What do they consider sexual misconduct. I mean most women have had to put up with unwanted advances in the workplace. This is nothing new.
Talking to some women, we all have our stories. Most of the females I know told the men flat out they were not interested and to quit. If they continued to harass, then a few of us went to the manager over them and told them, the manager had a talk and that was the end of it.
Are women so meek today they do not tell the men to take a hike and quit? Was this a friendly flirt not welcomed?
Touching is a totally different story. That demands a slap in the face and reporting. This is all about workplace sexual misconduct. There is bound to be flirting at work. I hate to say it, but many women do flirt with the boss and brown nose. We all know females like that.
So what in your mind is sexual misconduct that a man should lose a job over?
most women have had to put up with unwanted advances in the workplace. This is nothing new.
That it is not new does not make today acceptable actions that are indeed inappropriate, regardless of whether they ever were before acceptable.
Talking to some women, we all have our stories. Most of the females I know told the men flat out they were not interested and to quit. If they continued to harass, then a few of us went to the manager over them and told them, the manager had a talk and that was the end of it.
That every one of the women with whom you've discussed the matter "has a story" is itself telling. I mean, really. One'd think at at least one of them would not have a story to tell, right? Yet by your own assertion, that was not the case. So too is it among the women with whom I've discussed this matter.
Talking to some women, we all have our stories. Most of the females I know told the men flat out they were not interested and to quit. If they continued to harass, then a few of us went to the manager over them and told them, the manager had a talk and that was the end of it.
That has the chance of being a apt course of action when the manager and organization involved refuse to forebear odious sexually charged remarks and behavior in the workplace. It also has the potential to work when there is a manager over the offensive party. It also has the potential of working when the offended party works for the same employer as the offender.
- Who was Weinstein's boss at the man's company? In such a case, the only avenue of recourse is legal because one cannot have fired the person who owns the company. Alternatively, one can pursue whatever satisfaction may accrue from taking up the matter in the "court of public opinion;" however, that only works if one of the parties involved -- the accused or the accuser -- is prominent enough for the matter to obtain industry-wide or national attention.
- Who is a Congressman's manager?
- Who ever was Trump's manager?
- To whom would a high schooler report an inappropriate advance made by a judge or district attorney whose public persona was that of an upstanding figure in the community? Until recently whoever would have believed the girl? Until recently, whoever would have done anything about it even if they did believe her? Quite simply, Americans and people in general, in the main, are given to believing as much on the basis of innuendo and faulty reasoning as they are given to disbelieve based on innuendo and faulty reasoning.
Are women so meek today they do not tell the men to take a hike and quit?
Frankly, though I think meekness may be a factor, I think other factors play a more pivotal role in how and why it is that Among them:
- "Coquettishness" of a sort -- I think people, men and women, enjoy being flirted with, flirting too for that matter, and don't mind it provided it doesn't go too far. The thing is that too many women give the wrong men the benefit of the doubt as goes presuming the men's understanding what's "too far" as goes their flirtatious overtures. I think too that, in the same context, too few men have a fitting idea of what constitutes "too far." Sadly, by the time things have "gone too far," it becomes but a matter of time before misconduct ensues, at which point it's no longer a question of whether misbehavior is happening, but rather form it takes.
- Situational Factors:
- Coming forward, in some instances, carries consequences for people other than the woman and man involved. The offended party may altruistically opt to "let it go" for the time being so as to defer imposing those consequences on folks who don't deserve to suffer them.
- Considering the "coquettishness" aspect I noted above, I suspect that plenty of offended individuals opted to overlook early advances not only because they enjoyed the flattery, but also because they feared that not letting it go would cost them something they dearly needed from the offending party, employment, for example.
Should they have said something akin to "back off" at the first sign of a flirt? Probably, yes. The thing is that nobody wants to think that a mere flirt they neutrally/innocuously respond to will be repeated or expanded upon. People aren't given to thinking the person before them is a heel. Certainly one doesn't want overreact to a merely flirtatious/exploratory remark.
Was this a friendly flirt not welcomed?
I don't know.
In Moore's case and at least one of the Spacey cases, however, I don't care. Even if it was, why the f*ck were either of them flirting with a minor?
So what in your mind is sexual misconduct that a man should lose a job over?
Let me say from the get go that I'm not about to enumerate a list of activities and detail in what nature and extents they constitute or don't sexual misconduct. If that's what you sought, you need read no further.
As someone who started and grew a company that is now part of a vastly larger firm, misconduct of myriad sorts are grounds for one's being fired.
As goes sexually focused behavior, we tell our people that while we know we cannot control romantic interactions among our employees and have no desire to do so, the instant someone asks a colleague to cease and desist with flirts, sexual innuendos and hints, etc. and the person does not heed the request, the offending individual is likely to be dismissed if the matter is reported to management and it's found that the accusation is true or mostly true.
Having said that, I and the rest of my firm's senior management team know that our firm's fortunes depend on our being able to attract top-drawer talent, and we can't do that if we develop a "behind the scenes" reputation for being a place were employees are not accorded proper respect and the firm's management be willing to look the other way when certain employees are harassed or are harassers. People in our industry are, by and large, not well known as are Congresspersons, entertainers, and media figures, but within the industry there's nonetheless a grapevine. The last thing a firm needs is for there to be about it scuttlebutt of that nature.
One thing that I think many people overlook is how these things can be handled in the public sector versus in the private sector. A publicly traded firm can punish any and every employee. A privately held firm cannot punish the owner, but it can punish everyone else. In the public sector and with regard to elected office holders, there's not much that can be done short of taking the matter to court, provided one has "
standing" (strictly, that's a civil law term, but I'm going to use it here and for now to imply roughly the same concepts in a criminal law application too) to do so -- that is, the statue of limitations hasn't expired, the alleged behavior is criminal, the plaintiff/offended party doesn't appear to have fabricated their claim, evidence, or other details to which they attest, etc. -- be it in a civil or criminal claim situation.
