K Cummings's Link
"NBC has fired its leading morning news anchor Matt Lauer over sexual harassment allegations, the network’s president for news said in a memo to staff on Wednesday."
...looks like another case of terminal hypocrisy.
This is a slippery slope here folks.
As I've said before, I don't like where this is all heading either. I have a feeling it's about to get even crazier.
What I DO like is the exposure of hypocrites.
However, the existance of hypocrisy in this matter is widespread.
What did Trump Tweet?
"Wow, Matt Lauer was just fired from NBC for “inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace.” But when will the top executives at NBC & Comcast be fired for putting out so much Fake News. Check out Andy Lack’s past!"
unless there is proof, I still believe in innocent until proven guilty for anyone, Moore is a perfect example, and he's is 5 points up in a recent poll there ........ there must have been some back up for what NBC did ....
Sexual harassment isn't necessarily a crime. Sexual abuse or assault is. That's why sexual harassment accusations are thrown around so liberally, and they've become a political tool.
Garrison Keillor. Seems to be a pattern with libs....
Some would say that telling a lady at work that she looks beautiful today would be harassment. While most would say it was merely a compliment. Should someone get fired over such a benign comment?
So who gets to define it..........
We can’t expect anything different from them when they idolize the Clintons. One is flat scary and the other led by example.
Plenty of men in power play that game, left and right, many that are neither. But the left.... the sanctimonious hypocrisy on display is much more entertaining..... much more satisfying to watch them spin in on fire.... trailing smoke......
But beyond that.... yes, care must be taken these cases are not just opportunists or the easily offended. All are individual cases.... no matter if the person is really scum or not. From all I have read so far.... it's been pretty clear cut, not simple "misunderstandings". We shall see how things, um, spin out.......
Second, whenever I notice at work, that a female has lost a lot of weight, I cannot help myself. I usually say, "Gosh, you have lost a ton of weight."
Nine times out of ten, the female I have just spoken to, will jump up from behind her desk, hug me, and plant a big ole kiss on my cheek.
I hug her back, but do not kiss her back.
Just how vulnerable and I to a harrassment claim? I am serious here. I never even gave it a thought until now.
Seriously, how vulnerable am I ?
I once asked a co-worker when her baby was due. Problem was, she wasn't pregnant. Oops!!
This is a real thing that happened to me over 10 years ago.
I was a supervisor of an accounting department that was all women. My boss was a woman but she was gone this day. We had a young lady show up for work with a top that was sooooo low cut that it left very little to the imagination. You knew exactly what she had......... It was causing a real brew haha in the office with everyone talking about it. And truthfully, it was not appropriate for a business office. There is low cut, then there is "check these babies out!"
As her supervisor, I had to call her in to tell her that it wasn't appropriate attire for the office. Needless to say, I had another management lady set in with me to tell her. She didn't take it well at all, but she didn't file a complaint of any type!!!
I'd hate to think I had to do that same thing today! I'd have to send her to HR to have them handle it and then something would be put in her file. And it wasn't anything that needed reported to her file, just told not to wear it again....
I'm just glad I now work in an office all by my lonesome!!!!!!
God bless, Steve
Thank God I'm past the days of being young, dumb, and full of...well...you know. I pity young males, today.
Huh???? Trump??? You conveniently forgot about Bill Clinton's oval office blue dress soiling sessions and Obama's 8 solid years of lying outright to us. But then again you ARE a Democrat, which right there proves you have no memory, sense of honesty/truth, or concept of integrity.
I believe it's fine to be cordial and polite. I'd shy away from being personal. Commenting about a woman's weight could turn into a problem, even if you meant to be complimentary. I've known several men over the years get pulled into the front office for saying too much to the ladies on company time.
With all these accusations flying now days. It’s no wonder there are so many transgender people.
Annony Mouse's Link
"Are you saying you think I weighed 2000 pounds more before I started Weight Watchers?"
"No, no, no just saying you look great"
"You are judging me on my looks?!"
"No, no, no just happy for you"
"Happy for me? Was something wrong when I weighed more?"
"No, no...ummm, ok yes. You were fat and cranky and now you are smiling and easy on the eyes."
"Did you honestly just say that?"
"Yep, if you are calling HR I might as well make it worth it."
Great find Mouse
"We should be careful though not to make the world so fine and good that you and I can't enjoy living in it," he said. "A world in which there is no sexual harassment at all is a world in which there will not be any flirtation."
There is a heck of a lot of truth in that statement.
Obviously there is difference between flirtation and sexual assault, but as it stands now, the difference between the two seems to by totally up to the interpretation of the "victim."
I seriously hope we can get a handle on this soon, or there are going to be a lot of good people fall to the accusations of some vindictive opportunists.
I agree with Matt (GG, not Lauer...LOL). Imagine trying to navigate this minefield during your dating years.
It's one thing to do those things, but it's a whole other level of sleaziness to then act "holier than thou" when passing judgment on someone else for doing the exact same thing.
Did you read the most recent revelation that Lauer banged a girl until she passed out over his desk, and then had to call a nurse? A married lady. Sheeesh. They are both damaged goods.
Families will be fractured and careers destroyed.
I suspect you are correct, no walk of life or profession is immune, nor should they be. Having said that, if the claims are legitimate, fractured families and ruined careers lay at the feet of the offender, not the victim that comes forward.
How in the world is this even possible????
Take the whore that past out on Lauers desk, for example. Was it consensual or forced sex? I'm reading she was separated from her husband at the time, and she willingly unclothed herself at Matt's request. I've known several women who have spread their legs to advance their careers. Should that be a crime, too?
What a mess.....
Wow, there is so much contained in these two sentences, I'm not sure where to start.
Things like "whore," "consensual," "willingly," and "at Matt's request."
You surprise me with this one Matt.
Yes, it's disgusting behavior, and should never happen in the workplace. But, none of us know what the true intent of either party was at the time. Was the women's behavior equally wrong? We just don't know.
For the same reason you assumed she was a "whore," and that her actions were consensual and willing.
When a superior "requests" that a subordinate do something, especially when that person has the power that ML had within that organization, do they really have a choice? It takes an incredibly strong individual to potentially throw away everything they've worked for, just to say no to a sleazeball predator like ML.
Power and prestige demands a certain amount of restraint. Even if both parties seem to be willing.
Just curious Matt, are you the father of daughters?
Fainting is usually a blood pressure issue. Not hard to see how sex can mess up the blood flow to the normal parts of the body (in this case, lack of blood to the brain caused at least 2 distinct reactions...).
No, I don't have daughters. But if I did, they would certainly know that no job is worth being sexually violated by a superior. Nor would they keep quiet at the time, only to play the victim card years afterwards.
Are you claiming women never use sex to advance their careers? I doubt you're that naive. I was wrong to assume this women is a "whore", but I think it's equally wrong to assume she was a victim. It goes both ways.
If Lauer grabbed her without asking, if she had said no, if she had done nothing at all frozen in fear, I would have supported her story here. But at this point no. She undressed herself, she was on board. What if just to be safe, Lauer asked her to sign a note giving written consent? STILL not good enough in this current atmosphere, because she would say he was the boss and she felt forced to sign. When there is no possible way to defend yourself from guilt by any positive proactive action, the system has collapsed and we are all screwed.
Who hasn't dated someone at work at some point in their life? Heck, I've even had a girl blackout on rare occasions too. And technically we worked together (bartender and waitress back in the college days). It was just normal kids dating. Not the same as OJ and Nicole for God's sake!
Yep, me too, and in those cases it meant we both had just had a great time.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Lauer. But, I'm also not blindly accepting the word of women who blow the whistle years after the alleged incidents.
If ML had held a gun to her head and "asked" her to get undressed, she has the "choice" to say "no," correct?
Is "choosing" to say "no" and risking a bullet to the head really any different than "choosing" to say "no" and risking a bullet to one's livelihood?
Furthermore, when a superior "chooses" (demands) to have sexual relations with a subordinate, do they not also "choose" the possible ramifications of such actions?
If no consent can ever be consent enough, I call foul on the whole system. If I were Lauer's attorney on this one, I would seek records for every other dalliance she had... how many other times she cheated (not every one is going to be her boss - and I am guessing there are more).
Umm, yes, it's completely different. Did you really ask that?
Yes, most definitely. You'd be surprised what you'd be willing to do, and the compromises you'd be willing to make, when you feel you have no other choice.
As I sit here today, I could confidently say I would never do a lot of things for money. But then again nobody with the power to take it away is hanging my livelihood over my head.
Did you really deny that possibility?
I've never had a job that that was worth losing my self-respect for. YMMV.
BTW If you have never been a C-level or an executive let me tell you that you can NOT have any relations with a woman if you are single from your organization without HR knowing. If you do you can be fired. If you are married and cheat on your spouse with a subordinate you will be fired in many Fortune 500 companies.
This is not about flirting or saying someone looks nice. This is about appearance and using your position to coerce.
No, I equate two types of perceived desperation.
I have no idea what it's like to be in a position where I feel that someone might not just end my job, but my entire career if I don't succumb to their demands, AND they have the power to do it. The gun was just a metaphor, but I think you understand that.
On the flip side, someone who would wield that power over an underling, man or woman, for their own personal pleasure, is a special kind of sick.
For a women's perspective, I asked my wife if she, or anyone she knows, would allow a boss to sexually violate her for the sake of keeping her job. She looked at me like I was crazy.
Sorry, but the "perceived desperation" defense doesn't fly, Kevin. That's perhaps the most absurd thing I've ever seen you post. If a women doesn't perceive being sexually abused worse than being fired, she's got bigger problems than a sick boss.
When someone asks me a legitimate question, it deserves a legitimate answer.
"...he will rephrase and ask the same thing a dozen more times until he can convince himself he is right."
I don't have to convince myself I'm right. I know what I believe and unlike some others, if I wasn't already convinced, I wouldn't have posted it.
Here we go with the hyperbole and feigned outrage again. You should know by now that I don't fall for that Matt.
My wife says the same thing...however she also says that she's never been in a position where she's had to prove it, in order to keep the lights on and food in her son's mouth.
One's perception is their reality Matt. I have no way of knowing what I would be capable of doing if it meant preventing something that I thought was bad enough...and if you are honest, neither do you. What I do know, it is that I would never wield that power over an underlings head for my own perverse pleasure.
That's where you are wrong, Kevin. There is no situation in which I'd "perceive" getting fired from a job is worse than than getting sexually abused. Like I said, no job is worth losing my self-respect for, ever.
I sincerely hope neither you or I have to prove it. And, I believe there is a special place in hell for those that would force anyone make that choice.
First you claimed the threat of taking a bullet to the head was the same as the threat of getting fired. Then you claimed that was just a metaphor, and what you meant is "perceived desperation" is the issue (whatever that means). Now, you're concocting some hypothetical situation that might justify being sexually abused over getting fired, while acknowledging you've never been in that situation and don't really know how you'd react. You've moved the goal post so many times, I don't know which end of the field to kick towards.
I do know how I would react, and I've stated so.
As for the "special place in hell", do you know for fact that the women in question was forced to make that choice? If so, do share your evidence. Is it possible she knew of ML's sick sexual behavior, and she went to his office intent on inciting it?
It most certainly was a metaphor, and if you can't see that, you are either being intellectually dishonest, or just plain ignorant.
What I said was quite clear:
"Is "choosing" to say "no" and risking a bullet to the head really any different than "choosing" to say "no" and risking a bullet to one's livelihood?
In order to believe that this was a literal comparison, you must also believe that you can somehow put a bullet through someone's "livelihood."
Nice try Matt, but I know exactly what I posted, what the intent was, and I suspect you do too. If you don't, I've been giving you too much credit. Either way, I'm not going to play your game. Having to continually answer your questions is really upsetting BowSniper.
Ha. You don't see a pattern here do ya? Ever notice that whenever the guy gets called out he just keeps on posting and posting until the other person finds something better to do?
I'm not going to debate the meaning of your metaphor. You've made it clear that you assume the accuser was the victim in this case, without proof. Is that an example of the "critical thinking" that you preach about?
I've had the shoe on the other foot. I had an attractive "underling", as you would call her, try to solicit advances from me for personal career gains. I was flattered, and I could have handled it better, but I didn't do anything I'm ashamed of. When it became clear her tactics weren't going to work, I suddenly became the accused.
Sadly, men and women both use sex for selfish intents.
K Cummings's Link
"She didn’t fight back
When people are mugged or robbed, they are not asked why they did not resist.
But in sexual assault cases, failure to resist can be one of the biggest sticking points for jurors. Often both sides acknowledge that a sex act occurred, and the question is whether it was consensual. Fighting back is viewed as an easy litmus test. But women are conditioned not to use violence.
Men and women both tend to compare a victim’s actions with what they think they themselves would have done in a similar situation, and research shows that their imagined response usually involves aggressive resistance — even when the attacker is larger and stronger. “In their heads, suddenly they know kung fu,” Ms. Valliere said.
Neurobiological research has shown that the so-called fight-or-flight response to danger would more accurately be called “fight, flight or freeze.” And even after that initial response, victims can be rendered involuntarily immobile, becoming either paralyzed or limp as a result of the brain and body’s protective response.
Even so, the victim faces scrutiny of her failure to resist, and of every decision she made before, during and after the ordeal. To contrast sexual assault with other types of crime, Ms. Valliere said, she often shows a photograph of the Boston Marathon bombing. “We never said to the victims, ‘Why were you in that marathon, why did you put yourself in that position, why didn’t you run faster, why didn’t you run slower?’
“But when it comes to a victim of interpersonal violence,” she added, “we think there’s a way they should act.”
But, hey, she's had 16 years to piece together her story....it must be true.
We aren't animals of course. What matters is what really happened. That will be hard to ever know for sure. Matt got fired, that is not a surprise or out of line for anyone who is having sex at work unless you work at the Mustang Ranch. What we may never know is how we would judge the situation if we were a fly on the wall.
I have seen women and men do crazy things when they are desperate. Desperate to keep a job, desperate to get money, desperate to get revenge, desperate to win affection, desperate to get ahead, etc.
If we toss out being impartial and waiting for facts we aren't doing anyone any good. I've been in the workforce for a long time. I have seen bosses (male and female) use their position to get in bed with subordinates. I have also seen subordinates (male and female) use sex to influence the boss's decisions.
The current sex crimes dragnet sweeping across the country, pulling in celebrities, media millionaires, and politicians, has yet to reel in a high-profile professor from the hallowed halls of academia
Will Bill Ayers be the first?
In a 2006 Frontpagemag article entitled "Remembering a Sixties Terrorist," a woman named Donna Ron recounted what she described as "the defining event of my life."
As a sophomore at the University of Michigan in 1965, Ron was caught up in the antiwar movement when she met and dated Ayers. Two months after meeting Ayers, Ron alleges that he locked her in his apartment and told her she couldn't leave until she had sex with his roommate and his brother.
From FrontPageMag (warning graphic language):
Bill Ayers' apartment was around the corner and a half a block away from the sorority house… Sometimes I would stop by... What I do recall is that when I was getting ready to leave Ayers told me I couldn't go until I slept with his roommate and his brother.
At first I thought Ayers was joking. I got up; and went to the door. He moved quickly to block me at the doorway. He locked the door and put the chain on it. I went to the couch and sat down and told him that I had no intention of having sex with his roommate and his brother or him. He said that I had no choice but to do as he said if I wanted to get out of there. He claimed that I wouldn't sleep with his married roommate because he was black – that I was a bigot.
I felt trapped. I had to get out of the situation I was in and because he was so effective a guilt-tripper, I also felt I had to prove to him that I wasn't a bigot. I got up from the couch and walked over to the black roommate's bed and put myself on it and he [f-----] me. I went totally out of my body. I floated beside myself on the outside and above the bed looking at this black stranger [f---] me angrily while I hated myself.
After that I had to go lie down on Bill Ayer's bed for his brother to [s----] me. Rick Ayers was a decent person, unlike his brother, and couldn't go through with it He started and stopped and let me go. I also thought I had to let Bill [s----] me but at that point he unbolted the door and I left.
I remember going back to the sorority house and talking to my best girlfriend and telling her what had happened. But there were no words yet to describe it. There was no term "date rape" yet in our political vocabulary...
I was a mess and felt it was my fault for letting it happen. I was ashamed. Back home at the end of the semester, I got my parents to send me to a psychiatrist.
In 2008, Ron repeated the details of her ordeal to WND, adding, "I was terrified. People underestimate terrorism by psychological intimidation. I felt like I was being held prisoner."
It's been almost ten years since Ron alleged that Ayers set up a gang-rape in his apartment. At the time, her story was confined to a few alternative conservative websites (ironic, considering that Ron was an Obama supporter and committed socialist).
Today, not only are women with similar narratives being heard, but the men they accuse are being held accountable.
The avalanche of accusations in recent weeks, beginning with Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, suggests that Ron's horrific encounter with Ayers could resurface. To date, Ayers's only response to Ron's accusation came in 2001. After discovering that the terrorist had gone on to fame and fortune at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Ron emailed him about what happened at his apartment in 1965. Ayers said he "did not remember her."
Ron, who has resided in Israel for many years, may not be aware that the tide has turned here in the U.S., but the timing couldn't be more perfect to subject the terrorist to the same scrutiny as other outed alleged sexual predators. As a co-founder of the Weather Underground, Ayers boasted about the group's willingness to engage in all kinds of deviant sex. His admission makes Donna's story even more credible. Not only that, but her narrative and Ayers's sordid history suggest the real possibility that there may be more of Ayers's victims out there. Now the question is, after aggressively targeting other millionaire males, many of whom have lost their jobs, when will the mainstream media go after Bill Ayers?