. Locations, people, sounds - they can all be triggery. Not all women, but for many, getting out is a good plan. Not all women are traumatized, some just get angry, or amused - but some women do get traumatized. And what I've discovered is that some women are traumatized over what to me are relatively minor things - a culture of off color jokes - and other women brush off things that would send me to the rubber room spa for a weekend - unsolicited pictures of your coworkers dicks)
__________________
One day, in Teletubbie land, it was Tinkie Winkie's turn to wear the skirt.
  #60  
Old 11-16-2017, 11:15 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Your position in this thread is... If you want to revise the position in your OP...
I know what I wrote in the OP and don't wish to revise it. I was discussing particular piece of information and whether it was something that should be taken at face value, and pointed out the reason for it. You're trying to say that I have to incorporate that particular conversation into my OP for some reason, and that's just not the case. If you don't get this, I don't think we can productively discuss the topic.
  #61  
Old 11-16-2017, 11:22 AM
Napier Napier is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posts: 8,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerosa View Post
Oh, my experience on sexual harassment claims with evidence.

He will be fired.
You will end your career with that company. You won't get fired. You will be branded a troublemaker, given assignments designed to drive you out, and never get any raise that is above standard. The company may try to drive you out.
I have some experience with this, if indirectly. I'm a 60 year old man with a long successful career at the same company, and I wasn't sexually harassed per se, but another senior male employee who barely knew me sent me an email full of outrageous sexual jokes about women. I forwarded it to our internal authorities and soon he was gone. The internal authorities told me nobody could retaliate.

But....

A manager above me, who helps set my salary, set up a meeting with me specifically about this. He said doing things like reporting this is not valuable. No, it is doing my primary duties that is valuable.

Is this retribution? Is this being branded a troublemaker? It is certainly a strong message. Losing my job at 60 would be pretty awful.

Last edited by Napier; 11-16-2017 at 11:22 AM.
  #62  
Old 11-16-2017, 11:25 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I know what I wrote in the OP and don't wish to revise it. I was discussing particular piece of information and whether it was something that should be taken at face value, and pointed out the reason for it. You're trying to say that I have to incorporate that particular conversation into my OP for some reason, and that's just not the case. If you don't get this, I don't think we can productively discuss the topic.
The "particular piece of information" was something that had a bearing on your claim in your OP. Your argument that it didn't have to be taken at face value was based on your claim that it wouldn't be applied in one specific circumstance. That means it would be applied outside of that specific circumstance. Therefore it has a bearing on your OP to the extent that you don't narrow your claim to that specific circumstance.

If you don't get this, then we probably can't productively discuss the topic, but bottom line remains that your attempt to parry that point fails in the context of your OP.
  #63  
Old 11-16-2017, 11:30 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
By the terms of my license agreement, if I am accused of sexual harassment or the like, I am banned from my own school. I cannot teach, I cannot even set foot on the premises, even though I own the school. This ban stays in place until the incident is investigated and I am cleared. Such an event would bankrupt me. I cannot afford the loss of revenue or the costs of an attorney for such a situation.
This looks like the first qualifying example anyone has provided. But it also sounds like such an awful agreement to enter into that I'm surprised you signed up for it; you've basically got a clause that says 'if someone makes an accusation of harassment against you, the business blows up' seems like a really, really bad idea to me. A '2 on 1 policy' and video cameras doesn't really seem like enough of a defense if any accusation of harassment would bankrupt you, since someone could say that your 2 on 1 was in on it, or that you said something to them that's not caught by a video camera.

And the staffing difficulties this creates seem absolutely horrendous, you have to always have at least five staff actively working to keep up the 2 on 1 thing. (You have you, plus 2 other staff so you're never one on one with them, plus one more so that someone can go to the bathroom alone without leaving a 1 on 1 situation, and another because you violate the 2 on 1 rule if anyone calls in sick or gets injured and has to leave). I can see how a major corporation could do a 2 on 1 rule, but I really don't see how a dojo small enough that it would be bankrupted if the owner has to sit out for a few weeks would be able to keep the amount of staff needed for that policy, especially since you tend to have a lot of staff with unreliable schedules.

It sounds to me like this policy doesn't just give you a risk of losing your job if there's an accusation, it sounds like it forces the business to an unrealistically, unprofitable level of staffing.
  #64  
Old 11-16-2017, 11:31 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerosa View Post
If it doesn't hurt her career, she works for a good company. Many corporations will label an accuser a troublemaker - even when there is evidence. A woman harassed who complains - if she gets harassed again, she has a good hostile environment claim. "Look, these idiots keep hiring harassers" - even when the firm is ethical and trying to do the right thing, some guys (as recent media coverage lets us know) are scumbags, and sometimes a hiring manager doesn't do a good job for screening out a scumbag (it can be really hard to tell, after all "Bill Cosby, scumbag" is not something many people anticipated). And therefore, the companies often look for an opportunity to get rid of the victims rather than risk a scumbag slipping through, targeting someone they know will stand up for herself, and ending up with another, this time bigger because its a pattern, problem.

From a companies point of view, their goal is to keep risk low, and they'll make the decisions that have the lowest risk while maintaining the corporate ethical culture (which may or may not be actually ethical). But they'll add in variables that you might not think of - and HR and Legal will add different variables.
She, lets face it was lucky. Her boss, though an asshole in many ways, was completely clear that such behaviour could not and would not be tolerated. She also had a support group of family and friends. Moreover, she was and is a hard-working, bright, personable individual that everyone in her office liked.

A woman who has a less supportive boss and family and who is otherwise bitchy and annoying might not get a similar good outcome, no matter how deserving and merited her case might be.
  #65  
Old 11-16-2017, 11:39 AM
Dangerosa Dangerosa is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 21,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napier View Post
I have some experience with this, if indirectly. I'm a 60 year old man with a long successful career at the same company, and I wasn't sexually harassed per se, but another senior male employee who barely knew me sent me an email full of outrageous sexual jokes about women. I forwarded it to our internal authorities and soon he was gone. The internal authorities told me nobody could retaliate.

But....

A manager above me, who helps set my salary, set up a meeting with me specifically about this. He said doing things like reporting this is not valuable. No, it is doing my primary duties that is valuable.

Is this retribution? Is this being branded a troublemaker? It is certainly a strong message. Losing my job at 60 would be pretty awful.
I'm shocked!

And you have all the markings of someone protected - you are male, you are old enough with a long enough tenure to be in a protected class.

Imagine how easy it is to get rid of the cute 23 year old woman recent college grad that was hired less than a year ago who has been having a hard time getting taken seriously because she's female and good looking and people get distracted by her hair and breasts. Before harassment she was fighting an up hill battle for respect, then a guy gets fired for coming on to her when she said stop, and HR and her manager just looks at her and sees a neon sign that says "trouble."
__________________
One day, in Teletubbie land, it was Tinkie Winkie's turn to wear the skirt.
  #66  
Old 11-16-2017, 12:14 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 28,670
Al Franken has only the one accuser (at least so far).

But there's the, um, photo.
  #67  
Old 11-16-2017, 12:52 PM
treis treis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 9,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerosa View Post

My experience - and I've been involved in this topic for 30 years - including spending time counseling women going through this - is unless you have witnesses, other victims, or evidence, corporate HR will "investigate" by taking to both parties, and any witnesses identified, but will not generally interview people unless they believe they can provide evidence since they don't want gossip to get out of hand, give the guy some sexual harassment training (regardless of the outcome of the investigation) and very likely put the whole department through it, and lay the accuser (and possibly the accused) off in the next RIF. But they'll wait for a RIF to do it.
I don't doubt that your experience has been true for 30 years. I'm not so sure it's true today.

In your 30 years of dealing with this how many false accusations have you dealt with?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerosa
Imagine how easy it is to get rid of the cute 23 year old woman recent college grad that was hired less than a year ago who has been having a hard time getting taken seriously because she's female and good looking and people get distracted by her hair and breasts.
And how much easier would it have been for Uber to fire the guy harassing Susan Fowler instead of becoming the poster child for the sexual harassment problems in Silicon Valley? The world has changed and is continuing to change. Your hypothetical cute 23 year old woman has a non-zero chance of going viral and for her company to become the focus of the national debate about sexual harassment. The calculus for companies has changed and the easiest thing to do is just fire the guy being accused.
  #68  
Old 11-16-2017, 02:26 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,357
I find one thing deeply confusing - it seems that some people who claim that "every victim should be taken seriously, even if he/she is the only accuser" are also simultaneously saying that "a man has nothing to fear if only one accuser comes forth against him."
  #69  
Old 11-16-2017, 03:58 PM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I find one thing deeply confusing - it seems that some people who claim that "every victim should be taken seriously, even if he/she is the only accuser" are also simultaneously saying that "a man has nothing to fear if only one accuser comes forth against him."
"Should" and "Does" are different words with different meanings. The first one is saying what they think SHOULD happen, and the second one is saying what they think DOES happen. It's like saying "Dude should never have been elected" but also admitting "Dude did get elected;" there's no contradiction.
  #70  
Old 11-16-2017, 04:03 PM
Dangerosa Dangerosa is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 21,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by treis View Post
I don't doubt that your experience has been true for 30 years. I'm not so sure it's true today.

In your 30 years of dealing with this how many false accusations have you dealt with?



And how much easier would it have been for Uber to fire the guy harassing Susan Fowler instead of becoming the poster child for the sexual harassment problems in Silicon Valley? The world has changed and is continuing to change. Your hypothetical cute 23 year old woman has a non-zero chance of going viral and for her company to become the focus of the national debate about sexual harassment. The calculus for companies has changed and the easiest thing to do is just fire the guy being accused.
It has changed so much that Susan Fowler quit and Uber was sexually harassing on an institutional scale with many women complaining about it - and it wasn't until she did go public - after she left - that Uber did anything about it. If its changed significantly, its only been in the past four months. I, personally, hope its changing. But it was supposed to change with Anita Hill. It was supposed to change with Mitsubishi. It was supposed to change with the Tailhook scandal, or Bob Packwood - so I'm not holding my breath that this most recent spate of incidents is going to completely solve our problems. I think it will make it better - but it won't fix it.

As for me, I deal with women, outside of the corporate structure, who have made claims and require support. So I don't tend to see false accusations. I have seen a few cases where internally I say "really? You filed a sexual harassment claim because one of your coworkers made a comment - not to you - about fat people?" But they end up talking to the people I work with because they have been traumatized - even if I think that perhaps they are snowflakes. But that is really rare - two or three times in thirty years - and its been older women who have been worn down over time by pervasive sexism who finally break over some stupid comment.
__________________
One day, in Teletubbie land, it was Tinkie Winkie's turn to wear the skirt.
  #71  
Old 11-16-2017, 04:07 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
For years (and still today), women were simply not believed if it was just her accusation against the man. And many women lost their jobs and their reputations over it. We are finally in an era where women are begining to feel empowered enough to speak up and tell their stories and be believed. If the occasional false accusation slips through the cracks, I, for one, am OK with it!

mc
What happened to better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer? It seems you're reversing the principle, better a hundred innocent men suffer than one guilty man go free.
  #72  
Old 11-16-2017, 04:11 PM
Dangerosa Dangerosa is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 21,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
"Should" and "Does" are different words with different meanings. The first one is saying what they think SHOULD happen, and the second one is saying what they think DOES happen. It's like saying "Dude should never have been elected" but also admitting "Dude did get elected;" there's no contradiction.
Its also bigger than that. Every women getting taken seriously does not mean every woman is automatically believed and the guy she accuses is walked to the door by security with his stuff in a box half an hour after she leaves HR. It means every woman's claim is investigated. Every man accused is talked to and given training on why the reported behavior isn't appropriate - even if they say "you might not have done this, but since the claim was made, here watch this 60 minute video." Every claim is put into the accused personnel record so that if there is a pattern of accusations, action can be taken. Mangers are told what is going on, and are told to watch interactions between the individuals in question. It means that if Bob and Jessica are sitting next to each other, maybe its time to move Jessica's desk over to the other end of the office, so she doesn't notice him masturbating to porn on his phone - since no one else has actually caught him doing it - because you shouldn't fire Bob for an accusation of masturbating to porn on his phone at his desk without any other evidence or witnesses (its probably blocked from your work PC, but you can still use your phone) - but that doesn't mean you need to have Jessica continue to sit next to him.
__________________
One day, in Teletubbie land, it was Tinkie Winkie's turn to wear the skirt.
  #73  
Old 11-16-2017, 04:22 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
For years (and still today), women were simply not believed if it was just her accusation against the man. And many women lost their jobs and their reputations over it. We are finally in an era where women are begining to feel empowered enough to speak up and tell their stories and be believed. If the occasional false accusation slips through the cracks, I, for one, am OK with it!

mc
Wow!

You're OK with people's lives being ruined because there was a shortage of justice going the other way in the past?
  #74  
Old 11-16-2017, 04:24 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I'm channeling him now. Here he comes--I can feel him!


The spirits have spoken.
OMG, no one told Emmett Till that he was being lynched because a white woman said he raped her.
  #75  
Old 11-16-2017, 04:55 PM
Napier Napier is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic, USA
Posts: 8,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerosa View Post
I'm shocked!

And you have all the markings of someone protected - you are male, you are old enough with a long enough tenure to be in a protected class.

Imagine how easy it is to get rid of the cute 23 year old woman recent college grad that was hired less than a year ago who has been having a hard time getting taken seriously because she's female and good looking and people get distracted by her hair and breasts. Before harassment she was fighting an up hill battle for respect, then a guy gets fired for coming on to her when she said stop, and HR and her manager just looks at her and sees a neon sign that says "trouble."
You're joking about being shocked, right?

I can well imagine how hard it is for people early in their career, people who are likely targets, people for whom proving themselves is going just fine but still mostly in the future.

I can imagine how much harder still it is for people who have some marks against them - and I mean marks like being a member of a minority group that is discriminated against, or like having made a perfectly valid harassment claim previously, or like having turned down somebody twice their age hitting on them. These marks are absolutely irrelevant here, and are not in the slightest a negative reflection on the person. But I know these would be improper reasons making it more difficult to complain.

Having had this experience, I think that making valid complaints and getting them acted upon is, itself, something preferentially available to those of us who inherited a bunch of unearned privilege. Which is why it is extremely important that we act when we find ourselves in a position to. There is absolutely no excuse not to.
  #76  
Old 11-16-2017, 09:22 PM
Dangerosa Dangerosa is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 21,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napier View Post
You're joking about being shocked, right?
Yep. I needed a sarcasm tag. I'm about as shocked as Captain Renault was to find gambling happening in Rick's.
__________________
One day, in Teletubbie land, it was Tinkie Winkie's turn to wear the skirt.
  #77  
Old 11-17-2017, 10:25 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 35,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
OMG, no one told Emmett Till that he was being lynched because a white woman said he raped her.
IIRC nobody ever said he raped anyone. The woman said he made advances to her, but later recanted. I think the worst he could be plausibly accused of doing is whistle at her, and even that is disputed.

Regards,
Shodan
  #78  
Old Today, 09:58 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10,406
Keep an eye on this case.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017