Topic: Harvey w

[goldshirt*9]

I'm finding it impossible to believe some of the stuff that's being uncovered. Namely: that he had it written in his contract that he would be fined an incrementing amount for each time the company had to settle sexual harassment cases.

If true then his boss is guilty as well and the lawyer and anyone else associated with the contract.
Stupidity or arrogance on their part.
Even the English F.A  are in trouble.
#notme on twitter is everywhere

[goldshirt*9]

if true then Oooops

A British former assistant of Harvey Weinstein says she was paid £125,000 ($165,200) to keep quiet after accusing the movie mogul of sexual harassment.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41730109

[smokester]

if true then Oooops

A British former assistant of Harvey Weinstein says she was paid £125,000 ($165,200) to keep quiet after accusing the movie mogul of sexual harassment.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41730109

Not that I am criticising anyone for speaking out about HW, but if you've taken money and agreed to keep quite, shouldn't one "keep quiet"?

In my humble opinion, keeping quiet for money only allowed him to perpetuate his behaviour. In other words, they are also complicit.

[8ullfrog]

Or they were given the money for precisely that reason. Not to keep quiet, which is probably what they were told, but to impeach any future testimony. Plus those sweet sweet NDA's to keep them under fear of bloodsucking lawyer.

[goldshirt*9]

Not that I am criticising anyone for speaking out about HW, but if you've taken money and agreed to keep quite, shouldn't one "keep quiet"?

In my humble opinion, keeping quiet for money only allowed him to perpetuate his behaviour. In other words, they are also complicit.

depends on what the contract stated. But they are as guilty as H.W.

[goldshirt*9]

Now  Kevin Spacey is involved

[smokester]

I think I was too cryptic earlier: Everyone with power abuses those with less. The more power the more egregious the abuse. Jimmy Saville was the first really big name recently, but they are all at it - politicians, doctors, businessmen, bankers, film stars, music moguls, models, slebs, whatever - wherever one person has power over another, they can (and therefore, being human will) abuse them. It is not new - it has been happening for as long as recorded history, and possibly even before that. There is even a famous story about the bully that threw people out of the garden that he had given them just for eating fruit. That he had given them.

Sometimes the abuse is low-key bullying, other times it is Weinstein-esque, but it is ever present. The only thing that I find surprising about this whole sordid story is that some people are feigning surprise. We all know that under every rock dark things lurk, so we all have an unwritten agreement that no-one moves the rocks.

I don't really sign up to that. I mean, it's like the expectation that everyone from an impoverished background will turn to crime. It's true that many do, but it's not a requirement.

I can imagine myself in a position of authority but I cannot imagine myself taking advantage of my subordinates or those less privileged. I think those who are bent on abusing or bullying will do it with or without power. They'll find a way somehow even if it's just on the intarwebz.

Like Billy Connolly once said: there are those on the planet that just need a smack.

[dweez]

I think I was too cryptic earlier: Everyone with power abuses those with less.

That's not true. smokester is a benevolent and generous ruler. He's kind and very thoughtful.

Did I say that right Mr. smokester, sir?

[drago6650]

^ Well said

Now in British politics UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon resigned on Wednesday, admitting that his past behavior towards women had "fallen short", as the swirl of allegations about sexual harassment in British politics intensified.

Fallon's departure came after a journalist, Julia Hartley-Brewer, confirmed he had repeatedly placed his hand on her knee at a dinner in 2002.

I feel this is just the tip of the iceberg and for him to resign there is more behind this story that has not yet come to light, also this may be just the the start of further revelations and more heads will roll unless there is a major cover up.

[goldshirt*9]

^ Well said

I feel this is just the tip of the iceberg and for him to resign there is more behind this story that has not yet come to light, also this may be just the the start of further revelations and more heads will roll unless there is a major cover up.

I think you are so right 

[smokester]

That's not true. smokester is a benevolent and generous ruler. He's kind and very thoughtful.

Did I say that right Mr. smokester, sir?

You got a purty mouth, boy.

Nor did Weinstein. or 45. Doesn't stop it being true.

Abuse comes in multiple forms: psychological as well as physical as well as sexual, and it isn't always (or even usually) intentional. It is often unthinking and unknowing. (Note that power comes in multiple forms too - think of the queen bee/ jock in the school playground and the power endowed to them by the virtue of physical form)

Note the recent emphasis on what the abusee "felt" rather than on what the abuser thought. I am not sure it is avoidable, as anyone in a position of less power can (and will, if there is a gain to be made) feel abused in a situation in which the "abuser" is completely unconscious of it.

Take the same situation (a guy comes on to a girl) with different actors: if they are both equals at work, this is desire and still (just) acceptable. If one is the boss, there is abuse of position. It doesn't matter that no abuse was intended (by either party).

The best (and only reasonable) form of government is undoubtedly a benevolent dictatorship, the problem is that there is no human capable of benevolence when in a position of absolute power: the same applies to all walks of life - no matter how altruistic people purport to be, or desire to be, at base they are human and subject to human foibles, both with power and without it.

PS - it is nothing like typecasting of the impoverished. It is similar to the racism inherent in society - it is ironic that "discrimination" is both part of the human condition and a thought crime. Everyone discriminates every minute of every day (that is better, that is worse, he is better, she is worse ...) but this is now also considered to be a crime and people seek ways of cramming otherwise innocent behaviours into discriminatory positions.

My point is that this argument suggests that circumstance, invariably, dictates people's behaviour and I just don't buy it. I understand how it works as a good friend of mine was the son of quite a high ranking Freemason (not that anyone knew it). He constantly drank and drove and at one point he crashed his car through a shop window and then absconded. He was arrested later of course but every time he went to court the case/s were immediately and mysteriously dismissed. What did this do for him? It gave him the idea that he could do just about anything and get away with it. So he did.

Just to contradict myself a little at this point: I may well have behaved like him when I was younger and would have probably been on the phone to my Freemason dad 3 times a day. But I certainly wouldn't now as that behaviour ultimately puts other people lives at risk, and regardless of how much influence, money or power I could imagine having, I still wouldn't cross that line.

[Alfonz]

Thought experiment:

You know a barmaid in the pub, and you drink there after hours for years. You often "touch" as part of normal social interaction - arm round shoulders, touch knee while telling a joke sat at the table, maybe even (heaven forfend) a peck on the cheek before you/she go home (independently of course).

She comes to work for you.

Now what do you do? Stop all of the above so she may get the impression that "he thinks he is too good for me now" (belittling and therefore emotionally abusing her), or continue, when you are now in the creepy position of "manhandling her while you are the boss" (physically abusing her).

The point is that the position of power makes abuse - by the current definitions - impossible to avoid.

How do you avoid the potential accusation that you are abusing her in either instance? ... and you are a very rare human if you completely resist all temptation to take advantage of the possibilities that your position bestow upon you. The ability to totally resist temptation is granted to very few of us.

This is completely distinct (in my mind) from Weinstein-style abuse, but the current vogue for outing all "abusers" has blurred the distinction into non-existence.

Why can't a line be drawn from such a situation? Obviously the situation has changed from social to professional.  I would like to give people the benefit of the doubt that they would follow proper etiquette and act accordingly. I also don't believe that discussing the past social behaviour and stating that it must now cease due to a change in status would be hurtful in any way at all.

[smokester]

Thought experiment:

You know a barmaid in the pub, and you drink there after hours for years. You often "touch" as part of normal social interaction - arm round shoulders, touch knee while telling a joke sat at the table, maybe even (heaven forfend) a peck on the cheek before you/she go home (independently of course).

She comes to work for you.

Now what do you do? Stop all of the above so she may get the impression that "he thinks he is too good for me now" (belittling and therefore emotionally abusing her), or continue, when you are now in the creepy position of "manhandling her while you are the boss" (physically abusing her).

The point is that the position of power makes abuse - by the current definitions - impossible to avoid.

How do you avoid the potential accusation that you are abusing her in either instance? ... and you are a very rare human if you completely resist all temptation to take advantage of the possibilities that your position bestow upon you. The ability to totally resist temptation is granted to very few of us.

This is completely distinct (in my mind) from Weinstein-style abuse, but the current vogue for outing all "abusers" has blurred the distinction into non-existence.

Personally, if I've ever liked a woman romantically, I make damn sure beforehand that there's a possibility that things could develop. I usually do this the old fashioned way by asking her friends whether I am in with a chance. Otherwise I'd treat barmaids like barmen. And barmen like barmaids for that matter.

Flirtation is one thing and is not gender specific, sexual harassment is different and is all that you say. But there is a distinction between the two.

The other thing is that it is true that people in power believe themselves to be above the law and untouchable and can abuse that power by bullying others, but in my experience they are in the vast minority of those with said power. In cases where this is more widespread it is usually institutionalised abuse whereby the individuals are taught/instructed to behave that way - like Nazis and the police of old - but that behaviour does not always sit well with those within the institution, Oskar Schindler for example.

Anywho, I'm late for work.

[goldshirt*9]

I was attempting to point out that there is a difference between flirtation and harassment, but that no-one knows where it is: this position is made infinitely more of an issue when there is a power disparity between the parties.

In their position. if they didn't know the difference between flirtation and harassment then they deserve all they get.
They preyed upon the persons desire to become or stay an actress in a cut throat business.

but that no-one knows where it is: this position is made infinitely more of an issue when there is a power disparity between the parties.

this is so true

As Dr. Stephen Maturin said to Capt. Jack Aubrey "power corrupts" , luckily not all people act this way

[smokester]

I wasn't aiming at that particularly, I was attempting to point out that there is a difference between flirtation and harassment, but that no-one knows where it is: this position is made infinitely more of an issue when there is a power disparity between the parties.

Related topic: I watch social interactions at work all the time (I participate in some of them). Watching two guys sat at a conference table will often involve pats on backs, punches to arms, arms round shoulders. That is not possible when one of the attendees is female, particularly if one of the people in the room is a boss, and is therefore in a position of power. It really isn't possible, and the current "solution" appears to be stopping a group of men (or women) acting as their nature demands, because if the group dynamic were different, that behaviour would be unacceptable. (Hence men shouldn't tell each other dirty jokes, shouldn't indulge in "locker-room banter", shouldn't - really - act as a group of men because if they do it is exclusive of women: it sets a precedent that cannot be met - change out one of the men for a woman and the dynamic unavoidably changes)

What I'm getting at, really, is that aspiring to be better (any or all of: bigger, stronger, brighter, better looking, more attractive, better dressed, better liked, richer, etc., etc., etc.) is part of the human condition, and using any "power" that is obtained is a natural consequence: the ability to use power is one of the prime reasons (maybe at bottom the only reason) for seeking to obtain it. Having that power used on you is unpleasant, and is currently defined as "abuse".

^ Just quoting you for posterity and not directly responding to your post.

In my opinion this whole "power corrupts" is not the issue here. Corruption is something completely different to an over exaggerated sense of self-importance. The the real issue is those who believe they have the right to sexually harass those less important to them as they are subordinates. It may well be a primitive instinct as it certainly happens throughout the animal kingdom, yet few lesser life forms tend to embezzle coconuts or whatever.

Anywho, I'm very late for work and the boss is an aggressive and unforgiving - not to mention tyrannically dogmatic - son of a madam.