With respect, you have not substantitated your claim that Carlson was paid less than Doocy. I don’t find the estimates at those websites to be implausible. My evidence, sparse as it is, beats yours.
It was an assessment of Fox News policy: no, I don’t think describing sexist policy is sexist. No, it does not happen to every woman: most women are not in the entertainment business. Yes, it happens to a lot of women in the entertainment business. I don’t know whether or not there’s a shelf life for women anchors at real news shows. Men rely less on their looks in the entertainment industry than women, though appearance of course matters for men. I don’t know whether a man has ever lost a job on network TV because his declining attractiveness, though I suspect it doesn’t happen often.
Not remotely accurate. I specifically said in the post that you replied to that she did not deserve to be sexually harassed by Ailes. I did claim that she was compensated for the sexist bullshit she received on-air.
I think condescension directed at Fox News hosts is rather mild punishment relative to the sorts of things they routinely advocate for others.
…with respect: that wasn’t my fucking claim. I said:
“And no matter how well paid Gretchen was it was statistically probable that she was getting paid far less than her male co-anchors who were doing the same fucking job. So no, this isn’t like hazard pay at all.”
I never claimed Carlson was paid less than Doocy. I just stated that it was statistically probable that she was: which is true. Unless you are one of those “wage gap deniers.”
The websites you cited haven’t even bothered to take down the link to the wordpress site where the templates got purchased. (which leads me to believe they are both the same author.) Both sites liberally crib from wikipedia, and the salary figures (with no primary cites) appear to be just plucked from thin air. The cite you “didn’t” use to quote Carlson’s salary says this: “Gretchen used to earn $80,000 per year and her net worth is about $2.5 million.” This alleged salary figure could have been from any stage of her career, and the same with Doocy.
But all of that is beside the point, because all you are trying to do is distract from the fact that you think that accepting a higher salary means you have to accept sexual harassment.
If you want to assess Fox News policy then next time say this: “I think she got booted from Fox and Friends, because the people at Fox News thought her beauty faded.”
Because what you actually said was this:
“I think she got booted from Fox and Friends, because her beauty faded.”
As written: “her beauty faded” is your assessment, not Fox and Friends. And no matter whose assessment it is: it is still pretty fucking sexist.
Really? This sort of thing only happens in the entertainment business?
And this is sexist yes?
But she did (according to you) deserve to get sexually harassed by Doocy. I wasn’t talking about Ailes. And according to you she got paid to be sexually harassed: so even though she asked for it to stop the correct thing for her to do (in your opinion) was to just shut up and do her job. Because (in your opinion) it “really wasn’t that bad.”
Do you not think she had a right to ask for it to stop? Do you actually believe this sort of behaviour was written into her contract?
Is “Ailes behaviour” really the line that you draw? Anything less than that really isn’t harassment?
As I said: you believe sexual harassment is karma because of other things Carlson has said and done. Classic victim blaming.
I think that is a nasty, disgusting, and rather sad attitude to have.
Imputing Carlson’s salary from broad averages of male-female wage dispersion is a fundamental error, unsurprisingly used by bigots of all types. I’m not saying that you are a bigot. I am saying you are keeping their company.
Carlson was simply a higher profile earner than Doocy. Also, I trust she anticipated that she would have a shorter career.
Yada yada. Let’s see your evidence. Not for wage dispertions: that’s documented at a univariate and at a (smaller) multi-variate level. But for Carlson v. Doocy. Put up or shut up.
This is Fox News we’re discussing. On-air sexism is a given, well known when the anchor signs up for the job. Carlson had a nice job as an anchor at an actual news station: she gave it up for the fame, glory and paycheck of Fox News, not caring about the ignorance and bigotry that she simultaneously advanced.
Newsflash: the latter implies the former, since I don’t make the decisions at Fox News.
Full anticipatable.
Well stewardesses used to age out in the airline business, before lawsuits stopped that practice.
Only if you consider the model, fashion and women’s magazine industry to be sexist. Which of course they are. Though I find their behavior less objectionable than that of Attila the Ailes.
The so-called sexual harassment by Doocy was orders of magnitude less than that suffered routinely in the workplace. I’ll note that nobody has provided examples of this sexist behavior by Doocy, other than myself. So yeah, I picked the worst that I could come up with.
The reader can decide for themselves whether a female anchor who supports racial profiling and gets people on to complain about epidemics of false rape allegations is unduly punished by being patted on the arm once by Steve Doocy in front of the cameras.
I will say one thing. You don’t catch mob bosses with ministers. Mob bosses get taken down by getting their lieutenants to squeal. So it’s unsurprising if some of those who expose Ailes’ wrongdoing have done little in the past to advance human dignity. They work at Fox after all. (This doesn’t apply to victims from Ailes’ pre-Fox days - I can think of one who was exemplary.) At any rate, any move towards justice is welcome, even from those who would extend it only to themselves.
I repeat: “Strong women stand up for themselves. Stronger women stand up for others.”
You don’t seem to get it, Measure for Measure. The fact that she knew about the sexism ahead of time means absolutely jack shit. It is victim-blaming bullshit. She has a right to not be treated in a sexist way. Period.
You also don’t seem to get that the victim’s character has no relevance. That’s the bullshit they try in rape cases. She could be a fucking ISIS supporter, and sexism of any kind towards her would still be wrong. Because, get this, sexism is wrong.
You even admit to some sexism, but then make excuses for it. You act like sexism being less than some certain amount is okay. It’s not. Sexism. Is. Wrong.
You are falling all over yourself with excuses for why this woman’s sexual harassment allegations are not valid. That is fucking disgusting. It makes you no better than the people who did the same thing for Cosby.
I tend to think highly of you, but this is making me think otherwise. Please stop letting your hatred for the “evil party” turn you into an evil person.
You really are starting to show your true colours now.
I don’t need to provide any evidence. There is a statistically small chance Carlson is earning more than Doocy. But that scenario is covered by how I worded what I said. So I have put up.
No this is not a given “Mr put up or shut up.” Show me where this was explained as a term of condition when they signed up for a job. Show me the contract where this was expressed. Put up or shut up.
You don’t actually know why Carlson decided to move stations “Mr put up or shut up.”
Newsflash: no it doesn’t. If you want your words to say something else then actually say that something else. But again: that doesn’t matter. It is still a sexist decision.
WTF do you mean by that?
And racism doesn’t exist because Obama got elected President.
So this was sexist yes?
Oh give me a fucking break.
"According to the complaint, Doocy “created a hostile work environment by regularly treating her in a sexist and condescending way, including by putting his hand on her and pulling down her arm to shush her during a live telecast.” Nor were those isolated incidents. There was a “pattern,” claims the Carlson complaint, of “mocking her during commercial breaks, shunning her off air, refusing to engage with her on air, belittling her contributions to the show, and generally attempting to put her in her place by refusing to accept and treat her as an intelligent and insightful female journalist rather than as a blond female prop.”
Carlson raised complaints about this conduct in 2009. When Ailes heard about the situation, he allegedly called her a “man hater” and urged her to “get along with the boys.” Ailes booted Carlson from “Fox & Friends” in 2013, moving her to her own afternoon slot."
This was all from the cite that was posted earlier in this thread that you responded too. This wasn’t one incident. It was a pattern of behaviour. A pattern that if investigated and found true would be classed as sexual harassment in almost any workplace with sane sexual harassment laws. The effects of sexual harassment don’t work the way you seem to think they do. If you think that “the worst thing that happened to her was he put her hands on her” then you don’t understand the effect on-going harassment has on people. Its not a matter of looking for the “worst thing that happened.”
This really is fucking pathetic. The complaint wasn’t “she was patted on the arm once.” Talk about completely not understanding what sexual harassment actually is.
-Measure for Measure, Sexual Harassment apologist and victim blamer.
(I don’t have a problem with this posting style in this instance.)
Nobody has discussed the specific allegations against Doocy, except myself. I don’t think Carlson’s accusations against him are valid. I think they are chicken shit, in the context of a job that involves poo-pooing such concerns. In an ordinary office? That’s different. See Acsenray’s post: “And even if it’s not in gross specifically gender-based harassment, there is something to be said about someone who continually demeans and undermines a co-worker. That should be something that bothers an employer and fellow employees, regardless of whether it amounts to liability.” Except in the context of Fox News controlled on-air conflict is part of her job. And her off-air complaints contained no serious examples IIRC.
Again though Doocy played a role. She gave Carlson basis to complain to Ailes and to set the groundwork for a retaliation lawsuit. As it happens, the material she captured with her iPhone recorder was worth far more, but she couldn’t have known that ahead of time.
Where were you when she was treated this way on-air? You are reacting to this low-level sexism with outrage. But if it’s all that outrageous, why aren’t there pit threads highlighting the continuous sexism of Fox News, that continues to this day?
Banquet Bear is a bit of a social justice warrior. But most of us are not: we don’t like affronts to human dignity, but we tend to focus on the bigger fish. I’m calling for a little calibration. If you think Doocy’s treatment of Carlson is that horrific, then you (generic you) have oceans of material to attack on a weekly basis in the pit (for example). From Fox News alone.
I’m going to focus on the uncontested facts. Thank you for finally introducing some factual evidence.
My understanding (from reading general discussions of sexual harrassment law in the US in the Economist) is that the sort of thing described here wouldn’t be sufficiently nasty to be actionable. What plaintiffs do in this case is complain about harassment, then frame their case around retaliation for such complaints. Which is the sort of strategy that Carlson appeared to pursue.
You used careful language in your depiction, eg, “A pattern that if investigated and found true”. That would involve testimony and the sorts of examples that were not in the original complaint. The sorts of examples that I was calling for: their absence leaves me less than exercised about the complaint. I don’t have a problem with Carlson launching a lawsuit on that basis if that’s all she had to work with. But I’m guessing she would have not prevailed or received support from her colleagues. Outsiders would have shrugged: the SDMB wouldn’t have noticed. But of course this wouldn’t have happened: Carlson is probably sufficiently bright not to pursue such a legal and professional strategy.
As for the side point of Carlson’s salary, I’ll quote Jennifer Reisch, legal director at Equal Rights Advocates discussing Carlson’s $20 million settlement: [INDENT][INDENT] This doesn’t represent in any way a windfall for her. …The fact is that $20 million may represent less than ten years, or less than five years, of earnings for Gretchen Carlson. https://thinkprogress.org/carlson-settlement-harassment-accfa1726eb#.db5cp9wgk [/INDENT][/INDENT] Figure a generous half of the $20 million goes to lawyers fees. Reisch seems to think Carlson pulls down $1-2 million per year. Carlson’s complaint said that she received a constant salary after leaving Fox and Friends (while having her responsibilities increase). These estimates are in line with the $800,000 internet WAG I cited earlier.
I’m guessing that Doocy earns less. Concluding that he earns more based on broad average wage differentials among large groups is a pretty serious and historically toxic conceptual error. Because it ignores substantial and larger within-group variation. Doocy simply has less star power.
For completeness, I’ll note the other aspects of the case against Doocy that in the public record: [INDENT][INDENT][INDENT] There was also no public support for Carlson from Fox News’ on-air personalities.
Several Fox News employees, past and present, said they were aware of some of the things Carlson claimed in her suit.
"Everyone on staff knew about or saw Doocy make inappropriate comments, but most people just rolled their eyes at it,” a former staffer for “Fox and Friends” told POLITICO.
(An email to Doocy’s Fox News email address inviting him to discuss the suit was unanswered as of Thursday morning.)
Read more: Outfoxed?- POLITICO Media [/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT] So a third party did acknowledge that Doocy made inappropriate comments off the air.
…there is no difference. Harassment is harassment: no matter what the environment.
Acsenray wasn’t backing your point: he was providing an “even if” scenario. It is disingenuous to use his post in support of yours and you know it.
Except Mr Put-Up-Or-Shut-Up you haven’t proven this point. So either put up or shut up.
You haven’t actually seen the complaint from the time it was made: just a summary for a news article of her most recent complaint against Aisles.
And even then: what have you ever done to be in the position to determine how serious a harassment complaint is? You’ve just stated that “In an ordinary office? That’s different.” The harassment is enough to be taken seriously in an “ordinary office” but not an “extraordinary office.” What exactly is the difference?
Is that what you think this was? The basis to set the groundwork for a retaliation suit?
These incidents allegedly happened in 2009. She got “booted” from the show in 2013. It is now 2016. Seven years is a long time to set the groundwork isn’t it? What an odd conspiracy theory. Isn’t it simply much more likely Doocy’s behaviour made her uncomfortable and she complained to the appropriate people? Isn’t that what you are supposed to do? What exactly did she do wrong? Or do you just think this is appropriate punishment for working at Fox News?
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that an iPhone recording of someone behaving atrociously would be “worth far more” than Carlson’s words. Because we know how well valued her words were: you for example treat her words as shit.
This really is pathetic. I don’t watch Fox News: so I have no idea what is happening “to this day” on the air. What I do know is that Carlson made a complaint about Doocy’s behaviour. And she was allegedly told she was a “man hater” and urged her to “get along with the boys.” So for four years she had to work with someone who continued to exhibit the pattern of bullying that she describes in her complaint. And that bullying/harassment was allowed by management.
Hilarious!
I love it when I encounter people who call other people “SJW”'s in real life. They are so absolutely clueless.
Doocy’s treatment of Carlson might not meet your threshold for “horrific”: but they do meet your threshold for sexual harassment in a “normal office.” So they should actually meet your threshold for sexual harassment here. What we are debating here is not how Fox News handles this: but how you perceive this. Because I can’t do anything about Fox News. But you are actually working with people and it is fucking scary that one day you might be in the position to decide whether or not something is harassment.
That is a load of bullshit: as demonstrated by your previous posts.
I didn’t introduce that “factual evidence.” That was introduced by Little Pig, whose cite you had already used to form your opinion. I only cited and quoted from it because it seemed apparent you had forgotten you had read it.
What degree of “nasty” does it have to be before it gets actionable? Cite please Mr Put Up Or Shut Up.
And if the boss told her she was a “man hater” and urged her to “get along with the boys" then you would agree she had a very good case using your criteria, would you not?
Yes: I used careful language. Because you have demonstrated that you are a pedantic twonk because you keep harping on about the salary level as if it were actually relevant.
The “original complaint” is the complaint against Aisles. And Aisles is now gone and she is now (minus lawyers fees) $20 million dollars richer. You can read it here:
There is no “other complaint.” Unless you are talking about the complaint she made seven years ago: in which case “Mr-Put-Up-Or-Shut-Up” can you share that complaint here with the rest of us?
As they are discussing over in the “Stupid Privileged White Kid” you are missing the point. It doesn’t matter if “outsiders would have shrugged.” It doesn’t matter if the SDMB “didn’t notice.” Sexual harassment is sexual harassment no matter who it happened too and under what circumstances.
Please stop guessing. Either put up or shut up. I didn’t “conclude” he got paid more. I stated it was “statistically probable” he did: which is true. But this really matters to you doesn’t it? It matters more that you can prove to me that “you are right” about this than worrying about some “man hater at Fox News.”
Indeed. Its the old “we know he is inappropriate, but if we speak out we get punished” culture that you seem to approve of.
Not sure how to respond to that wall of text. Banquet Bear: what do you see as your core argument? I can hit your points one at a time, but I doubt that would be especially illuminating. I maintain for example that Gretchen Carlson had a higher profile than Doocy. You tell me that men generally get higher wages than women - so therefore Carlson probably was paid less. Wrong on all sorts of levels. I don’t find that argument especially compelling. But I’d rather attack your strongest argument rather than your lamest one.
…my core argument is that you are a sexual harassment apologist and a victim-blamer. That you believe that in some instances sexual harassment is karma and the victim of sexual harassment deserves it: and I think that your attitude is both despicable and dangerous.
I believe that you don’t really understand what sexual harassment is: and that your continued belittling of Carlson for her completely reasonable complaints are classic examples of why sexual harassment continues to exist.
And I’ve made that case via that “wall of text.” And it is clear that you still don’t “get it” as you still think that how much Carlson gets paid is at all relative to my point. I’m not talking about Carlson or Doocy or Aisles. I’m talking about YOU.
My take is that Gretchen Carlson can legitimately point to instances where she has suffered unduly at the hands of television executives. She details how she handled multiple instances of sexual assault in her memoir. That’s pretty bad stuff and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
The sorts of sexual harassment that Carlson dealt with by Doocy off camera sounded a lot like a mixture of workplace friction and …well, the crap she dealt with on-camera. Crap that frankly was the basis for the show. Fox and Friends was more of a chat show than a news show after all. It entailed a babe seated on a couch between two swarmy guys spouting inanities. That was the formula before she arrived, when she stayed and after she left. Yes, it didn’t exactly advance human dignity. Yes, I wish that whole situation never existed.
And yet Carlson knew what she was getting into, and was paid an estimated $1.5 million per year according to the algorithm at Celebrity Net Worth. This algorithm is in line with the estimates by Jennifer Reisch, legal director at Equal Rights Advocates. Doocy in contrast was paid an estimated $500,000 per year. That’s more than fair to Doocy. Because jerks have longer shelf lives than babes.
It’s easy for me to feel sorry for Carlson for being targeted by sexual predators and assaulters. It’s more difficult for me to feel sorry for her when she joins a show whose entire premise is that low level sexual harassment is no big deal, feminists are being kill joys, and boys will be boys. Now admittedly Carlson wasn’t as bad as some other female Fox News faces in that regard. Still. During her career she has promoted all manner of toxic behavior. That she got just the tiniest sliver of it in return from Doocy - on the level of annoyance as opposed to pay or sexually demeaning offers - doesn’t sound harsh to me. Carlson wasn’t a passive actor in this. She gave up a job doing real news, presumably for the higher salary and perhaps greater exposure. Or maybe she didn’t think Fox and Friends would be so bad. Who knows?
The Ailes stuff is an entirely different category. That she didn’t sign up for and Fox’s official policy was that it wasn’t tolerated.
…how did Carlson know what she was getting into? How does that work exactly? She signed a contract agreeing to suffer “low-level” sexual harassment over the course of her employment?
Carlson of course didn’t know what she was getting into. And there is no job out there where people have to suffer getting harassed as a matter of course. It doesn’t matter how much she got paid and it is insulting that you keep bringing her pay up.
And “low level” harassment is an insidious, odious thing. It is so easily dismissed. You’ve been dismissing it all thread. But you are wrong to dismiss it.
I’m not asking you to “feel sorry for her.” I’m asking you to stop treating the claims as if they are insignificant because they are not. You are not in the position to judge the veracity of her claims: all we have to work with are a couple of sentences quoted from court documents that were filed over a completely different case. We don’t know the full context: we don’t know the complete nature of the complaints, but we do know that the complaints were dismissed in a manner entirely consistent with a workplace that was rife with harassment.
If her claims are true then she is a victim of sexual harassment. And it doesn’t matter if she was paid a lot of money and it doesn’t matter what she said or did in her position as a host. To consider otherwise is blaming the victim and apologising for sexual harassment.
So you haven’t really resolved anything here. We know that you are an apologist and a victim blamer. And you’ve double-downed on that. Just stop being that person already. It really doesn’t look good on you.
I don’t watch Fox, of course, but I have heard from other sites that the Fox girls are showing a lot less leg these days. Perhaps now they are liberated from having to dress to please Roger.
Fox and Friends had been hosted with the same formula before she arrived at the network. E.D. Hill played her role from 1998-2006. Carlson had even guest hosted the show during the weekends, before she joined in 2006. The jovial sexism was on display during the entire time. After Carlson left in 2013, rating apparently shot up when Elisabeth Hasselbeck arrived, who was 11 years younger.
Carlson knew what she was doing. To suggest otherwise denies her agency IMHO, which is much less than she deserves.
Absent such evidence, I don’t draw conclusions. Show me the evidence, and I’ll give you concern. Also, there wasn’t a word limit on her document. Straight Dope legal Eagles can correct me if I’m wrong, but typically you don’t hold back evidence in these sorts of documents. (Right? Or wrong?)
Again though, what happened with Doocy was highly significant, because it set up a solid case for a retaliation suit, something which is far more likely to succeed in court than a sexual harassment suit. Sure, there were real workplace issues dating from ~2007. But the alleged retaliation started in 2013. And in 2014, Carlson wisely started to wear a metaphorical wire when she met privately with Ailes.
Probably not legally.
I find this view unnecessarily condescending towards Carlson. I think she took a difficult situation and resolved it successfully. But I also think she had a longstanding habit of enabling sexism on the show. I simply won’t ignore that.
No, not exactly a non-issue: I’ve encouraged discussion. But I’m making a moral claim. Carlson has done real damage to the cause of human dignity. She doesn’t deserve assault, she doesn’t deserve sexual predation and she doesn’t even deserve illegal sexual harassment. But annoyance? While holding down a $1.5 million per year job? Cry me a river. Her co-workers -many paid far less than she was- said they rolled their eyes at Doocy’s crap and I’m guessing Carlson did too.
