That’s his story. Which is exactly the story that would be told by:
a) Someone who, in a friendly way, innocently invited his junior employee to buy sex toys for his wife and mistress, in that way that friends do all the time OR;
b) Someone who is bullshitting to keep his job.
Caroline Edmondson’s story is that she felt that as his employee she had no choice but to go along with it, and that she felt humiliated by the whole incident. Again, exactly the story which would be told by
a) Someone who - for reasons entirely unrelated either to that incident or being publicly called “sugartits” by her boss - is now no longer friends with the person they were happy to buy sex toys for OR;
b) Someone who felt forced to run a humiliating errand by her boss
Declaring the matter closed just because Garnier has stuck with his denial seems a bit premature.
It’s not my place to help folks read the runes but this is what happened. The story was out there for a week, more nuance was added - they were former friends, now not friends, it was several years ago. No one else came forward, there was no pattern of behaviour. It fell into the - until now - ill-defined category of a MP/researcher,/friend, employer/employee category, which will now be changed due to wider issues. There was no sexual harassment. He accepted waiting outside a shop was inappropriate.The matter is closed. Hence the statement by the MP.
On this occasion, the Internet will have to look elsewhere for outrage.
It’s not up to the MP accused of harassment to unilaterally declare the matter closed.
Garnier’s statement now adds no new information than his statement when the story broke. We know he agrees it happened. We know he insists that it was all a bit of fun. We know he doesn’t consider it harassment.
So what?
We also know that Caroline Edmondson didn’t think it was fun. We know she felt humiliated. We know she did consider it harassment.
Who’s the better judge of how Caroline Edmondson felt? A) Caroline Edmondson or B) literally anyone else? Why would you prefer Garnier’s assessment of her mental state over hers?
I’m perfectly prepared to believe that Garnier genuinely *thought *that calling his female employee “sugartits” in front of his colleagues was just a joke. And that the whole vibrator thing was a merry lark between pals. He thought it was funny, so he assumed the employee dependent solely on his approval for her future career thought it was funny too when she went along with it. That’s not nuance to the story of harassment. That is harassment. Blithe disregard for other people’s feelings, and wilful ignorance of the power dynamics at play leading to a powerful man making a subordinate woman feel humiliated at his sexualised jokes and never even noticing.
Oh, but if he says it was all fine, then I guess it’s all fine.
I’m trying to imagine a situation in which I felt like pointing out that something obviously bad was in fact bad, then didn’t because I was worried you might suggest I was over-reacting.
…Nope.