“I Told Ya So” is a passive aggressive form of hate and its beneath intelligent people who are Adults. No one who relies on “I Told Ya So” as a point of discussion, debate, or as a talking point is worth their water, let alone their salt.
People can have talent. People can be assholes. The set of people who do both regularly does intersect at points and this is beyond dispute.
Accepting a job and taking the money is a contract to work hard and to act within expected parameters, both on and off of the clock. You are Being Paid both for hard work and behavior within corporate cultural norms as well as within the law… both on and off of the clock.
If you take the money, you can from that point, no longer be an asshole. If you choose to break the terms of your employment by being an asshole, in an at-will state, you have just resigned.
I give employers a hard time, but if I was in their shoes, I could see them giving this speech to a Very Talented potential employee with some history of being an Asshole:
[spoiler] "This is the job. It pays Money. Good money & Lots more than you can get elsewhere. If you take the Job and if you take the Money, YOU WILL NOT BE AN ASSHOLE.
Are we clear? Is this a concept you can comprehend? This is my brand, this is what I’ve spend my life building. You will NOT fuck it up by acting like an ASSHOLE.
Get That Fucking Smirk Off Your Fucking Face or Get The Fuck Out of My Building!
Now, DO I have your attention?
Do you want this job?
A job that pays Normal Human Beings Really Fucking Well, or Do you want to get the Fuck off of my property Right Now?
Tick-Tock
Lastly, Don’t you Fucking Ever make me have to bring up this conversation with you ever again. Ever! You can leave now. Human Resources is on the right, parking lot is on the left… and if you Ever change your mind? Don’t come back…"
[/spoiler]
Its human nature. The Hooters waitress hasn’t spouted political ideas we find abhorrent, nor does she have a Stanford degree that gives her a lot of choice. The first gives us a very human feeling of comeuppance, the second allows us to justify that feeling.
Not that we shouldn’t appeal the the better angels of our nature.
Except being a douchebag doesn’t necessarily equal breaking the law. I’ve worked with guys who were complete and utter dicks, but none of them committed sexual harassment.
“Presumption of innocence” is for the courts. We can speculate all we want.
I’m with wolfpup. When I got mugged at gunpoint, I reviewed my behavior and tried to figure out how I could have done better. Ditto in all cases where I’ve been a crime victim. To bar such a discussion would deny me agency.
I also fully support this post by Dangerosa, because it goes into the calculations that a reasonable woman would face when working at Fox News. Bill O’Reilly settled a sexual harrassment lawsuit in late 2004. According to Joe Muto, all employees attended sexual harassment seminars after that. Gretchen Carlson signed up with Fox in 2005. She also signed a arbitration agreement with Fox.
I say Carlson should have been surprised, but not shocked at Ailes’ alleged scummy behavior. And she should have had the reasonable expectation that she could sue him to the gills for that sort of thing (h/t nana). I hope she had a working recorder.
Fine. But if the upshot of that “review” had been that you would be seriously denied your ability to participate in a personal or professional life–if it meant you couldn’t leave your house after dark, take a job where you had to travel, etc. etc., would you have made those compromises?
Telling women to avoid working any place where there is a reasonable chance of facing sexual harassment is to ask them to voluntarily circumscribe their ability to follow many, many careers. And that might, might make sense if you were talking about risking death, but we are talking about taking the risk that you might get harassed and have to file charges/sue someone.
Honestly, women today have so many options because women were willing to go into situations where they were likely to faced with sexual harassment and then stood up when it occurred. That’s not being culpable, that’s being heroic. And if Carlson makes Fox a more woman-friendly environment going forward, again, it’s to her credit that she’s willing to do that.
Maybe. It depends on the circumstances. If I was in war zone for example, I very much would have considered certain compromises. Other stuff I would have chalked up to occupational hazard. It depends.
FTR, I didn’t tell Carlson to do that. Wolfpup may have - not sure.
I say such risks should certainly be weighed by the job seeker.
Yup. As much as I dislike Carlson for being unwilling or more likely unable to thread the needle like Megan Kelly (precious few have the latter’s social talent), +1. Pigs like Ailes allegedly is need to be taken down: sainthood on the part of the plaintiff shouldn’t be a requirement.
I would regard Fox News as something a lot more insidious than just a place where women might be subject to sexual harassment – as we saw with Ailes, and with Doocy and O’Reilly, and with their general demeanor, the place reeks of deceit and corruption from the top down. Its fundamental purpose is to be a partisan lie factory and this mission informs their culture. So I don’t think striking Fox off their list is going to be a serious career limitation for women or anyone else.
I agree that Carlson’s lawsuit has the potential to make Fox a more woman-friendly environment, but she certainly didn’t go in there with the intention of filing a lawsuit. As you implied in #123, quite astutely I thought, it’s at least as probable that Carlson actually contributed to the culture of misogyny; it certainly appears that she was willing to demean herself to play the role of blonde bimbo as Fox required, even though she’s way better than that. We can only speculate about her motivations but she was getting prime time exposure and presumably a lot more money to go with that than she was getting at CBS. There’s nothing wrong with that except to the extent that she was doing it for a such a loathsome organization and apparently willing to sacrifice her dignity in the process. So if accurate, that part was far from heroic. But, yes, suing the bastards is to her credit.
I have no ill will whatever against Carlson and my various comments that were so misinterpreted and viciously maligned are not about Carlson but about Fox News, an organization for which I have a palpable loathing. Yet even I would not have expected that Ailes would try to have sex with her and threaten her job over it, but I thought the decision to work there was a poor one because she could reasonably have expected to be treated poorly in that shithole and not be able to work at the journalistic caliber of which she was capable.
However evil or wrong Fox News is, it’s absolutely a gross concept error to believe that certain organizations or types of organizations are more likely to harbor sexual harassers and abusers than others due to political leanings.
From my reading, you’ve implied that a woman should expect that it would be more likely that she would be sexually harassed at Fox News, especially in an on-air job, then elsewhere. Such an implication is both wrong and harmful, IMO.
I’m fine with saying that some corporate cultures enable more sexual harassment and abuse than others. What’s appalling is saying that a women should react to that by staying away from that corporation/industry/whatever. It was literally true EVERYWHERE in recent memory. And if everyone follows that advice, the inly women in thise industries will ve rhe ones with no choice, and so no way to defend themselves.
If I wasn’t clear, then I apologize. The harassment is definitely her fault. But it is also the fault of the harasser too. My point is that most people would only blame the harasser, and that’s ok, because in most places, it would definitely only be the harasser’s fault. But not at Fox. At Fox News, she takes the blame too
It does matter because she’s as much of a perpetrator of hate as Ailes. He was the puppetmaster but she was a willing participant. She used her position to harm women and others by espousing the same kind of ideas that she now wants sympathy for. If she were innocent, if she were some editor or camerawomen, I can see that she might be innocent, but she wasn’t, not for one minute.
Unlike the caricature you have of me, I wouldn’t be saying this if it were any other employer. I can understand people taking jobs in bad places to make a living. There are perfectly good people working for Exxon knowing they’re destroying the earth, perfectly good people working for GOP Congressmen or clerking for Clarence Thomas who only want experience and a foot in the door. But Carlson’s position at such a place precludes me giving her any sympathy. As a prime time anchor of her own show, she was one of a handful of people who had real power to change the conversation, to give a voice to women, like the ones you accuse me of someday harassing, the opportunity to shut down the men who are valuing them only for their looks. But for years she did nothing, laughed it off, and we heard no backstage efforts by her to get Ailes to stop it and only when it finally happens to her, does she finally stand up and say “No more!”? Fuck those opportunists, they deserve to reap what harvests they’ve sown
Let’s put it another way: If you go down into the sewer, should you have a reasonable expectation that you won’t get dirty?
No victim blaming there, just a judgement-less logical thought puzzle. If you put your hand in fire, can a reasonable person expect to be burned? If you grab at a rose bush, can a reasonable person expect you to be pricked? If you jump into the ocean, can a reasonable person expect to get wet?
Your own biases, as noble as they may be, to defend all instances of perceived sexism anywhere is laudable, but it doesn’t apply in this case. As I’ve said, this isn’t a “women vs. men” issue, nor a sexism issue, or even a pure Carlson vs. Ailes issue and you have to decide who’s more repugnant. This is ultimately an issue of what one expect to happen if one pursues a path where Result X is more likely to happen than Result Z. In this case specifically, its that a women who works for an organization that actively blames them for sexual harassment, demeans them, and values them for their bodies, should be expected to take into account the possibility that it may happen to her, and how much sympathy she gets after it does.
That is your mistake. You want to think this is just the same sexism argument present in every single case of victim blaming. But its not.
I will NEVER use the argument “She got what she deserved” if a woman is harassed/raped/attacked while wearing something risque, or drinking too much, or in a bad part of town, or trusted the wrong person, or already gave consent to a previous sexual advance, etc. Never. But in this case, with Fox, its different from all of that.
I guess the most simple way I can explain it is women should be expected to be not attacked if they wear something enticing, or drink, or in any neighborhood, or trust their male friends/family, or rescind a previous sexual consent. That is something all women should be able to do without consequence. That some get attacked for it, and then blamed for it, is a shame and travesty.
However, NO ONE, not a woman, or a man, or anybody with the kind of power that Carlson had should expect to work at Fox News where they themselves are a target demographic of the hate Fox spews and expect not to have been also guilty of that hate. No one is beyond it.
Your specific claim was that I had said that their culture of harassment was “due to political leanings.” I never said that. Now you’re saying something else. It’s hard to read reports like this one or this one and be able to maintain the belief that Fox News is just a conventionally ethical work environment like any other, particularly when your chief executive is apparently a psychopath. Six other women have now come forward claiming sexual harassment. Another one alleges Ailes dropped his pants in his office and tried to get her to give him a blowjob when she was sixteen. Doocy is another pig. O’Reilly settled a multimillion dollar harassment lawsuit.
Maybe, but there’s a big difference between “corporation/industry/whatever” and one specific company that seems to be off the charts when it comes to a culture of misogyny and harassment. And not everyone wants to be a culture warrior. Some people just want an opportunity to be good at their jobs and advance their careers. If someone who knows what they’re getting into wants to invade Fox and rock the boat and improve the environment there, they have my blessing. But it’s not “appalling” to suggest that the more peaceable non-warriors may prefer to go where the waters are a little calmer.
Women should be able to dress how they want, drink where they want, and go to whoever’s apartment without being attacked.
But like the examples I said above, if you take out the social aspects, if you’re just saying a person doing X may result in Z, then you can see my argument is not sexist. If you stick your hand in water, you expect it to get wet. There’s no judgement there, there’s no shame, its just logic: water = wet. If you jump in front of a moving train, you can expect to get killed. Again, purely logical, no judgement, just causation.
I take that extreme stance with Fox, something a lot of people are unwilling to admit. Fox is bad. They are soooooooooo bad. The people who put out the programming, the people who anchor the face of the shows, and the managers like Ailes, are all in on the scheme. Each one perfectly understands what they are doing, why they are doing it, and how they will go about it. So if you’re a woman and you work in a place like that, lending your face and credibility to shaming, attacking, and demeaning other women? Then you’re a part of the problem, not just a victim.
Maybe an extreme example would help illustrate my point. Let’s say she was the rapist. She was assaulting other women, and helping to bring victims to Ailes. She drugged them, stripped them, and had them waiting naked in his bed when he got there. Then he decides he wants her as well. Should I hold her innocent of all responsibility? Fuck THAT shit, she deserved it.
In all of the responses so far I’ve seen, nobody has acknowledge one of my main points: She was an active participant in the attacks on other women!
I get that you and Miller and others want to desperately see this as another case of victim blaming. And I’ve said as much that I can see why I come off as a huge asshole here. If this were any other workplace or situation, I’d be right with you. But this isn’t. None of you are even bothering to acknowledge that
GRETCHN CARLSON WAS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN DEMEANING WOMEN!!!
That makes this situation 100% different than any scenario you could have dreamed up. In this case, taking your examples:
She didn’t just wear a short skirt, she wore a short skirt and lured lesbians so that she can rape them with her boyfriend, and then he raped her and that’s why she deserves it.
Or she went out drinking, got other women drunk so she can rape them, then one of them woke up before she did and raped her back and that’s why she deserves it.
Or she went to a guy’s apartment with the intention of raping him, drugged his drink, but accidentally drank it herself and he raped her and that’s why she deserves it.
Carlson is Roger Ailes except female. She supported his views, attacked other women, allowed herself to be demeaned, and took money to do it and did it with a smile. And now the tables have turned and she wants our sympathy? Fuck no, she doesn’t get it, not one bit
If this was directed to me, then I never called her a skank. That’s one thing I hope I made very clear that I don’t consider her any less for any sex she may or may not have had with anyone. I consider her bad because she works at Fox News.
Of course it’s not an ethical work environment – but “like any other” implies that the norm in our society is for women to be respected and treated with dignity. And that’s not the norm – sexual harassment is the norm, and has been for a long, long time.
In patriarchal culture, any workplace can be like Fox News. Perhaps a bit less so now than 40 years ago, but not nearly enough.
I think you’ve implied that somehow Carlson should have expected that Fox News, or her particular job at Fox News, would be worse with regards to workplace mistreatment of women than some other random workplace, and that’s where I strongly disagree. This is rape culture – when this stuff is pretty damn common, and yet some people always manage to find a way to place some blame or responsibility on the woman victim.
You’re more than just a “huge asshole”. You’re a despicable piece of shit. You have the same attitude that people at Fox do. I don’t like Fox News either. But she’s not Eva Braun. I mean, should we take everyone who works there out and execute them by firing squad? I know plenty of awful, disgusting people in the world. Doesn’t mean I think they deserve to be raped.
YogSothoth – the reason you’re getting this so fucking wrong is that you don’t recognize that sexual harassment isn’t justice, or part of justice, no matter the transgression. It doesn’t matter what someone did – maybe they deserve to be criticized, or imprisoned, or even executed, but sexual mistreatment doesn’t fall into those categories of things that can serve as appropriate retribution.
That you don’t get it is just a sign of how much you’ve bought into rape culture – that you believe something on the continuum of rape (and harassment is pretty far down, but still on this continuum) can have anything to do with appropriate punishment, justice, or retribution. It never does in any circumstance.
My own work experience is probably biased because it’s mostly been universities and companies that stress ethical practices, but if we’re living in a “rape culture” I’ve certainly never seen it. What I’ve seen is precisely the kind of respect that you seem to be mocking as non-existent, and zero tolerance for transgressions. Now there may be a rough-and-tumble work world out there that I haven’t experienced but I would find it very very hard to believe that anything like that described in those two articles I linked is in any way the norm – remember the second one is titled “Rape culture and toxic masculinity led to Gretchen Carlson leaving Fox News” and one or both of them described Ailes in terms that quite literally qualify him as a psychopath and sexual predator.
I would certainly hope that having such a person as one’s CEO and promulgating such a culture in the organization would not ever be considered “the norm” in the year 2016. Is the CEO of CBS a psychopath and sexual predator? ABC? NBC? PBS? CNN? Those are the norms. How many O’Reilly or Ailes type accusations and lawsuits have we seen from them?
I haven’t located evidence online that she attacked other women. She did characterize Ted Kennedy as a “Hostile enemy” of the United States in January 2007 because of that Senator’s opposition to the Iraq War. She did act stupider than she was during Fox and Friends. She occasionally acted less than thrilled with the boys.
I haven’t seen a smoking gun where she, for example, attacked another woman for filing a sex discrimination lawsuit. What I see is insufficient pushback. But doing that is difficult if you want to stay employed at that network. Not impossible: difficult.
Not that I haven’t looked for it. After Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade reported on a fake news story, they were correctly characterized as “Gullible” in this judicial opinion: [INDENT]But First Amendment principles developed long before the Internet still provide protection to the gullible news program hosts against this public official’s claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. Poetic justice would subject the defendants to the same ridicule that they accorded the plaintiff. But in real life, the aggrieved school superintendent must be satisfied with their later retraction and a professional reputation sullied less than theirs.[/INDENT] To which plenty will say, “Professional reputation? On Fox News? Your honor must be discussing a different network.” Anyway, Carlson nodded along during the piece, but that’s it. http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/06/06/gullible-fox-amp-friends-escape-lawsuit-for-rep/143677
Hm. Skimming the internet, I’d like to say a word in Ailes’ defense. Kidding! Here are some quotes from the Fox News trenches: [INDENT][INDENT] “One time he asked me if I was wearing underwear, and was he going to see anything ‘good,’” said a former Fox News employee, who said she has spoken with other women at the network who said they were targets of Ailes’s sexually charged remarks. “It’s happened to me and lots of other women… He’s a disgusting pig who’s been getting away with this shit for 20 years.” Fox News Women: Roger Ailes Asked to See My Underwear, If I Was Single, and More [/INDENT][/INDENT] Now, now, let’s see some other opinions: [INDENT][INDENT] Meanwhile, a fifth former Fox News employee told The Daily Beast that Carlson’s allegations seem credible because Ailes runs Fox News “like his personal fiefdom” and has fostered a culture that is not only sexist but menacing, something akin to a sexual North Korea.
“It’s a malicious and sort of terrorized environment run by pitting people against each other to send information up the chain of command,” she said. “It’s almost like a fascist state where everybody is terrorized and nobody trusts each other. People are friendly in the hallways, but you’re always looking over your shoulder to see who might stab you in the back. You have to be skinny. All the hair and makeup people get strict guidance. You have to wear these kinds of clothes, this kind of makeup, this kind of hair, know how to behave, what to say, how to interact, and if you want to do well and move up, you have to toe the company line.”
This person said of Carlson, “I have a sense Gretchen was aggrieved for a very long time and probably kept very good notes. Nobody sues Roger Ailes without having their eyes wide open, unless they’re just idiots—and Gretchen is not an idiot.” [/INDENT][/INDENT] In contrast with Doocy.