The glass ceiling is now made of concrete.

[J842P]

I think it goes beyond just fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. A lot of men are worried that their words will be twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning, and then they get a call from HR. Rumors and a bad professional image follow... After work socializing has to be particularly troublesome now... If you do include [women], you have to be extremely careful about what you say and do so as not to offend. Not always that easy when alcohol is freely flowing...

True incident:

Company hired a regional sales executive effective on a Monday. We will call him John Doe. I was asked to meet with him and two other recently hired regional sales executives to get them all up to speed, and to generally get to know each other because we would all be part of the east coast team. On that Friday, we met at one of our offices in the conference room, and then later I took them to lunch.

During the office meeting, we went around the table introducing ourselves. Each of us gave our names, short career background, and where we were originally from. Miami, New York, Chicago, California... John Doe proceeds to single out the other woman in the room, DL, to ask her where she was from "before California". She said, "I was born in California"; so he followed up with, "OK, but where are your parents from?" It was obvious to all of us why he was asking, but she simply said again, "California."

A little bit later, as John Doe was telling us his ideas for getting started in his territory, I joked that he was going to give JK (one of the other sales executives attending this meeting) competition for top producer; to which John Doe replied that he was also going to crash all of JK's events and bring "dancing girls" to sit on all of the men's laps thereby stealing JK's business.

A bit after that, as I was discussing Fair Housing laws, John Doe announces that people from Chicago don't pay any attention to Fair Housing laws. I ignored this aside & continued, but he wouldn't let it drop until I had to sharply tell him that in Florida & in this position, he WILL follow Fair Housing laws.

On our way to lunch, during the general chit-chat, John Doe announces that the only reason he took this job was to find a rich Realtor wife.

At lunch, after he made a lame joke about none of the rest of us ordering an alcoholic drink, he again asks DL about her ethnic background. Then he asks her if her husband is also Korean. She said "no". He then comments that hopefully her husband drinks a lot at least, to put her parents at ease. I could feel her entire body just stiffen next to me as she told him very coldly that her parents don't drink at all.

We made it through lunch and went our separate ways, but before I was even out of the parking lot I was on the phone to my supervisor, who in turn called HR. I and the other two employees at the meeting were interviewed by HR; and John Doe was promptly fired.

I am 100% sure that John Doe really believes (as he claimed to HR) that his "words [were] twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning".

What do you think?

Was it the dancing girls or asking the Korean girl what her ethnic background was?

I don't think either should be firing offenses. Or offenses at all.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Was it the dancing girls or asking the Korean girl what her ethnic background was?

I don't think either should be firing offenses. Or offenses at all.

What about his intention to ignore the Fair Housing laws? If I hired somebody and he started talking about how he wants to use his position to do illegal stuff in the company's name on his first day, there's no way in hell he'd make it to a second day. That would be my standard for an unpaid intern just out of college. I'd have even higher standards for people brought into senior roles.

 

[Toni]

I think it goes beyond just fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. A lot of men are worried that their words will be twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning, and then they get a call from HR. Rumors and a bad professional image follow... After work socializing has to be particularly troublesome now... If you do include [women], you have to be extremely careful about what you say and do so as not to offend. Not always that easy when alcohol is freely flowing...

True incident:

Company hired a regional sales executive effective on a Monday. We will call him John Doe. I was asked to meet with him and two other recently hired regional sales executives to get them all up to speed, and to generally get to know each other because we would all be part of the east coast team. On that Friday, we met at one of our offices in the conference room, and then later I took them to lunch.

During the office meeting, we went around the table introducing ourselves. Each of us gave our names, short career background, and where we were originally from. Miami, New York, Chicago, California... John Doe proceeds to single out the other woman in the room, DL, to ask her where she was from "before California". She said, "I was born in California"; so he followed up with, "OK, but where are your parents from?" It was obvious to all of us why he was asking, but she simply said again, "California."

A little bit later, as John Doe was telling us his ideas for getting started in his territory, I joked that he was going to give JK (one of the other sales executives attending this meeting) competition for top producer; to which John Doe replied that he was also going to crash all of JK's events and bring "dancing girls" to sit on all of the men's laps thereby stealing JK's business.

A bit after that, as I was discussing Fair Housing laws, John Doe announces that people from Chicago don't pay any attention to Fair Housing laws. I ignored this aside & continued, but he wouldn't let it drop until I had to sharply tell him that in Florida & in this position, he WILL follow Fair Housing laws.

On our way to lunch, during the general chit-chat, John Doe announces that the only reason he took this job was to find a rich Realtor wife.

At lunch, after he made a lame joke about none of the rest of us ordering an alcoholic drink, he again asks DL about her ethnic background. Then he asks her if her husband is also Korean. She said "no". He then comments that hopefully her husband drinks a lot at least, to put her parents at ease. I could feel her entire body just stiffen next to me as she told him very coldly that her parents don't drink at all.

We made it through lunch and went our separate ways, but before I was even out of the parking lot I was on the phone to my supervisor, who in turn called HR. I and the other two employees at the meeting were interviewed by HR; and John Doe was promptly fired.

I am 100% sure that John Doe really believes (as he claimed to HR) that his "words [were] twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning".

What do you think?

Was it the dancing girls or asking the Korean girl what her ethnic background was?

I don't think either should be firing offenses. Or offenses at all.

Really?

 

[RavenSky]

I think it goes beyond just fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. A lot of men are worried that their words will be twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning, and then they get a call from HR. Rumors and a bad professional image follow... After work socializing has to be particularly troublesome now... If you do include [women], you have to be extremely careful about what you say and do so as not to offend. Not always that easy when alcohol is freely flowing...

True incident:

Company hired a regional sales executive effective on a Monday. We will call him John Doe. I was asked to meet with him and two other recently hired regional sales executives to get them all up to speed, and to generally get to know each other because we would all be part of the east coast team. On that Friday, we met at one of our offices in the conference room, and then later I took them to lunch.

During the office meeting, we went around the table introducing ourselves. Each of us gave our names, short career background, and where we were originally from. Miami, New York, Chicago, California... John Doe proceeds to single out the other woman in the room, DL, to ask her where she was from "before California". She said, "I was born in California"; so he followed up with, "OK, but where are your parents from?" It was obvious to all of us why he was asking, but she simply said again, "California."

A little bit later, as John Doe was telling us his ideas for getting started in his territory, I joked that he was going to give JK (one of the other sales executives attending this meeting) competition for top producer; to which John Doe replied that he was also going to crash all of JK's events and bring "dancing girls" to sit on all of the men's laps thereby stealing JK's business.

A bit after that, as I was discussing Fair Housing laws, John Doe announces that people from Chicago don't pay any attention to Fair Housing laws. I ignored this aside & continued, but he wouldn't let it drop until I had to sharply tell him that in Florida & in this position, he WILL follow Fair Housing laws.

On our way to lunch, during the general chit-chat, John Doe announces that the only reason he took this job was to find a rich Realtor wife.

At lunch, after he made a lame joke about none of the rest of us ordering an alcoholic drink, he again asks DL about her ethnic background. Then he asks her if her husband is also Korean. She said "no". He then comments that hopefully her husband drinks a lot at least, to put her parents at ease. I could feel her entire body just stiffen next to me as she told him very coldly that her parents don't drink at all.

We made it through lunch and went our separate ways, but before I was even out of the parking lot I was on the phone to my supervisor, who in turn called HR. I and the other two employees at the meeting were interviewed by HR; and John Doe was promptly fired.

I am 100% sure that John Doe really believes (as he claimed to HR) that his "words [were] twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning".

What do you think?

Was it the dancing girls or asking the Korean girl what her ethnic background was?

I don't think either should be firing offenses. Or offenses at all.

Really?

Are these the types of things you would say to co-workers you just met for the first time?

And if he clearly has no issue saying them to us, what about to our clients?

 

[J842P]

Was it the dancing girls or asking the Korean girl what her ethnic background was?

I don't think either should be firing offenses. Or offenses at all.

Really?

Are these the types of things you would say to co-workers you just met for the first time?

And if he clearly has no issue saying them to us, what about to our clients?

Asking about ethnic background? Sure. Why not? I mean, I get asked all the time. Is this really considered offensive?

As for the dancing girls, that is definitely on boorish side of the line. But firing?

 

[Toni]

Was it the dancing girls or asking the Korean girl what her ethnic background was?

I don't think either should be firing offenses. Or offenses at all.

Really?

Are these the types of things you would say to co-workers you just met for the first time?

And if he clearly has no issue saying them to us, what about to our clients?

Asking about ethnic background? Sure. Why not? I mean, I get asked all the time. Is this really considered offensive?

As for the dancing girls, that is definitely on boorish side of the line. But firing?

Uh, yeah. It's offensive. It's offensive to ask about a co-worker's parents drinking habits, particularly if one is implying that the ethnicity of the parents is reflected in drinking habits.

Any new hire that talked about hiring girls to sit on client's laps would be someone I'd give the boot to ASAP. Clearly this hire lacked maturity and judgment for the position, not to mention the sexism and racism inherent in their other questions. I mean: really?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unless you inherit a corporation, I don’t think that many CEO’s are actually so stupid or so clueless as to prefer to exclude young women from their pool of fresh talent in favor of dirty old men who won’t keep their hands and other body parts to themselves.

The problem here is that you continue to assume all allegations are true. So long as you persist in this delusion you will not understand what's actually going on.

The problem here is that you continue to assume, with zero evidence, including from Dr. Z's many posts and the article linked by Dr. Z that there is actually a problem with false allegations.

In other words, you admit that you consider all allegations true.

Dr. Z is the one who decried the firing of a famous journalist who was called out on various bad behavior, which included propositioning a 14 year old (unless you think Dr. Z is a liar) who was applying for a job on the excuse that the journalist was drunk and didn't know that she was 14--and that he hadn't been arrested or charged with an actual criminal offense. I'm not the one saying these things: Dr. Z is. I just don't see how it is acceptable to tell any job applicant, no matter their age, that the job is theirs if they will sleep with you, whether you are drunk or sober. Every single part of that would give any decent human being pause. I cannot believe that you think this behavior is ok and that it was not good cause to fire the journalist.

Given the situation this looks like a joke in ill taste, not intentional sexual harassment.

Do I think that some allegations will be proven to be false? Probably. I've never called for anyone to be fired or censured for mere allegations. I'm all for due process which is not the same process as it takes to prove a criminal offense.

But you aren't willing to consider any evidence that they might be false. Case in point, the current thread over in PD about that murderess. The facts of the case make it much more likely that it was cold blooded murder than self defense so you figure the police got it utterly wrong.

There is nothing wrong with taking normal precautions such as making sure to leave doors open when meeting with an employee, keeping drinking at business meetings to a bare minimum, treating everyone with respect and maintaining a professional demeanor. In fact, this is the way to get the best candidates on board, to get the best work out of every employee, to help every employee advance to the highest level they are capable of, to enable every single employee to help the company operate in the best, most profitable way possible.

Keeping the door open doesn't help if there aren't others around.

I have to shake my head at watching men react in horror at the idea that for their own protection they need to watch their behavior, avoid being alone behind closed doors with employees, etc. What do you think women are expected to do every damn day of their lives, from before puberty forward? Not only do we have to worry about our jobs and careers being at risk but also our own physical safety. So pardon me if I am not too bent out of shape over men needing to keep doors open when they meet with attractive young female employees. I know it makes the women feel more secure. Unfortunately, that's a fact of life.

So, because bad things sometimes happen to women it doesn't matter if bad things happen to men.

And why is it a fact of life? Because some men can't or won't keep their hands and dicks to themselves. That ain't our fault, Loren. Quit excusing that behavior.

And women would be safer if so many of them didn't lie about it--as it stands an allegation is nowhere near meeting the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt so in a he-said-she-said he probably walks. Women have done this to themselves by making up rapes to get out of bad situations.

 

[RavenSky]

Was it the dancing girls or asking the Korean girl what her ethnic background was?

I don't think either should be firing offenses. Or offenses at all.

Really?

Are these the types of things you would say to co-workers you just met for the first time?

And if he clearly has no issue saying them to us, what about to our clients?

Asking about ethnic background? Sure. Why not? I mean, I get asked all the time. Is this really considered offensive?

Yes, it can be really offensive. If it had been just the single question asked once, and none of the rest of it, then we could have let it slide. But it wasn't. He kept asking the question even though her original answer should have made it clear that she didn't care to discuss her ethnic background with him, and that she didn't care to be singled out by him for that question.

As for the dancing girls, that is definitely on boorish side of the line. But firing?

Yes. There were two women in this meeting, and this person is talking about hiring "dancing girls" to sit on mens laps? And you think this is ok? Hell, even the other man in the meeting thought the comment was inappropriate and offensive.

Especially since these two items you have focused on were not the only things he said during the two or three hours we were together.

Do you really think someone like John Doe would contribute to a pleasant work environment?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think it goes beyond just fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. A lot of men are worried that their words will be twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning, and then they get a call from HR. Rumors and a bad professional image follow. Or if a man gets promoted over a woman, the woman will often assume it has to do with her being a woman, and not because, well, she may be doing a shitty job. Again, another HR investigation. Or perhaps he'll get accused of "mansplaining" a concept to her, or alternatively, purposely talking over her head to confuse or intimidate her. After work socializing has to be particularly troublesome now. If you exclude the women, you get accused of doing the "old boys network" thing, and a complaint could be filed. If you do include them, you have to be extremely careful about what you say and do so as not to offend. Not always that easy when alcohol is freely flowing. And what if the woman herself gets a little tipsy and flirty towards the top dog? Alcohol has a way of doing that. So, best to just not take chances.

Yeah. Lets go back many years, way before the #metoo movement. The facts of the case are undisputed, the only question is whether the actions are wrongful.

The situation was a discussion of last night's Seinfeld episode. There was a date with a forgotten name, but it rhymed with a female body part. Her name was Delores. A woman couldn't figure it out so a guy photocopied the relevant dictionary page, highlighted the word and gave it to her--trying to answer he question with a minimum of possible offense.

She complained to HR, he got fired. He won a 8-figure judgment, AFIAK struck down by the state Supreme Court.

If bending over backwards to avoid harassment isn't good enough then the company would be better off not hiring women in the first place. She should have lost her career over that, not him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's a real life example from my neck of the woods. This is an outake from The Red Pill documentary, where the director (Cassie Jaye, then a feminist) does a "man on the street" type interview with a former HP software engineer who had a rather interesting story to tell. His experience happened long before the #MeToo movement, but I can imagine things have gotten worse since his incident.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye4fAZTkvNg[/YOUTUBE]

So he had an incident listed in his annual evaluation he didn't feel merited reporting, and his protests against its inclusion were ineffective. He was not fired, nor it appears skipped for promotion or indeed, it seems, suffer any real world consequences for it, yet concludes that men have no rights anymore?

Seriously, if this is the evidence you build your case upon, you have no case.

He wouldn't be in a position to know exactly what effects the incident would have had, thus not including any specific harm isn't evidence there was no harm.

This is just another example of where something totally innocent is found guilty with no ability to defend yourself because some woman felt offended.

 

[Toni]

I think it goes beyond just fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. A lot of men are worried that their words will be twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning, and then they get a call from HR. Rumors and a bad professional image follow. Or if a man gets promoted over a woman, the woman will often assume it has to do with her being a woman, and not because, well, she may be doing a shitty job. Again, another HR investigation. Or perhaps he'll get accused of "mansplaining" a concept to her, or alternatively, purposely talking over her head to confuse or intimidate her. After work socializing has to be particularly troublesome now. If you exclude the women, you get accused of doing the "old boys network" thing, and a complaint could be filed. If you do include them, you have to be extremely careful about what you say and do so as not to offend. Not always that easy when alcohol is freely flowing. And what if the woman herself gets a little tipsy and flirty towards the top dog? Alcohol has a way of doing that. So, best to just not take chances.

Yeah. Lets go back many years, way before the #metoo movement. The facts of the case are undisputed, the only question is whether the actions are wrongful.

The situation was a discussion of last night's Seinfeld episode. There was a date with a forgotten name, but it rhymed with a female body part. Her name was Delores. A woman couldn't figure it out so a guy photocopied the relevant dictionary page, highlighted the word and gave it to her--trying to answer he question with a minimum of possible offense.

She complained to HR, he got fired. He won a 8-figure judgment, AFIAK struck down by the state Supreme Court.

If bending over backwards to avoid harassment isn't good enough then the company would be better off not hiring women in the first place. She should have lost her career over that, not him.

Loren: Seinfeld was a sit com—not reality. It doesn’t count as ‘evidence.’

 

[DrZoidberg]

Since your argument crashed and burned you are now resorting to lying? Come on. Why not challenge the things I've actually said?

Can you please point out where I lied? I have repeatedly challenged what you've written.

I can't prove an absence of evidence. That's like proving God doesn't exist. Why not instead show me where I said it?

But the fact remains that after the evidence was handed to the cops they chose not to press charges. In Sweden the cops are extremely aggressive about pursuing everything regarding violence or unwanted sexual contact on women. So for them not to do something with it means that they were sure they'd lose in court. Propositioning 14-year olds for sex in Sweden is illegal. So is demanding sex in exchange for a job. The e-mail has not been released to the public. We can only speculate on it's contents. The journalist has admitted that the e-mail does contain a sexual proposition for a journalism internship at the magazine. We don't know why, in spite of his admittance, the formulation of the proposition hasn't led to a criminal prosecution. There are many ways to write an e-mail.

But you act as if you are so damn sure he's guilty and should be persecuted. Proving the point of my critique against #MeToo in this thread. People are too damn sure of having the ability to judge guilt from afar. Which is why #MeToo is dangerous and I think ultimately will prove to do much more damage than good.

You keep saying that there are all these men out there who are falsely accused and punished and proven to be innocent. Yet you have not actually given a single valid example.

Yes, the Swedish journalist. He was innocent. Everything he was accused of was dismissed in court or turned out not to be anything worth getting upset about.

I just learned of another one yesterday. Patric Andersson. He was a night club owner in Stockholm. It's Sweden's most popular summer night club and has been for 20 years. As well as owning a string of popular places all over Sweden. One of the main profiles in Stockholm nightlife. He was accused of rape by three women. This was a foursome. So just him and three girls. He'd brought the three girls to his house for some group sex fun. He was almost black out drunk and high on cocaine. So he didn't remember all the details of that night. But enough to conclude that he really was a rapist. He thought he was guilty. After the accusation he went into repentance mode. He apologised, sold his part in all his night clubs and vanished from the night life scene and sought help for his problem.

What makes this interesting is that I know this guy. I used to organise night clubs in Stockholm. The guy has slept with a preposterous amount of young women. Clearly a sex addict. But all I saw was him breaking was hearts. They all seemed to fall in love with him.

About a year after the rape accusation had surfaced he finds several cameras at home with film and pictures from the night. The event was all filmed and photographed. Which he had no memory of doing. He and the girls were filming and taking pictures of each other, having fun, fucking and obviously not raping anyone. Their whole story turned out to be complete bullshit. After handing it over to the police and the court date is cancelled. I'm pretty sure the girls really thought they'd been raped. Because they were sure that the pictures and films would back their story.

What makes this interesting is how memory works. In spite of being innocent, this man's career is pretty much over. He owned all the best nightclub spots in Stockholm and there's no way he can get that back. His name is tarnished enough for him not to be usable in the industry. It's an industry that lives off glamour. Anything like this ruins it. So he's screwed.

FWIW, I'm not the only person who quoted directly from the article you linked in the OP. You know: the part that said that men should maybe resort to not being jerks. Here it is again, from your link in your OP:

“Some men have voiced concerns to me that a false accusation is what they fear,” said Zweig, the lawyer. “These men fear what they cannot control.”

In our culture we treat rape extremely seriously. Especially an older man raping a young woman. It's on par with murdering someone. Because #MeToo doesn't respect due process an accusation is given the same weight as being proven guilty. Do you still not understand the problem or understand why even nice and innocent men need to take precautions?

There are as many or more men who are responding in quite different ways. One, an investment adviser who manages about 100 employees, said he briefly reconsidered having one-on-one meetings with junior women. He thought about leaving his office door open, or inviting a third person into the room.

Finally, he landed on the solution: “Just try not to be an asshole.”

That’s pretty much the bottom line, said Ron Biscardi, chief executive officer of Context Capital Partners. “It’s really not that hard.”

Your OP. Your link. Your petard.

(for easy reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoist_with_his_own_petard

Can please stop trying to derail this thread? If you want to discuss this, (something else than what this thread is about) why don't you create your own damn thread? We are not discussing men who are actually guilty, ie "assholes". We're discussing how #MeToo is mob justice, ie ignores due process, and its implications. Guilty men being caught and brought to justice, I have no problem with that. And I'm not arguing against it. #MeToo is a free ticket to any woman to take down any man she wants to that she's been around, regardless of if there's any substance to it. It's great that #MeToo has mostly been successful at getting guilty guys. But anybody with any sense can see how the #MeToo process is wide open for abuse.

Saying "petard" is saying "retard". It's not a milder insult. Because we all automatically translate it in our heads. We all know what you meant. Classy.

 

[Toni]

I can't prove an absence of evidence. That's like proving God doesn't exist. Why not instead show me where I said it?

But the fact remains that after the evidence was handed to the cops they chose not to press charges. In Sweden the cops are extremely aggressive about pursuing everything regarding violence or unwanted sexual contact on women. So for them not to do something with it means that they were sure they'd lose in court. Propositioning 14-year olds for sex in Sweden is illegal. So is demanding sex in exchange for a job. The e-mail has not been released to the public. We can only speculate on it's contents. The journalist has admitted that the e-mail does contain a sexual proposition for a journalism internship at the magazine. We don't know why, in spite of his admittance, the formulation of the proposition hasn't led to a criminal prosecution. There are many ways to write an e-mail.

But you act as if you are so damn sure he's guilty and should be persecuted. Proving the point of my critique against #MeToo in this thread. People are too damn sure of having the ability to judge guilt from afar. Which is why #MeToo is dangerous and I think ultimately will prove to do much more damage than good.

You keep saying that there are all these men out there who are falsely accused and punished and proven to be innocent. Yet you have not actually given a single valid example.

Yes, the Swedish journalist. He was innocent. Everything he was accused of was dismissed in court or turned out not to be anything worth getting upset about.

I just learned of another one yesterday. Patric Andersson. He was a night club owner in Stockholm. It's Sweden's most popular summer night club and has been for 20 years. As well as owning a string of popular places all over Sweden. One of the main profiles in Stockholm nightlife. He was accused of rape by three women. This was a foursome. So just him and three girls. He'd brought the three girls to his house for some group sex fun. He was almost black out drunk and high on cocaine. So he didn't remember all the details of that night. But enough to conclude that he really was a rapist. He thought he was guilty. After the accusation he went into repentance mode. He apologised, sold his part in all his night clubs and vanished from the night life scene and sought help for his problem.

What makes this interesting is that I know this guy. I used to organise night clubs in Stockholm. The guy has slept with a preposterous amount of young women. Clearly a sex addict. But all I saw was him breaking was hearts. They all seemed to fall in love with him.

About a year after the rape accusation had surfaced he finds several cameras at home with film and pictures from the night. The event was all filmed and photographed. Which he had no memory of doing. He and the girls were filming and taking pictures of each other, having fun, fucking and obviously not raping anyone. Their whole story turned out to be complete bullshit. After handing it over to the police and the court date is cancelled. I'm pretty sure the girls really thought they'd been raped. Because they were sure that the pictures and films would back their story.

What makes this interesting is how memory works. In spite of being innocent, this man's career is pretty much over. He owned all the best nightclub spots in Stockholm and there's no way he can get that back. His name is tarnished enough for him not to be usable in the industry. It's an industry that lives off glamour. Anything like this ruins it. So he's screwed.

FWIW, I'm not the only person who quoted directly from the article you linked in the OP. You know: the part that said that men should maybe resort to not being jerks. Here it is again, from your link in your OP:

“Some men have voiced concerns to me that a false accusation is what they fear,” said Zweig, the lawyer. “These men fear what they cannot control.”

In our culture we treat rape extremely seriously. Especially an older man raping a young woman. It's on par with murdering someone. Because #MeToo doesn't respect due process an accusation is given the same weight as being proven guilty. Do you still not understand the problem or understand why even nice and innocent men need to take precautions?

There are as many or more men who are responding in quite different ways. One, an investment adviser who manages about 100 employees, said he briefly reconsidered having one-on-one meetings with junior women. He thought about leaving his office door open, or inviting a third person into the room.

Finally, he landed on the solution: “Just try not to be an asshole.”

That’s pretty much the bottom line, said Ron Biscardi, chief executive officer of Context Capital Partners. “It’s really not that hard.”

Your OP. Your link. Your petard.

(for easy reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoist_with_his_own_petard

Can please stop trying to derail this thread? If you want to discuss this, (something else than what this thread is about) why don't you create your own damn thread? We are not discussing men who are actually guilty, ie "assholes". We're discussing how #MeToo is mob justice, ie ignores due process, and its implications. Guilty men being caught and brought to justice, I have no problem with that. And I'm not arguing against it. #MeToo is a free ticket to any woman to take down any man she wants to that she's been around, regardless of if there's any substance to it. It's great that #MeToo has mostly been successful at getting guilty guys. But anybody with any sense can see how the #MeToo process is wide open for abuse.

Saying "petard" is saying "retard". It's not a milder insult. Because we all automatically translate it in our heads. We all know what you meant. Classy.

I don't see how it is derailing a discussion to point out what you, yourself have presented via a link in your OP. It's what YOU posted. If you don't like the content, maybe thoroughly read any article you link to see if it supports your thesis. Your link presented more than one side. You wanted to discuss only one side. I am discussing the other side.

I do see how this is not convenient for your thesis. It is not derailing to point out that your thesis is flawed. I don't think this forum exists for you to bitch without challenge.

You posted names and info. It is unreasonable to not expect others to actually use google to see for themselves what you are talking about.

Is this the Patric Andersson you mentioned in your post? https://www.linkedin.com/in/partscreative/

Because he looks to still be quite active in his career.


Apparently your journalist was not so innocent that his employer did not consider him to be too great a liability to continue to employ. And again, it is incomprehensible to me that you believe that offering a job to a 14 year old or a 40 year old if they would agree to sleep with him was 'nothing to get excited about' and excusable because he was supposedly drunk at the time. Any reasonable employer would find that the mere fact that he was conducting company business while drunk to be a fireable offense. Any decent human being would see offering a job to a 14 year old if she would sleep with him to be abhorrent and inexcusable as would offering a job to any person of any age on condition of sex. The fact that he wasn't actually convicted of rape is not proof that he did nothing wrong.

I'm sorry that this thread has not turned out the way that you wanted it to. C'est la vie.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't see how it is derailing a discussion to point out what you, yourself have presented via a link in your OP. It's what YOU posted. If you don't like the content, maybe thoroughly read any article you link to see if it supports your thesis. Your link presented more than one side. You wanted to discuss only one side. I am discussing the other side.

I do see how this is not convenient for your thesis. It is not derailing to point out that your thesis is flawed. I don't think this forum exists for you to bitch without challenge.

This discussion, OP and article is about how #MeToo bypassing due process, in the long run hurts women. Or if it hurts women.

It's NOT about:
1) Men should be allowed to molest women
2) Men shouldn't be held accountable for making unwanted sexual advances to women
3) Men shouldn't be reported when they do bad things

or all the other irrelevancies you've been going on about. It doesn't matter if every man caught by #MeToo eventually gets convicted. The fact that they're punished before due process has run it's course means no man is safe. We're not going to gamble our careers in the hope that a rabid mob will get things right all the time. That would be stupid.

I have not got the impression that you, at any point in this thread, have understood what the thread is about. Feel free to challenge anything what I have said. But if you continue to challenge things I haven't said, I will just go back to ignoring you.

You posted names and info. It is unreasonable to not expect others to actually use google to see for themselves what you are talking about.

Is this the Patric Andersson you mentioned in your post? https://www.linkedin.com/in/partscreative/

Because he looks to still be quite active in his career.

That's the guy. But his Linkedin hasn't been updated for ten years. He hasn't worked at McKinsey for ten years, which is what is listed as his current employer. I know this guy well. I'm not going to get details about his life wrong. Back in the day we were rivals. I was the old established event promoter and he was trying to take break into the market and take me down. He did eventually "win". Because I retired.

Apparently your journalist was not so innocent that his employer did not consider him to be too great a liability to continue to employ.

He was fired immediately upon the #MeToo accusation surfacing. For a rape accusation that had already been to the courts and thrown out. Three years before #MeToo. They knew he was innocent. But that's when he got fired. Because the newspaper listened to the cries of the mob, rather than doing what was right. All the other stuff surfaced afterwards. What was done to him would be wrong even if he would be found guilty of the other stuff. Which he wasn't.

And again, it is incomprehensible to me that you believe that offering a job to a 14 year old or a 40 year old if they would agree to sleep with him was 'nothing to get excited about' and excusable because he was supposedly drunk at the time.

Again... didn't say that. And I'm now bored with setting you straight on this. I'm just going to conclude that you just enjoy lying all the time about stuff for no apparent reason. Enjoy.

I'm sorry that this thread has not turned out the way that you wanted it to. C'est la vie.

And I'm sorry you didn't find the actual topic of the thread interesting to discuss. But instead got hung up on irrelevant bullshit. I'm pretty sure that I haven't been defending the things that you think I have.

 

[Toni]

This discussion, OP and article is about how #MeToo bypassing due process, in the long run hurts women. Or if it hurts women.

It's NOT about:
1) Men should be allowed to molest women
2) Men shouldn't be held accountable for making unwanted sexual advances to women
3) Men shouldn't be reported when they do bad things

or all the other irrelevancies you've been going on about. It doesn't matter if every man caught by #MeToo eventually gets convicted. The fact that they're punished before due process has run it's course means no man is safe. We're not going to gamble our careers in the hope that a rabid mob will get things right all the time. That would be stupid.

I have not got the impression that you, at any point in this thread, have understood what the thread is about. Feel free to challenge anything what I have said. But if you continue to challenge things I haven't said, I will just go back to ignoring you.



That's the guy. But his Linkedin hasn't been updated for ten years. He hasn't worked at McKinsey for ten years, which is what is listed as his current employer. I know this guy well. I'm not going to get details about his life wrong. Back in the day we were rivals. I was the old established event promoter and he was trying to take break into the market and take me down. He did eventually "win". Because I retired.

Apparently your journalist was not so innocent that his employer did not consider him to be too great a liability to continue to employ.

He was fired immediately upon the #MeToo accusation surfacing. For a rape accusation that had already been to the courts and thrown out. Three years before #MeToo. They knew he was innocent. But that's when he got fired. Because the newspaper listened to the cries of the mob, rather than doing what was right. All the other stuff surfaced afterwards. What was done to him would be wrong even if he would be found guilty of the other stuff. Which he wasn't.

And again, it is incomprehensible to me that you believe that offering a job to a 14 year old or a 40 year old if they would agree to sleep with him was 'nothing to get excited about' and excusable because he was supposedly drunk at the time.

Again... didn't say that. And I'm now bored with setting you straight on this. I'm just going to conclude that you just enjoy lying all the time about stuff for no apparent reason. Enjoy.

I'm sorry that this thread has not turned out the way that you wanted it to. C'est la vie.

And I'm sorry you didn't find the actual topic of the thread interesting to discuss. But instead got hung up on irrelevant bullshit. I'm pretty sure that I haven't been defending the things that you think I have.

I'm not lying. I'm simply reporting things as I see them/find them on the internet.

Perhaps things are different in Sweden but in the US, there is a difference between being convicted of a criminal charge, which usually means jail time, and violating workplace guidelines, which can mean being fired. It seems to me that's how it worked for your guy. His workplace decided his behavior--behavior YOU reported HERE--was outside of what is acceptable for the workplace. I agree. Now, maybe he didn't really proposition an applicant who turned out to be 14. Maybe you are lying about that. Maybe you are lying about whether he was drunk or not. In any case, such behavior would get him fired in the US whether or not he was drunk at the time. It's your story so you know better than I do whether or not it is true.

The linkedn thing claims to be current but I understand that things are not always up to date.

There is also a difference between lying, which you are accusing me of doing while offering not one instance where I lie and disagreeing with your thesis. I do disagree with your thesis. The article you linked in support of your thesis actually disagrees with your thesis. I'm not sure where you think the lies are coming from, but they are not coming from me.

Did you lie when you wrote this?

There were many accusations of him being a drunk asshole to women when out. Which he has admitted to. But hardly a reason for outrage, public condemnation or any sanction... what so ever. That was more just moral indignation and outrage.

Only two accusations were serious. One was the rape allegation. Which was thrown out of court in 2014 because it was a frivolous accusation. There's a longer story here. I know this case in great detail. It just screams of bullshit. There's many fucked up details about it.

The other one was an e-mail he sent to a 14 year old who had applied for an internship. He said she'd get the job if she slept with him. He didn't know she was 14 or anything about her. My guess is a drunken attempt at humour. Which I think was his defence. But either way, obviously not a serious question.

You mention elsewhere that he suggested birth control when a woman wanted maternity leave. The things YOU have written about him sound very much like things that would have been considered acceptable 50 years ago or more. Times have changed.

You've provided no evidence that MeToo is harming women. I can see that it is making some men scared to be alone with a woman for fear of it harming their careers. I can empathize. Women have been dealing with fears of being alone with a man for centuries.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think it goes beyond just fabricated allegations of rape and sexual assault. A lot of men are worried that their words will be twisted or misinterpreted into meaning something sexist or demeaning, and then they get a call from HR. Rumors and a bad professional image follow. Or if a man gets promoted over a woman, the woman will often assume it has to do with her being a woman, and not because, well, she may be doing a shitty job. Again, another HR investigation. Or perhaps he'll get accused of "mansplaining" a concept to her, or alternatively, purposely talking over her head to confuse or intimidate her. After work socializing has to be particularly troublesome now. If you exclude the women, you get accused of doing the "old boys network" thing, and a complaint could be filed. If you do include them, you have to be extremely careful about what you say and do so as not to offend. Not always that easy when alcohol is freely flowing. And what if the woman herself gets a little tipsy and flirty towards the top dog? Alcohol has a way of doing that. So, best to just not take chances.

Yeah. Lets go back many years, way before the #metoo movement. The facts of the case are undisputed, the only question is whether the actions are wrongful.

The situation was a discussion of last night's Seinfeld episode. There was a date with a forgotten name, but it rhymed with a female body part. Her name was Delores. A woman couldn't figure it out so a guy photocopied the relevant dictionary page, highlighted the word and gave it to her--trying to answer he question with a minimum of possible offense.

She complained to HR, he got fired. He won a 8-figure judgment, AFIAK struck down by the state Supreme Court.

If bending over backwards to avoid harassment isn't good enough then the company would be better off not hiring women in the first place. She should have lost her career over that, not him.

Loren: Seinfeld was a sit com—not reality. It doesn’t count as ‘evidence.’

I see you have forgotten about this case.

I didn't say it happened on Seinfeld, but rather that they were discussing the episode. People can talk about a TV show!

 

[Toni]

Loren: Seinfeld was a sit com—not reality. It doesn’t count as ‘evidence.’

I see you have forgotten about this case.

I didn't say it happened on Seinfeld, but rather that they were discussing the episode. People can talk about a TV show!

I was never a Seinfeld fan so I never saw the show you are talking about. I still don’t see the relevance. We’re talking about the real world here and not imagined events.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You mention elsewhere that he suggested birth control when a woman wanted maternity leave. The things YOU have written about him sound very much like things that would have been considered acceptable 50 years ago or more. Times have changed.

It was Lawrence Krauss who said that. Also, a pretty obvious joke IMHO. The guy is on the extreme liberal end on the progressiveness scale. Last week I suggested to one of my employees that he sells his children. Also a joke. Just because people say stuff doesn't mean it's serious.

You've provided no evidence that MeToo is harming women.

I don't think it has harmed women yet. But I think it will down the line. The top level CEO's that I'm in contact with have all stopped providing mentorship to young women. Because of #MeToo. These guys all care about gender equality. As long as I've known them they've aggressively pushed for it. They're troubled by the circumstance where they feel they can't any longer spend time alone with young women, which effectively blocks them from getting senior positions down the line. This shit matters.

I can see that it is making some men scared to be alone with a woman for fear of it harming their careers. I can empathize. Women have been dealing with fears of being alone with a man for centuries.

So what? Firstly, it's whataboutism. Secondly, what are these men supposed to do with this insight? "Oh, women have been scared for centuries so therefore it's ok if I jeopardise my entire career, leaving my family and children up shit creak for some nebulous noble cause that might not benefit anyone". Nobody cares about your empathy. Empathy alone doesn't protect anyone from anything.

In my long career I've never met a high level or successful businessman who wasn't passionate about equality. It's been my experience that management teams consisting roughly of 50-50 men/women work more efficiently than either all men or all women. It tends to be less bullshit/drama and more focus on the actual job. I know I'm not the only person who has made this observation. These CEO's like money. So they'll probably all push for gender equality. Assuming that they can. If they can't train these women, they won't. And if they don't get trained they're not going to rise to the top.

 

[Toni]

It was Lawrence Krauss who said that. Also, a pretty obvious joke IMHO. The guy is on the extreme liberal end on the progressiveness scale. Last week I suggested to one of my employees that he sells his children. Also a joke. Just because people say stuff doesn't mean it's serious.



I don't think it has harmed women yet. But I think it will down the line. The top level CEO's that I'm in contact with have all stopped providing mentorship to young women. Because of #MeToo. These guys all care about gender equality. As long as I've known them they've aggressively pushed for it. They're troubled by the circumstance where they feel they can't any longer spend time alone with young women, which effectively blocks them from getting senior positions down the line. This shit matters.

I can see that it is making some men scared to be alone with a woman for fear of it harming their careers. I can empathize. Women have been dealing with fears of being alone with a man for centuries.

So what? Firstly, it's whataboutism. Secondly, what are these men supposed to do with this insight? "Oh, women have been scared for centuries so therefore it's ok if I jeopardise my entire career, leaving my family and children up shit creak for some nebulous noble cause that might not benefit anyone". Nobody cares about your empathy. Empathy alone doesn't protect anyone from anything.

In my long career I've never met a high level or successful businessman who wasn't passionate about equality. It's been my experience that management teams consisting roughly of 50-50 men/women work more efficiently than either all men or all women. It tends to be less bullshit/drama and more focus on the actual job. I know I'm not the only person who has made this observation. These CEO's like money. So they'll probably all push for gender equality. Assuming that they can. If they can't train these women, they won't. And if they don't get trained they're not going to rise to the top.

There is a difference between 'can't' and 'won't.' Mentoring the next generation always comes with risks. Always. The risk and the inevitable outcome is always that you will be replaced. Because you will be. We will all be replaced. It's supposed to be like that.

Are ALL top CEO's in Sweden male?

If management teams are 50/50 male/female, why can't women mentor other women? Why can't women mentor men? Why can't men leave the damn door open? Why can't men quit 'joking' with women about maternity leave? Do they also joke with men about paternity leave? Why can't men quit telling women they can have a job if the woman will sleep with them? Why do men work while drunk? Why can't men take responsibility for their boorish behavior without using alcohol as an excuse?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren: Seinfeld was a sit com—not reality. It doesn’t count as ‘evidence.’

I see you have forgotten about this case.

I didn't say it happened on Seinfeld, but rather that they were discussing the episode. People can talk about a TV show!

I was never a Seinfeld fan so I never saw the show you are talking about. I still don’t see the relevance. We’re talking about the real world here and not imagined events.

I suggest you read what I actually wrote. I am not discussing what happened on a TV show, but people talking about a TV show!

https://corporate.findlaw.com/human...on-to-executive-fired-over-racy-seinfeld.html

(Note that it seems to have been shot down on a technicality that I don't understand.)