So, I'm out for my daily constitutional a few days ago and stopped to have a chat with a fella I've seen and spoken to on several occasions when he's out walking his dog. Anyway, on my usual route, (around a medium-sized lake which is about a mile in circumference), I mentioned to him that there'd been a woman raped there whilst she was out jogging. It occurred, several weeks ago, (so, during the winter), at around 3 O'clock in the afternoon, according to the local newspaper. I was expecting him to say, 'Oh, that's terrible', or some such comment... instead he says, 'Well, some of these girls are asking for it'. TBH I can't quite remember WHAT I said but I think it was something along the lines of 'Well... I don't know about THAT!'. I do remember pointing out that she was running at 3 O'clock in the afternoon, on a weekend, IN WINTER, so was obviously probably covered up, (not that THAT should make any difference but, there we are), and some other things I'd have thought were obvious. Anyway, I'm just mentioning it to say that, when you meet people casually, you never really KNOW what they're like, do you. They might look normal and seem it in a brief chat but they might be total lunatics on the quiet.
I've taken to avoiding him now, if I can, as I'm not too sure what else I can say. Well, other than what I've ALREADY said... y'know!
If their men can't keep them in line, another man must. Uncontrolled women are the death knell of any rational civilization. -Plato,maybe
So Ryan Secrest is not being treated in the same way as the Weistein. One is still successful and popular, the other stopped being successful. So in Hollywood (the world really) #metoo only applies to failed males.
I suppose it depends on whether people feel the allegations are true. I saw the BBC documentary about Weinstein and, according to that, it was clear for a LONG time that he was a serial sexual predator with multiple people accusing him over many years. He was also getting dirt on people to defend himself against allegations AND getting multiple people to sign non-disclosure agreements paying out millions of dollars.
As NM pointed out, a poor comparison. To add to that, Secrest has a single person filing the complaint, whereas Weinstein has plenty. Though it does seem that E! is trying to dirty the waters/whitewash the issue.
The NY Times wrote about that in December, there were allegations from five women. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/us/dustin-hoffman-sexual-misconduct.html
One way underreported part of the #metoo story is...WTF have HR departments been doing with all these accusations? In many cases, not much. After a female employee at Vice revealed to the firm’s human resources department that she had been groped at the media company’s holiday party, the HR director reportedly told her to “laugh it off,” andgave similar advice to other staffers who disclosed they had been sexually harassed. At the Weinstein Company, HR allegedly funneled every sexual harassment complaint about co-founder Harvey Weinstein back to Weinstein himself. Uber’s HR department, after a female employee complained in the immediate aftermath of her new supervisor’s inappropriate behavior toward her, told the worker they “wouldn’t feel comfortable giving him anything other than a warning.” While both Vice and Uber have since publicly apologized and said they have taken steps to change their corporate culture, and the Weinstein Company declined to comment on the HR allegations leveled against it, these incidents — along with many similar ones — point to a troubling pattern. They shine a light not only on the prevalence of workplace sexual harassment, but also on the failure of human resources departments to properly handle these cases. Experts say the recent flood of cases that have rocked the nation make it clear that, in at least some areas of its mission, HR is failing the employees it ostensibly is there to serve. https://www.benefitnews.com/news/hr-failed-on-sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace-now-what
My wife has similar tales from the HR departments of the Silicon Valley companies she no longer works for. The blog from the Uber employee who got hit on by her manager and had HR lie to her face about it is an extreme example, but not that different than happens at other companies. My wife (who now works at Uber, despite the blog linked above) has this theory that the HR departments are staffed by the kind of women who benefit from the patriarchy - the ones who were cheerleaders in high school, or the ones who went to college in search of the M.R.S. degree. I can't argue with that - I don't have any relevant experience working as a woman in the patriarchy of Silicon Valley - all the companies I ever worked for treated me awesome, just like my status as a white man deserves.
It's not quite that nefarious.Simply put,HR exists to make employee difficulties disappear while ensuring the company holds no liability. There is a big focus on education and training ;less so on punitive action for bad actors,especially if there is no paper trail.
Workers fall for the spiel that HR is some sort of advocate for them but what they are is the enforcement arm of upper management.
HR are only there to support upper management, period. If an employee has a complaint about a supervisor (not necessarily sexual harassment) it get swept under the rug or the underling gets whacked.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/p...lly-ringwald-metoo-john-hughes-pretty-in-pink Great article by Molly Ringwald about 16 Candles, The Breakfast Club, and Pretty in Pink in the context of the late 2010s, and not the 1980s. And stuff on John Hughes as well (stuff I did not know).
Your casual chats with strangers are seriously about recent rape victims in the area? He probably thought you were the actual rapist and just wanted to sympathize until you continued in your run.
She does a good job on contextualizing her reflections, and I think she also points out, in a subtle way, the complexities of human nature, how we can both revere and loath the same person at the same time, and in her case, for very much the same thing.
This caught my eye on Twitter. Some right-wing idiot, trying to defend 45, whined that Stormy Daniels didn't have the right to a #MeToo moment by virtue of the fact that she's a porn star. Which, of course, would be ridiculous. But somewhere in the thread of her defending herself, I caught this: 980578359037120512 is not a valid tweet id Oh, really? Try that out in court. "Your honor, if that red light didn't want me to run through her, why did she wait so long to change her mind? She was giving me mixed signals. She was teasing me. She made me think she wanted it. She was green the entire time I saw her; she only changed her mind once I got close. What, was I just supposed to slam on the brakes at the last second? When she'd already gotten my hopes up? And what about all the other men in their cars that she let plow right through her before I got there? Why not me? I'm not such a bad guy. It's not MY fault..." Jesus.