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: 5,077
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 offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,290
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 offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,290
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: 10,830
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 offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 21,672
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: 38,915
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 offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 21,672
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 offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,290
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 offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 21,672
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: 3,230
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: 8,935
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: 10,830
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: 3,230
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 offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,290
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 offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 21,672
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: 29,067
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: 9,214
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 offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,696
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: 3,230
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 offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 21,672
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: 7,969
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 offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 21,672
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: 19,515
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: 19,515
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: 8,935
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 offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 21,672
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 offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 35,557
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 12-12-2017, 09:58 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10,830
Keep an eye on this case.
  #79  
Old 12-13-2017, 09:47 PM
GreysonCarlisle GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 295
Kentucky state representative, Dan Johnson, shot himself dead tonight over sexual misconduct allegations brought by a member of his church.

At first, he said that he had been drugged. Then he said that he didn't remember. Then he denied it. Then he killed himself.
  #80  
Old 12-14-2017, 10:28 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Keep an eye on this case.
I have a hard time that there were no witnesses or collaborators when, even according to the accused, this was a long-running sexual relationship. Although details are scarce, there doesn't seem to be any dispute that sex happened, and presumably lots of other people (restaurant staff and the like) witnessed interactions between them. So I don't think it qualifies just on basic grounds, if nothing else the fact that the accused admitted to having sex with the accuser means there is not just a single accuser.

More to the general point, it's certainly not a case that could have been solved by only holding closed-door meetings with a witness present, unless the guy planned to have someone from work accompany them to the bedroom on dates. Having sexual relationships with subordinates is an EXTREMLY different risk category than having closed-door meetings with subordinates about work matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle View Post
Kentucky state representative, Dan Johnson, shot himself dead tonight over sexual misconduct allegations brought by a member of his church.

At first, he said that he had been drugged. Then he said that he didn't remember. Then he denied it. Then he killed himself.
He wasn't her supervisor and he wasn't fired or disciplined at work, so again it doesn't meet the basic standards set in the OP. This really doesn't have anything at all to do with any kind of sexual harassment in the workplace- I would certainly agree that getting drunk and banging a 17-year-old (especially against her will) is not a good career choice, but it's miles away from holding closed-door meetings with subordinates.



The idea that managers working in an office should fear unsubstantiated accusations that arise from an unwitnessed meeting because someone lost their job over a long-running affair with a co-worker and someone else killed themselves because their cover-up of the drunken rape of a 17-year-old started to fall apart doesn't make any sense to me.
  #81  
Old 12-14-2017, 10:34 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I have a hard time that there were no witnesses or collaborators when, even according to the accused, this was a long-running sexual relationship. Although details are scarce, there doesn't seem to be any dispute that sex happened, and presumably lots of other people (restaurant staff and the like) witnessed interactions between them. So I don't think it qualifies just on basic grounds, if nothing else the fact that the accused admitted to having sex with the accuser means there is not just a single accuser.
I don't get what you're saying here.

Of course there would be any number of witnesses to a relationship. But there wouldn't be any number of witnesses who could testify that it was of a harassing nature. That could very easily rest on just the word of the accuser alone.

I don't know. All I said was to keep an eye on this case. What makes it different than many other cases are 1) the fact that it's only one accuser, 2) the nature of the accused's denials, and 3) that the accuser came forth with a lawyer who has already sued other media entities.

So I suspect it may have been a bad breakup, someone looking to cash on the current atmosphere, and a jittery employer. But I don't know. He's a public figure, so possibly more will come out.
  #82  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:10 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic in the OP
men essentially never get fired from an allegation made by one subordinate with no witnesses or collaborators. - there are always multiple allegations or witnesses when job loss happens, and 'never be alone' doesn't help there. Other people disagreed, but were unable to come up with an actual example of it happening,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I don't get what you're saying here.

Of course there would be any number of witnesses to a relationship. But there wouldn't be any number of witnesses who could testify that it was of a harassing nature. That could very easily rest on just the word of the accuser alone.
What I said first is quite simply that your case doesn't fit the criteria in the OP, and I stand by it. This isn't an allegation made by one subordinate with no witnesses or collaborators, as the accused admits to a sexual relationship with the accuser. It's not actually clear from the article (and others) that she was actually a subordinate or co-worker, though I think it's a reasonable assumption. The article also doesn't allege that something of a "harassing nature" occurred per se, but instead uses the phrase "improper sexual conduct" which could include something as straightforward as a policy of 'you can't bang your subordinates here, period', so it's possible that his admission is an admission of exactly what he's accused of (although I doubt it's that simple). So this completely fails on at least one criteria of the OP, and possibly multiple.

And in a more general sense, this simply isn't a case where a manager is just doing his job and gets fired because of a single accuser, where refusing to hold closed-door meetings would help. This is a case where the accused was having sex with someone, not just work-related meetings, and "don't actually have sex with your subordinates while you're still in that work relationships" is actually a pretty standard way to avoid harassment (and other conduct) issues.
  #83  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:20 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
What I said first is quite simply that your case doesn't fit the criteria in the OP, and I stand by it. This isn't an allegation made by one subordinate with no witnesses or collaborators, as the accused admits to a sexual relationship with the accuser. It's not actually clear from the article (and others) that she was actually a subordinate or co-worker, though I think it's a reasonable assumption. The article also doesn't allege that something of a "harassing nature" occurred per se, but instead uses the phrase "improper sexual conduct" which could include something as straightforward as a policy of 'you can't bang your subordinates here, period', so it's possible that his admission is an admission of exactly what he's accused of (although I doubt it's that simple). So this completely fails on at least one criteria of the OP, and possibly multiple.
If so, then the criteria in your OP were unreasonably narrow.

If a guy is accused of an improper relationship and the witnesses can only testify that there was a relationship, it's like if a guy was accused of spousal abuse and the witnesses can only testify that the couple was married.

Quote:
And in a more general sense, this simply isn't a case where a manager is just doing his job and gets fired because of a single accuser, where refusing to hold closed-door meetings would help. This is a case where the accused was having sex with someone, not just work-related meetings, and "don't actually have sex with your subordinates while you're still in that work relationships" is actually a pretty standard way to avoid harassment (and other conduct) issues.
Well yes. But the implications are the same.

The question is whether it's true that an accusation from a single person can ruin the accused. If that's the case here, then it would be the case elsewhere. In this particular case, closed-door meetings wouldn't have helped, but if it's true that an accusation from a single person can ruin someone, then you can't dismiss it as you might if that were not the case.

In sum, the question here is how much evidence is required before someone suffers severe consequences. Anything that fits that criteria is relevant.
  #84  
Old 12-14-2017, 02:08 PM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
If so, then the criteria in your OP were unreasonably narrow.
No, my criteria are broad enough for what I want to discuss. Telling me that it's unreasonable for me to discuss one topic and not some other topic is the thing that is actually unreasonable.

Quote:
Well yes. But the implications are the same.
No, they're not, and I've already explained why. Issues arriving from sexual intercourse with someone, possibly a co-worker or subordinate, are simply not the same thing as issues arising from normal business discourse with a subordinate.

Quote:
The question is
Posted in the OP, by me, and you don't get to tell me what my own question was. I provided ample context and some specific criteria in the OP, and what you're posting simply doesn't fit them, or shed light on the issue that I was discussing. Telling me that I said something different than what I said is not reasonable.
  #85  
Old 12-14-2017, 02:23 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
No, my criteria are broad enough for what I want to discuss. Telling me that it's unreasonable for me to discuss one topic and not some other topic is the thing that is actually unreasonable.
You can discuss whatever you want to discuss. But if you're trying to draw broad conclusions and then set the criteria of acceptable evidence too narrowly, then you're being unreasonable in claiming that the dearth of evidence makes your case.

Quote:
No, they're not, and I've already explained why. Issues arriving from sexual intercourse with someone, possibly a co-worker or subordinate, are simply not the same thing as issues arising from normal business discourse with a subordinate.
For purposes of what level of evidence is sufficient to harm someone, the only thing that counts is what level of evidence there is for the specific conduct that the accused is accused of.
  #86  
Old 12-14-2017, 03:09 PM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
You can discuss whatever you want to discuss. But if you're trying to draw broad conclusions and then set the criteria of acceptable evidence too narrowly, then you're being unreasonable in claiming that the dearth of evidence makes your case.
I'm trying to draw broad conclusions about the risks to people who engage in professional relationships with co-workers. I have no interest in discussing the risks involved for people who are banging their co-workers, especially subordinates, because that's an unusual, high-risk activity that runs directly counter to the original discussion that prompted the thread. Seriously, this started off with people who don't do anything improper but feel that they should always bring in a witness if they're going to have a one-on-one meeting with a subordinate to mitigate risk, and you're using an example of someone who sticks his dick in subordinates to show that there is a risk.

It's like if we're discussing whether side view cameras would reduce your risks in ordinary driving, and you dragged in a story about a drunk driver getting injured. The extreme riskiness of the drunk driving behavior swamps anything about the potential protection of side view cameras, plus we already have a foolproof plan to keep from getting into a wreck as a drunk driver (don't drive drunk in the first place).

Quote:
For purposes of what level of evidence is sufficient to harm someone, the only thing that counts is what level of evidence there is for the specific conduct that the accused is accused of.
Nope, no one declared you God of Forum Discussions, so you don't get to arbitrarily declare The Truth. The additional risk factors undertaken by the person are hugely relevant in a discussion about harmful evidence. As I said in my OP, an example of someone who's guilty of other firing offenses like showing up to work drunk would not be a good example, because it's highly likely that the person was actually fired for the drinking PLUS the accusation, not simply for the accusation. Your example of someone who bangs co-workers is similar, because the act of banging co-workers is itself a hugely risky activity that most companies discourage or prohibit, and you can't show that the firing was solely because of the accusation, and not because of both the accusation AND the related bad behavior the he already confessed to.
  #87  
Old 12-14-2017, 03:14 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 10,830
OK, so it sounds like what you're saying now boils down to something slightly different. Specifically, you're suggesting that the guy was not sacked because the allegations from that one person were found to be credible, but because his even having a consensual relationship with her violated some company policy and was considered inappropriate, and contributed to his firing. That's not what you said originally, but fine.

If you want to hang your hat on that, OK. I think that's rather dubious.
  #88  
Old 12-14-2017, 04:19 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 38,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Wow!

You're OK with people's lives being ruined because there was a shortage of justice going the other way in the past?
I think you missed the point.

Are you okay with people being hit by cars?

Are you okay with people dying in airplane crashes?

Are you okay with people dying of heart attacks?

I'd sure hope not, but I find it had to believe you want cars banned, planes grounded, or hamburgers illegal, though it is very, very obvious that cars, planes and hamburgers do in fact kill people through traffic accidents, plane crashes, and heart attacks. There's no doubt you could reduce traffic mishaps by making everyone take the bus, but you and I and all people with brains know there's a tradeoff there in terms of freedom, economic benefits, and the value of a pluralistic society that makes the risk worth it.

Ar you okay with people going to prison for robberies they did not commit? It's happened, you know; it'll happen again. So should we stop enforcing the laws against robbery? Kind of a stupid idea, isn't it?

Having a society were women are heard when they say men abuse them is worth the tradeoff of the extremely rare occasions when someone will be falsely accused AND the accusation isn't shot to pieces.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #89  
Old 12-14-2017, 04:48 PM
Pantastic Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
OK, so it sounds like what you're saying now boils down to something slightly different. Specifically, you're suggesting that the guy was not sacked because the allegations from that one person were found to be credible, but because his even having a consensual relationship with her violated some company policy and was considered inappropriate, and contributed to his firing. That's not what you said originally, but fine.

If you want to hang your hat on that, OK. I think that's rather dubious.
You seem to think I'm limited to picking one reason to disqualify an example, but I'm not and I'm saying that this is flawed in multiple ways. First off, it fails at the most basic level because it's not based on the allegations of one accuser, as the accused admitted to at least part of the allegations, meaning there's more than one witness. It might fail in several other ways, as there are no real details - it might not be a sexual harassment case at all since the complaint literally says 'inappropriate sexual behavior' and nothing else, the accuser might not be a co-worker or subordinate, and the behavior might not have even occurred at work. There also could be more witnesses or recordings of behavior, since we really have no details at all.

Finally, the guy admits that he's banging the accuser, and presuming the accuser is someone he works with that is an extremely high-risk behavior that is often an explicit firing offense and in practice is commonly 'if we have to hear about it, it's a firing offense'. So it's doesn't qualify both because the guy is engaging in egregiously bad behavior and because it's almost completely contrary to what sparked the original discussion. (BTW, if the accuser isn't someone he works with, then the example fails to qualify as they're not co-workers).

Last edited by Pantastic; 12-14-2017 at 04:48 PM.
  #90  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:33 AM
nelliebly nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 299
[QUOTE=AK84;20604963]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]

Cite? You're bandying things about without context and without cites. Where are you getting this claim that rape had the highest rate of deliberately false allegations? Or this stat that "everything else" (false reports of all other crimes, I assume) was only at 1%?

As for your claim that the actual rate of rape cases which were dismissed is "higher, about 40%", you need to cite that, too. Perhaps you're confusing it with the oft-cited 1994 study by Prof. Eugene Kanin, reported that 41% of the 109 sexual assault reports made to one midwestern police agency were deemed to be false over a nine-year time period. However, the determination that the charges were false was made solely by the detectives; this evaluation was not reviewed substantively by the researcher or anyone else." Or maybe you were referring to the 2006 Rumney study that includes "a study by Jordan (2004) that reports a false allegation rate of 38%. However, that figure is actually the percentage of false reports among cases that had been classified as unfounded. Since the researcher does not provide the total number of cases of rape in her sample, it is impossible to determine the actual rate of false allegations."
  #91  
Old 12-18-2017, 01:10 AM
Roy Batty Roy Batty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
If the occasional false accusation slips through the cracks, I, for one, am OK with it!
Only a complete nimrod would say and/or believe something like this. This is akin to saying that it's OK if the occasional innocent person goes to jail once in a while, as long as most people in jail were guilty. In actuality, it's NEVER alright if someone innocent is EVER unjustly accused of anything.

Obviously, you would be singing a different tune if you were the one being falsely accused.
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 06:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.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 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017