Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Morgan Stanley Fires Former Congressman Harold Ford For Misconduct
Is it OK anymore to LOOK at a woman or think of women?
Are you serious? Do you think the accusations in this article are "he was looking at me"?
We are in current times where the President of the United States said on tape it is ok to physically grope women if you are rich. We are in times where a President of the US backs a candidate who has taken advantage of girls as young as 14!
The many women speaking up to personal harassment may seem over-done or boring to some, but these woman have individual stories and they (finally after many years) want to be heard.
OK. I get that. No argument from me. It's just that the rush of so many public disclosures makes me think of the damned business about being politically correct, and that being actually attracted to the opposite sex seems lately to be like a goddam crime. And if guys are guilty of stuff that is decades old, well... who among us is frikkin' perfect? Here: enjoy this INNOCENT, romantic opera aria. German. Franz Lehar. "Dein ist mein ganzes Herz." English: "Yours is my heart alone."
It's just that the rush of so many public disclosures makes me think of the damned business about being politically correct, and that being actually attracted to the opposite sex seems lately to be like a goddam crime.
@Crash, It’s only a crime if you don’t ask their parents first. In this age of instant communication what’s so hard about calling up Mom or Pop and getting permission first before you kiss the girl?
The thing I keep hearing men complain about is the notion of being innocent until proven guilty. But most fail to understand that companies are not a court of law and this isn't firing for "committing a crime." Corporate policy is not the same as the law and companies can fire you for a lot less than what would be required to convict someone in a courtroom. Heck, a company can fire you for simply having a bad attitude or being rude to a customer. I would think even a hint of sexual harassment would be justifiable grounds for termination at most companies. This is not to say that a man couldn't respond by, say, suing one or more of his female accusers for libel with regard to the harassment if the accusations were false. What is shocking is how few have gone this route, which would lead me to believe that in most cases men are actually doing the harassment and there is verifiable evidence and more than one accuser to confirm this. Basically, this is the first time women are finally calling men on the nonsense women have had to put up with from them since, well, forever.
Your argument makes sense. And what do I know? But to me, Franken is the saddest case. Anybody familiar with his SNL past must have realized he’s no saint. I’d guess that for most members of his cultural/social group his alleged misbehavior was pretty tame. So much has to do, I think, with the accepted social mores among the group in which one resides. (OK - perhaps the fact there were several accusers makes that point lame.).
Still, I watched a person of very high intellect and noble ambition emerge from behind an earlier comedic facade. Really impressed by his self growth and his potential to contribute to the public good. And really saddened by his downfall.
There were allegations of all types of sexual 'misconduct', up to, and including rape, against (Bill) Clinton, and the MSM duly ignored it; the Dems duly ignored it. Even Gloria Allred ignored it! And of course, Hillary "stood by her man", like Tammy Wynette. Frankly, I thought Clinton was a good President (certainly better than Dumbya or Oblama). The Repubs had no business trying to impeach a married man for lying about getting a little 'action' from a very willing Monica.
I'd like to make the following NON-partisan, but definitely non-PC comments:
a. Allegations are not proof. These are witch-hunts. Here, the "witches" are the hunters, not the hunted.
b. LB's rationale is essentially "guilty until proven innocent". Its incompatible with a civil society. If a customer called up and claimed you were 'rude' should you be fired? Maybe. If a customer called up 5-, 10- or 20- years later and complained, should you be fired? Absolutely not. The lack of immediacy (or something approaching immediacy) makes these accusations a joke. Even most crimes have a statute of limitations, and in most cases, the accusation are not of crimes but of 'misconduct'.
c. What did the "victims" do at the time of the alleged incidents? Nothing. The day after? Week after? Month after? Year after? I work in a corporate environment and I am straight. -- I say this, because I can tell you with certainty, that if a male higher-up in my chain-of-command called me into his office, shut the door, asked me to sit down, and started rubbing my back (or anything else, he'd probably get a bloody nose, and a chair tossed out of his office window. And I would immediately be in H.R. Immediately. Most women have fingernails. Maybe they could not break a guy's nose, but they could scratch the offender's cheek -- creating that pesky thing called evidence (of resistance). Probably, many of these "victims" were, at some level flattered by the attention at the time. But the years pass, they want attention, and the only way to get it, is to make these types of allegations. Men crave/chase women. Women crave/demand attention..
d. Do the "victims" have any responsibility? If Judge Moore's accuser of (whatever) from 35 years ago is worried about what (Senator-) Moore might do, was she not worried about what he was allowed to do the past 35 years because of HER silence? How is it she has not been confronted about her 35 years of complicit silence? My goodness, how many "victims" could have been spared if she had spoken up (before a high-stakes election...). Apparently, today's women are children who lack the agency/responsibility we expect of men? But how can that be: we are told "women are strong", but then they cower and suffer in silence (said tongue-in-cheek) for DECADES? Which is it? I am reminded of a quote from Jack Nicholson's character (a writer) from "As good as it gets" -- a female secretary asked Jack "how he wrote women so well". -- He replied: "I think of a man, and I take away all reason and accountability"... Women from an earlier age knew how to defend their virtue. These "victims" strike me as pathetic snowflakes. -- I doubt their "victimhood".
e. Franken and Conyers made one mistake: they resigned (or promised to do so). They can't have it both ways: they cannot protest their innocence but surrender the authority given to them by the electorate. Resigning (in the minds of the electorate) means "they did it". But more than that, it means they are willing to throw the results of an election into the garbage, for something which has nothing NOTHING to do with their sworn oath, and their responsibilities to their constituencies. It shows CONTEMPT for the voters. If they maintain their innocence, they should stay, and do the people's work (and maybe embrace the Pence rule, for the rest of their term).
Pelosi and the Gyneocracy think that waging a war on men is a way to win elections. My take: Were I in the RNC crafting media campaigns for 2018 & 2020, I would target ads to married women, reminding them, their husbands could be unjustly accused by someone of 'misconduct' from 20 years ago, find himself unemployed, and you & he could lose your house and everything by these witchhunts. I think another great "theme" would be that the Dem Party/DNC has been waging war on any politician when it doesn't like the results. It did this by tilting the scales against Bernie Sanders, ongoing efforts to deny the legitimacy and impeach Trump, tolerating (fascistic-) Antifa violence, and now arm-twisting two of its own (Franken and Conyers) to resign -- the result: the undoing of their elections. Since the French Revolution, the Left has always gotten round to "devouring its own"... A political party which believes election results are "too important to be left to the voters" is a danger to the Republic.
It is not a matter of "PC-ness" but of human rights.
@Edmond: I wish to address a few points in your write. b. Sexual harassment (or other unwanted contact) is not analogous to "being rude." More at d, why did they wait.
c. Fighting back: You assume some sort of parity between aggressor and person being aggressed against. This is rarely the case. In male-on-female aggression, the male is usually stronger, tougher, and more capable of causing physical harm. Unless physical harm is imminent or occurring, most women I have talked to prefer to try to deescalate the situation and exit, not get in closer and try that scratch thang, which is not effective and could incite a further physical response. A button under the desk that locks the door makes exit much more difficult. Your illustration is of a male-on-male situation, and the solution advocated is a high-testosterone one. (Also, the guy won't be waiting for you in the company parking lot after work.)
d. Why did they wait. Plenty of them DID NOT wait: they reported and were told to avoid the person or the situation, or they were moved out of their position, or fired, etc. Insofar as sexual harassment in the workplace (and elsewhere) was commonplace decades ago (recall the Clarence Thomas hearings), the expectation that anything could be achieved by reporting was low. (If you were a Miss America contestant and had spent minimally 2 years devoting every minute to getting to the finals, and the owner of the business walked in on you changing outfits and did nasty things, would you try to get through the competition anyway?) So, being aggressed against was too often just a fact of life, and women dealt with it. When the aggressor seeks a position of high political power, in which he (I'll include she) is able to make rules for lots and lots of people, maybe that is the best time to speak out. Note as well that the congressional rules for reporting misconduct significantly disadvantage the target of the misconduct.
Anent it being a matter of human rights, child abuse/domestic abuse was a similar crime with no social and, often, no legal remedy.
@Edmond - "Pelosi and the Gyneocracy think that waging a war on men is a way to win elections. "
LOL - Did they get through eating your, ummm, "Christmas"? Maybe it will grow back.
Anna: Your "LOL" is interesting, because your attempt at humor is a "fail". No surprise there, leave the humor attempts to men. You can go back to baking cookies though, dear.
It is not a matter of "PC-ness" but of human rights.
@Edmond: I wish to address a few points in your write. b. Sexual harassment (or other unwanted contact) is not analogous to "being rude." More at d, why did they wait.
c. Fighting back: You assume some sort of parity between aggressor and person being aggressed against. This is rarely the case. In male-on-female aggression, the male is usually stronger, tougher, and more capable of causing physical harm. Unless physical harm is imminent or occurring, most women I have talked to prefer to try to deescalate the situation and exit, not get in closer and try that scratch thang, which is not effective and could incite a further physical response. A button under the desk that locks the door makes exit much more difficult. Your illustration is of a male-on-male situation, and the solution advocated is a high-testosterone one. (Also, the guy won't be waiting for you in the company parking lot after work.)
d. Why did they wait. Plenty of them DID NOT wait: they reported and were told to avoid the person or the situation, or they were moved out of their position, or fired, etc. Insofar as sexual harassment in the workplace (and elsewhere) was commonplace decades ago (recall the Clarence Thomas hearings), the expectation that anything could be achieved by reporting was low. (If you were a Miss America contestant and had spent minimally 2 years devoting every minute to getting to the finals, and the owner of the business walked in on you changing outfits and did nasty things, would you try to get through the competition anyway?) So, being aggressed against was too often just a fact of life, and women dealt with it. When the aggressor seeks a position of high political power, in which he (I'll include she) is able to make rules for lots and lots of people, maybe that is the best time to speak out. Note as well that the congressional rules for reporting misconduct significantly disadvantage the target of the misconduct.
Anent it being a matter of human rights, child abuse/domestic abuse was a similar crime with no social and, often, no legal remedy.
Oh, I get it... still comes down to you (and many others) rationalizing women who claim to be victims who took no action.. often until years later. If they "de-escalate", then why "re-escalate" years later? Perhaps the "victims" were "undecided" / "unclear" if they were victims at the time --- when they decided they might like some attention/notoriety, and perhaps cash prizes (lawsuits).
Exhibit A: Actress Annabella Sciorra comes forward now, claims Harvey Weinstein raped her. In 1979 (!) Not surprisingly, reports from a few years ago, show Annabella has lots of credit card and IRS debt.... Methinks Annabella smells a payday. More likely, Annabella willingly traded her "virtue" to Harvey, for help with her career. A quid pro quo of sorts. Harvey got some action; she got some jobs she otherwise would not have. Now that Annabella has hit the wall, and isn't scoring film roles, she is looking for her next payday -- payola from Weinstein. Too cynical? OK, well, what about all the women Harvey was presumably allowed to prey on because Annabella did not take agency for reporting the "rape".. Again, no accountability/agency/responsibility. -- But hey, she's a "girl" so we don't expect her to have any accountability?
We've probably all seen the following on a bumper sticker:
"God said it. I believe it. That settles it".
I roll my eyes when I see it. But that is essentially what is being done now by the gyneocracy and the male simps who buy into it.
"SHE said it. I believe it. You (sir) are FIRED!"
Its all done on faith. Evidence? We cynics demand evidence, and are labelled Neanderthals. We cynics discount stories "forgotten" for years or decades, then suddenly brought forward with the possibility of profit or increased social status, and are told "women don't lie about things like that". Yeah, right, only men lie. Women never lie...
We now live in an upside down culture where "victimhood" increases one's social status. -- I mean, if you are a woman who has NEVER been the "victim" of unwanted male overtures, what does that say about YOUR social value? (Spoiler: it says you are a troll!) Over the top comment? Natalie Portman now claims "100 stories" of sexual harassment. Really? 100? -- Natalie, is trolling for attention/social gain. Someone, probably one of the Kardashians (guardians of female virtue, they) will probably claim "thousands of stories". - And figure out a way to capitalize on their victimhood.
@Edmond You have it backwards. A girl of "low social value" (deserves a third LOL) is more apt to be abused since the abuser sees no loss to himself. People should learn the character of the crime before mouthing off. You don't abuse something you respect.
[(aside) rono puts on his wayback hat to discuss trolls and how most often the best response is simple shunning]
Problem with the sexual harassment scandals is that both the entertainment and political arenas have not been subject to the same rules as so many of us. I believe that congress is exempt from any and all labor laws and we all know about the casting couch. Because of this lack of legal guidance, there are few parameters now when it comes to punishment.
The state of Michigan policy is very plain. You can proposition a coworker, boss or subordinate and you can tell dirty jokes, etc. UNTIL someone refuses your advances or asks you to stop. If you continue - you are harassing them. If anyone up the chain of command is informed and does nothing, the courts have determined the organization is guilty. Of course there are those behaviors that are automatic - sleep with me or I'll fire you, physical hands on, etc. , but generally the person needs to be told their behavior is wrong and offensive and be given the chance to correct it before they are guilty of violating the harassment policy. [note: most organizations have 'conduct unbecoming' clauses for most bad behavior]
I was thinking about this issue and geez, even with guidelines it gets more complicated. Where does asking someone to get to know them better stop and verbally assaulting them begin? Asking one of my employees to have my baby for $5M I am pretty sure crosses the line. Where does physical touching stop and frottage begin. My first eye Dr. lost patients because he was a 'hands on' guy. Nothing remotely inappropriate or sexual, but he had to touch you to talk to you. Where does simple frottage (Geo Sr.) stop and molestation begin? Where does simple molestation (Al Franken posing for photos) stop and sexual assault begin?
I don't have a clue where to draw the lines but know that the lines exist and the punishments should reflect the variation in severity.
Alas and alack.
Franken resigned so they can go after Moore if he's elected. Hopefully, the coalition of the decent with turn out and put paid to his ass.
The state of Michigan policy is very plain. You can proposition a coworker, boss or subordinate and you can tell dirty jokes, etc. UNTIL someone refuses your advances or asks you to stop. If you continue - you are harassing them. If anyone up the chain of command is informed and does nothing, the courts have determined the organization is guilty. Of course there are those behaviors that are automatic - sleep with me or I'll fire you, physical hands on, etc. , but generally the person needs to be told their behavior is wrong and offensive and be given the chance to correct it before they are guilty of violating the harassment policy. [note: most organizations have 'conduct unbecoming' clauses for most bad behavior]
Most places I've worked have similar rules. I've seen them enforced a few times, and in fact, I fired an employee once who was a repeat offender. Usually "asks them to stop" works; most of the time the offender wasn't really aware that he was doing something wrong, but a direct "knock it off" gets their attention. My two adult daughters are both engineers and have received attention that was inappropriate. For both of them educating the offender was all that was required to fix the problem.
Note Edmond's use of the word victims in quotes and the word accuser as singular in the case of Roy Moore. At the current count there are nine different women who are accusing him of sexual misconduct. If nine different people accuse someone of doing something wrong, chances are there's something wrong. The truth is, the most ardent Alabama Republicans would rather elect a child molester than a Democrat. And making some sort of false equivalency with Bill Clinton is laughable as A. Monica Lewinsky was in her twenties when their relationship began and B. she has always maintained their sexual conduct was consensual: https://vanityfair.com/news/2014/05/monica-lewinsky-speaks She was not a 14-year-old just starting high school being harassed by a district attorney. What Clinton got in trouble for was for lying under oath. Having a consensual affair with an adult is not illegal. What is even more galling is these asinine attempts to blame Hillary Clinton for her husband's bad behavior. That's just sickening. And I wonder if the Republican party will have the courage to impeach one of their own for doing far worse.
Comments
We are in current times where the President of the United States said on tape it is ok to physically grope women if you are rich. We are in times where a President of the US backs a candidate who has taken advantage of girls as young as 14!
The many women speaking up to personal harassment may seem over-done or boring to some, but these woman have individual stories and they (finally after many years) want to be heard.
"Dein ist mein ganzes Herz." English: "Yours is my heart alone."
Your argument makes sense. And what do I know? But to me, Franken is the saddest case. Anybody familiar with his SNL past must have realized he’s no saint. I’d guess that for most members of his cultural/social group his alleged misbehavior was pretty tame. So much has to do, I think, with the accepted social mores among the group in which one resides. (OK - perhaps the fact there were several accusers makes that point lame.).
Still, I watched a person of very high intellect and noble ambition emerge from behind an earlier comedic facade. Really impressed by his self growth and his potential to contribute to the public good. And really saddened by his downfall.
I'd like to make the following NON-partisan, but definitely non-PC comments:
a. Allegations are not proof. These are witch-hunts. Here, the "witches" are the hunters, not the hunted.
b. LB's rationale is essentially "guilty until proven innocent". Its incompatible with a civil society. If a customer called up and claimed you were 'rude' should you be fired? Maybe. If a customer called up 5-, 10- or 20- years later and complained, should you be fired? Absolutely not. The lack of immediacy (or something approaching immediacy) makes these accusations a joke. Even most crimes have a statute of limitations, and in most cases, the accusation are not of crimes but of 'misconduct'.
c. What did the "victims" do at the time of the alleged incidents? Nothing. The day after? Week after? Month after? Year after? I work in a corporate environment and I am straight. -- I say this, because I can tell you with certainty, that if a male higher-up in my chain-of-command called me into his office, shut the door, asked me to sit down, and started rubbing my back (or anything else, he'd probably get a bloody nose, and a chair tossed out of his office window. And I would immediately be in H.R. Immediately. Most women have fingernails. Maybe they could not break a guy's nose, but they could scratch the offender's cheek -- creating that pesky thing called evidence (of resistance). Probably, many of these "victims" were, at some level flattered by the attention at the time. But the years pass, they want attention, and the only way to get it, is to make these types of allegations. Men crave/chase women. Women crave/demand attention..
d. Do the "victims" have any responsibility? If Judge Moore's accuser of (whatever) from 35 years ago is worried about what (Senator-) Moore might do, was she not worried about what he was allowed to do the past 35 years because of HER silence? How is it she has not been confronted about her 35 years of complicit silence? My goodness, how many "victims" could have been spared if she had spoken up (before a high-stakes election...). Apparently, today's women are children who lack the agency/responsibility we expect of men? But how can that be: we are told "women are strong", but then they cower and suffer in silence (said tongue-in-cheek) for DECADES? Which is it? I am reminded of a quote from Jack Nicholson's character (a writer) from "As good as it gets" -- a female secretary asked Jack "how he wrote women so well". -- He replied: "I think of a man, and I take away all reason and accountability"... Women from an earlier age knew how to defend their virtue. These "victims" strike me as pathetic snowflakes. -- I doubt their "victimhood".
e. Franken and Conyers made one mistake: they resigned (or promised to do so). They can't have it both ways: they cannot protest their innocence but surrender the authority given to them by the electorate. Resigning (in the minds of the electorate) means "they did it". But more than that, it means they are willing to throw the results of an election into the garbage, for something which has nothing NOTHING to do with their sworn oath, and their responsibilities to their constituencies. It shows CONTEMPT for the voters. If they maintain their innocence, they should stay, and do the people's work (and maybe embrace the Pence rule, for the rest of their term).
Pelosi and the Gyneocracy think that waging a war on men is a way to win elections. My take: Were I in the RNC crafting media campaigns for 2018 & 2020, I would target ads to married women, reminding them, their husbands could be unjustly accused by someone of 'misconduct' from 20 years ago, find himself unemployed, and you & he could lose your house and everything by these witchhunts. I think another great "theme" would be that the Dem Party/DNC has been waging war on any politician when it doesn't like the results. It did this by tilting the scales against Bernie Sanders, ongoing efforts to deny the legitimacy and impeach Trump, tolerating (fascistic-) Antifa violence, and now arm-twisting two of its own (Franken and Conyers) to resign -- the result: the undoing of their elections. Since the French Revolution, the Left has always gotten round to "devouring its own"... A political party which believes election results are "too important to be left to the voters" is a danger to the Republic.
This is one heck of wordsmithing.
Old_Skeet
@Edmond: I wish to address a few points in your write.
b. Sexual harassment (or other unwanted contact) is not analogous to "being rude." More at d, why did they wait.
c. Fighting back: You assume some sort of parity between aggressor and person being aggressed against. This is rarely the case. In male-on-female aggression, the male is usually stronger, tougher, and more capable of causing physical harm. Unless physical harm is imminent or occurring, most women I have talked to prefer to try to deescalate the situation and exit, not get in closer and try that scratch thang, which is not effective and could incite a further physical response. A button under the desk that locks the door makes exit much more difficult. Your illustration is of a male-on-male situation, and the solution advocated is a high-testosterone one. (Also, the guy won't be waiting for you in the company parking lot after work.)
d. Why did they wait. Plenty of them DID NOT wait: they reported and were told to avoid the person or the situation, or they were moved out of their position, or fired, etc. Insofar as sexual harassment in the workplace (and elsewhere) was commonplace decades ago (recall the Clarence Thomas hearings), the expectation that anything could be achieved by reporting was low. (If you were a Miss America contestant and had spent minimally 2 years devoting every minute to getting to the finals, and the owner of the business walked in on you changing outfits and did nasty things, would you try to get through the competition anyway?)
So, being aggressed against was too often just a fact of life, and women dealt with it.
When the aggressor seeks a position of high political power, in which he (I'll include she) is able to make rules for lots and lots of people, maybe that is the best time to speak out. Note as well that the congressional rules for reporting misconduct significantly disadvantage the target of the misconduct.
Anent it being a matter of human rights, child abuse/domestic abuse was a similar crime with no social and, often, no legal remedy.
@Crash: You frikkin' don't get it!!!
LOL - Did they get through eating your, ummm, "Christmas"? Maybe it will grow back.
Anna: Your "LOL" is interesting, because your attempt at humor is a "fail". No surprise there, leave the humor attempts to men. You can go back to baking cookies though, dear.
Oh, I get it... still comes down to you (and many others) rationalizing women who claim to be victims who took no action.. often until years later. If they "de-escalate", then why "re-escalate" years later? Perhaps the "victims" were "undecided" / "unclear" if they were victims at the time --- when they decided they might like some attention/notoriety, and perhaps cash prizes (lawsuits).
Exhibit A: Actress Annabella Sciorra comes forward now, claims Harvey Weinstein raped her. In 1979 (!) Not surprisingly, reports from a few years ago, show Annabella has lots of credit card and IRS debt.... Methinks Annabella smells a payday. More likely, Annabella willingly traded her "virtue" to Harvey, for help with her career. A quid pro quo of sorts. Harvey got some action; she got some jobs she otherwise would not have. Now that Annabella has hit the wall, and isn't scoring film roles, she is looking for her next payday -- payola from Weinstein. Too cynical? OK, well, what about all the women Harvey was presumably allowed to prey on because Annabella did not take agency for reporting the "rape".. Again, no accountability/agency/responsibility. -- But hey, she's a "girl" so we don't expect her to have any accountability?
We've probably all seen the following on a bumper sticker:
"God said it. I believe it. That settles it".
I roll my eyes when I see it. But that is essentially what is being done now by the gyneocracy and the male simps who buy into it.
"SHE said it. I believe it. You (sir) are FIRED!"
Its all done on faith. Evidence? We cynics demand evidence, and are labelled Neanderthals. We cynics discount stories "forgotten" for years or decades, then suddenly brought forward with the possibility of profit or increased social status, and are told "women don't lie about things like that". Yeah, right, only men lie. Women never lie...
We now live in an upside down culture where "victimhood" increases one's social status. -- I mean, if you are a woman who has NEVER been the "victim" of unwanted male overtures, what does that say about YOUR social value? (Spoiler: it says you are a troll!) Over the top comment? Natalie Portman now claims "100 stories" of sexual harassment. Really? 100? -- Natalie, is trolling for attention/social gain. Someone, probably one of the Kardashians (guardians of female virtue, they) will probably claim "thousands of stories". - And figure out a way to capitalize on their victimhood.
[(aside) rono puts on his wayback hat to discuss trolls and how most often the best response is simple shunning]
Problem with the sexual harassment scandals is that both the entertainment and political arenas have not been subject to the same rules as so many of us. I believe that congress is exempt from any and all labor laws and we all know about the casting couch. Because of this lack of legal guidance, there are few parameters now when it comes to punishment.
The state of Michigan policy is very plain. You can proposition a coworker, boss or subordinate and you can tell dirty jokes, etc. UNTIL someone refuses your advances or asks you to stop. If you continue - you are harassing them. If anyone up the chain of command is informed and does nothing, the courts have determined the organization is guilty. Of course there are those behaviors that are automatic - sleep with me or I'll fire you, physical hands on, etc. , but generally the person needs to be told their behavior is wrong and offensive and be given the chance to correct it before they are guilty of violating the harassment policy. [note: most organizations have 'conduct unbecoming' clauses for most bad behavior]
I was thinking about this issue and geez, even with guidelines it gets more complicated. Where does asking someone to get to know them better stop and verbally assaulting them begin? Asking one of my employees to have my baby for $5M I am pretty sure crosses the line. Where does physical touching stop and frottage begin. My first eye Dr. lost patients because he was a 'hands on' guy. Nothing remotely inappropriate or sexual, but he had to touch you to talk to you. Where does simple frottage (Geo Sr.) stop and molestation begin? Where does simple molestation (Al Franken posing for photos) stop and sexual assault begin?
I don't have a clue where to draw the lines but know that the lines exist and the punishments should reflect the variation in severity.
Alas and alack.
Franken resigned so they can go after Moore if he's elected. Hopefully, the coalition of the decent with turn out and put paid to his ass.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
point for content and even more points for steadiness and patience and maturity
She was not a 14-year-old just starting high school being harassed by a district attorney. What Clinton got in trouble for was for lying under oath. Having a consensual affair with an adult is not illegal. What is even more galling is these asinine attempts to blame Hillary Clinton for her husband's bad behavior. That's just sickening. And I wonder if the Republican party will have the courage to impeach one of their own for doing far worse.