Power dynamics and sexual harassment

[Skeptic Bob]

Most of us agree that if an employer hits on an employee that is sexual harassment. The reason being that there is an implicit threat, even if unintended, that rejection could hurt the recipient's career. I think at least one of the women that Louis CK exposed himself in front of worked on a show in which he was an executive producer or something. Clearly problematic.

But some weren't his subordinates. They were just comedians who admired Louis. This raises a question in my mind. If you are a very successful and influential person in a particular industry does your success make it inappropriate to hit on somebody in your industry? Assume they don't work for you and aren't currently trying to get a job working for or with you. But because of your success most people in your industry would certainly want to work with you if given the chance.

What if instead of asking these women if he could masturbate in front of them he asked them to go on an overnight trip somewhere? Does the mere fact Louis has a lot of influence in the industry make that question sexual harassment or coercion?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Most of us agree that if an employer hits on an employee that is sexual harassment. The reason being that there is an implicit threat, even if unintended, that rejection could hurt the recipient's career. I think at least one of the women that Louis CK exposed himself in front of worked on a show in which he was an executive producer or something. Clearly problematic.

But some weren't his subordinates. They were just comedians who admired Louis. This raises a question in my mind. If you are a very successful and influential person in a particular industry does your success make it inappropriate to hit on somebody in your industry? Assume they don't work for you and aren't currently trying to get a job working for or with you. But because of your success most people in your industry would certainly want to work with you if given the chance.

What if instead of asking these women if he could masturbate in front of them he asked them to go on an overnight trip somewhere? Does the mere fact Louis has a lot of influence in the industry make that question sexual harassment or coercion?

It's not just Louis' power versus their power. It's the power of the booking agents, the power of the fan base, etc. There are potential reprocussions for pressing charges, even in a relatively equal scenario. Although I'd debate that it was actually equal -- Louis is one of the most famous comedians in the world. There are very few comedians who share his level of power.

But regardless of that, it is still harassment even if it's your coworkers in a more normal employment situation.

He didn't ask them on a dinner date. He "asked" to whip his dick out. And some of these women contest that he ever asked at all.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Most of us agree that if an employer hits on an employee that is sexual harassment. The reason being that there is an implicit threat, even if unintended, that rejection could hurt the recipient's career. I think at least one of the women that Louis CK exposed himself in front of worked on a show in which he was an executive producer or something. Clearly problematic.

But some weren't his subordinates. They were just comedians who admired Louis. This raises a question in my mind. If you are a very successful and influential person in a particular industry does your success make it inappropriate to hit on somebody in your industry? Assume they don't work for you and aren't currently trying to get a job working for or with you. But because of your success most people in your industry would certainly want to work with you if given the chance.

What if instead of asking these women if he could masturbate in front of them he asked them to go on an overnight trip somewhere? Does the mere fact Louis has a lot of influence in the industry make that question sexual harassment or coercion?

What if instead of asking these women if he could masturbate in front of them he asked them to go on an overnight trip somewhere?

He asked?

Sorry, if you say "yes" or "ok" or any of that after being asked?

You chose "success" over something else, that's on you.

Weinstein seems to have forgotten about the ask part.

 

[Mach]

Most of us agree that if an employer hits on an employee that is sexual harassment.
What if instead of asking these women if he could masturbate in front of them he asked them to go on an overnight trip somewhere? Does the mere fact Louis has a lot of influence in the industry make that question sexual harassment or coercion?

I had similar thoughts in that thread.

Regarding harassment, in some cases as long as it's not a pattern of harassment, and just a normal "wanna date" type thing, where you accept the rejection and move along, it may be inappropriate and your company may fire you/have a policy, but I don't think that's typically harassment. Bill O and these guys...they were serial harassers, they seemed to have been doing it all..creating a culture, multiple women over many years, really crude sex talk, etc. Asking a co-worker out, not harassment.

Regarding CK, I read this from wiki:

Sexual misconduct encompasses a range of behavior used to obtain sexual gratification against another’s will or at the expense of another. Sexual misconduct includes sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and any conduct of a sexual nature that is without consent, or has the effect of threatening or intimidating the person against whom such conduct is directed.[1]

So that does look a little broad. Maybe you're suppose to go through the bases? Non sexual contact, then kissing, then you've got the green light for more, as long as it's consensual? It is a bit concerning to think consensual adult relationships are also a minefield of potential sexual misconduct allegations. Not so much for the average joe, but for celebs/public figures/execs, it looks quite dangerous. Good question, I'm interested to here how it's defended when it's so broad.

How about the classic movie scene where the guy is inviting in, comes to the back room and the mature woman is in see-through lingerie. Misconduct? May be according to that definition above...

 

[ecofarm]

Inappropriate words in the workplace is harassment, regardless of hierarchy. It is not a criminal charge, it's a workplace violation. No one is jailed for sexual harassment, it's a term specific to inappropriate words in the workplace. Its context ends there.

What CK did was not merely words, it was criminal action. If someone at work says "hey, honey, nice ass", that's sexual harassment. If someone in the workplace exposes themselves, especially in a threatening manner, it's a matter of criminal law not workplace policy.

 

[ecofarm]

Side funny: "Like a boss" is taking on new meaning.

"Hey, man, you just totally grabbed that chick's ass, like a boss".

 

[Skeptic Bob]

It's not just Louis' power versus their power. It's the power of the booking agents, the power of the fan base, etc. There are potential reprocussions for pressing charges, even in a relatively equal scenario. Although I'd debate that it was actually equal -- Louis is one of the most famous comedians in the world. There are very few comedians who share his level of power.

But regardless of that, it is still harassment even if it's your coworkers in a more normal employment situation.

He didn't ask them on a dinner date. He "asked" to whip his dick out. And some of these women contest that he ever asked at all.

Great points but I think I may be clouding the issue by using Louis CK.

Imagine it is Kevin Hart or Seinfeld or Amy Schumer. Does their success make it inappropriate to ask out the average person in the comedy industry (assume they are all single). Regardless of how pure their intent is, are people in their industry now off limits to them?

 

[ecofarm]

Great points but I think I may be clouding the issue by using Louis CK.

Imagine it is Kevin Hart or Seinfeld or Amy Schumer. Does their success make it inappropriate to ask out the average person in the comedy industry (assume they are all single). Regardless of how pure their intent is, are people in their industry now off limits to them?

Harassment is workplace, not in general.

 

[DiAnna]

Most of us agree that if an employer hits on an employee that is sexual harassment. The reason being that there is an implicit threat, even if unintended, that rejection could hurt the recipient's career. I think at least one of the women that Louis CK exposed himself in front of worked on a show in which he was an executive producer or something. Clearly problematic.

But some weren't his subordinates. They were just comedians who admired Louis. This raises a question in my mind. If you are a very successful and influential person in a particular industry does your success make it inappropriate to hit on somebody in your industry? Assume they don't work for you and aren't currently trying to get a job working for or with you. But because of your success most people in your industry would certainly want to work with you if given the chance.

What if instead of asking these women if he could masturbate in front of them he asked them to go on an overnight trip somewhere? Does the mere fact Louis has a lot of influence in the industry make that question sexual harassment or coercion?

In response to the bolded question, yes, it very well could be sexual harassment and/or coercion. Just as the boss has power in the office, a headline star with tentacles in producing/starring in big budget projects has power over those who have less power in the same industry. Women warned each other about Harvey Weinstein, but didn't go public because he had the power to destroy their careers. The same could be said for female comedians in a very male-dominated arena of the entertainment industry.

 

[Crovax]

Harassment is workplace, not in general.

What is considered workplace for a self employed independent contractor though. Once a set is over for a comedian then thier workplace is over. Not to mention many times they are doing sets for free to practice material so no workplace exists.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Great points but I think I may be clouding the issue by using Louis CK.

Imagine it is Kevin Hart or Seinfeld or Amy Schumer. Does their success make it inappropriate to ask out the average person in the comedy industry (assume they are all single). Regardless of how pure their intent is, are people in their industry now off limits to them?

I just don't even get what you're asking, at this point.

We started at a dude whipping his dick out, and now we're at someone asking for a date.

The gulf between these two things could not be greater. Why are we talking about them as though they're similar?

Why am I seeing all these threads that really feel like they're trying to start at something atrocious, and bury it in minutia until it seems less offensive?

It's starting to really bug me. And in many cases, as in yours here, it's coming from posters I know are well-intended, many of whom I respect.

But perhaps this is a good opportunity to step back, do a gut check, and ask why we as a society are so interested in contorting the facts of sexual abuse scenarios until we arrive at a place where we can say it's ok.

Why are we so desperately in search of a way to take wanking onto semi-random women, and tweak it, what-if it, beg the question, until we've mutated it into something that's ok?

What is this? Why do we do this?

Why can't we just say, "Whoa, that's ****ed," and be done?

 

[DiAnna]

Great points but I think I may be clouding the issue by using Louis CK.

Imagine it is Kevin Hart or Seinfeld or Amy Schumer. Does their success make it inappropriate to ask out the average person in the comedy industry (assume they are all single). Regardless of how pure their intent is, are people in their industry now off limits to them?

Most adults who possess a modicum of social awareness know the difference between saying, "Would you like to have dinner sometime?" and "Want to see my dick?" :lol:

 

[ecofarm]

What is considered workplace for a self employed independent contractor though. Once a set is over for a comedian then thier workplace is over. Not to mention many times they are doing sets for free to practice material so no workplace exists.

The law is clear.

 

[Crovax]

The law is clear.

Which is why legally it isn't considered sexual harassment. But that was obvious from the OP where he asked you to look beyond the letter of the law. Something you are clearly incapable of. :shrug:

 

[ecofarm]

Which is why legally it isn't considered sexual harassment. But that was obvious from the OP where he asked you to look beyond the letter of the law. Something you are clearly incapable of. :shrug:

Oh please. What behavior, specifically, are you seeking to excuse? Or are there instances of harassment that you believe go unaddressed?

Your mealy mouthed obfuscation does not constitute intellectual discourse. Bring something to the table.

 

[Crovax]

Oh please. What behavior, specifically, are you seeking to excuse? Or are there instances of harassment that you believe go unaddressed?

Your mealy mouthed obfuscation does not constitute intellectual discourse. Bring something to the table.

I'm not excusing any behavior. You are the one doing that. Not on purpose though, your ignorance about workplace laws and independent contractor loopholes is very apparent.

I was pointing out just how hard a potential new law would be to create sexual harassment protection for independent contractors.

 

[ecofarm]

I'm not excusing any behavior. You are the one doing that. Not on purpose though, your ignorance about workplace laws and independent contractor loopholes is very apparent.

I was pointing out just how hard a potential new law would be to create sexual harassment protection for independent contractors.

Actually, you were waxing vaguely. Now you've brought something to the table. Tell us what's wrong with the law and what you would like to see changed. Then we'll have something to debate.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I just don't even get what you're asking, at this point.

We started at a dude whipping his dick out, and now we're at someone asking for a date.

The gulf between these two things could not be greater. Why are we talking about them as though they're similar?

Why am I seeing all these threads that really feel like they're trying to start at something atrocious, and bury it in minutia until it seems less offensive?

It's starting to really bug me. And in many cases, as in yours here, it's coming from posters I know are well-intended, many of whom I respect.

But perhaps this is a good opportunity to step back, do a gut check, and ask why we as a society are so interested in contorting the facts of sexual abuse scenarios until we arrive at a place where we can say it's ok.

Why are we so desperately in search of a way to take wanking onto semi-random women, and tweak it, what-if it, beg the question, until we've mutated it into something that's ok?

What is this? Why do we do this?

Why can't we just say, "Whoa, that's ****ed," and be done?

Because that doesn't make for a good thread. What they did WAS ****ed, but this is a discussion board. I come here to have interesting conversations. I like to take issues that most people generally agree on and make changes to create interesting thought experiments. It forces us to look at how we think and how we construct our arguments. In the end I think it improves our ability to support our positions.

We as a society draw lines. And those lines change over time as our society evolves. I find that process fascinating. We mitigate our outrage over George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owning slaves because they were products of their time and culture. Society evolved.

There was a time when an adult man courting a 14-year-old was accepted by society. Society evolved.

It used to be acceptable to hit on your secretary or slap a waitress on the butt. Society evolved.

I am fascinated by this evolution of our society and culture. So when you see me asking questions like this, I am trying to tease out exactly where we are currently in this ongoing evolution. Why? For no other reason than I find it interesting.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Because that doesn't make for a good thread. What they did WAS ****ed, but this is a discussion board. I come here to have interesting conversations. I like to take issues that most people generally agree on and make changes to create interesting thought experiments. It forces us to look at how we think and how we construct our arguments. In the end I think it improves our ability to support our positions.

We as a society draw lines. And those lines change over time as our society evolves. I find that process fascinating. We mitigate our outrage over George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owning slaves because they were products of their time and culture. Society evolved.

There was a time when an adult man courting a 14-year-old was accepted by society. Society evolved.

It used to be acceptable to hit on your secretary or slap a waitress on the butt. Society evolved.

I am fascinated by this evolution of our society and culture. So when you see me asking questions like this, I am trying to tease out exactly where we are currently in this ongoing evolution. Why? For no other reason than I find it interesting.

It's just really frustrating that this is the only discussion I ever see anyone having. No one is asking why we still have so much sexual predation. No one is asking what we can do to increase prompt reporting. No one is asking any of that stuff.

Just a bunch of guys asking, "But what if I tweak this very slightly... then can I do it?"

I'm sick of it. This doesn't feel like an honest attempt to learn anything, except for where the line is for getting away with stuff.

Men need to stop spending all of their mental energy trying to find new ways to get away with stuff.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

It's just really frustrating that this is the only discussion I ever see anyone having. No one is asking why we still have so much sexual predation. No one is asking what we can do to increase prompt reporting. No one is asking any of that stuff.

Just a bunch of guys asking, "But what if I tweak this very slightly... then can I do it?"

I'm sick of it. This doesn't feel like an honest attempt to learn anything, except for where the line is for getting away with stuff.

Men need to stop spending all of their mental energy trying to find new ways to get away with stuff.

Yeah, but I have been posting here a while now. I do this with ALL subjects. Abortion, gun control, campaign finance reform, criminal sentencing...everything. When I want to make the world a better place I donate time and money to causes. When I want to have interesting conversations, I come here.

There is a time and place for everything. You would never see me bringing up this topic on the Twitter or Facebook of one of the victims. They would only get my support. I wouldn't bring it up on the Twitter or Facebook of one of the instigators. They would only get my condemnation. When I actually want to discuss the finer points then I go somewhere like, say, a debate forum.

 

[apdst]

Most of us agree that if an employer hits on an employee that is sexual harassment. The reason being that there is an implicit threat, even if unintended, that rejection could hurt the recipient's career. I think at least one of the women that Louis CK exposed himself in front of worked on a show in which he was an executive producer or something. Clearly problematic.

But some weren't his subordinates. They were just comedians who admired Louis. This raises a question in my mind. If you are a very successful and influential person in a particular industry does your success make it inappropriate to hit on somebody in your industry? Assume they don't work for you and aren't currently trying to get a job working for or with you. But because of your success most people in your industry would certainly want to work with you if given the chance.

What if instead of asking these women if he could masturbate in front of them he asked them to go on an overnight trip somewhere? Does the mere fact Louis has a lot of influence in the industry make that question sexual harassment or coercion?

This post fits better here...

Nowadays, any male manager having a private meeting with a female employee should have video and audio of the meeting; for his protection and hers.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Yeah, but I have been posting here a while now. I do this with ALL subjects. Abortion, gun control, campaign finance reform, criminal sentencing...everything. When I want to make the world a better place I donate time and money to causes. When I want to have interesting conversations, I come here.

There is a time and place for everything. You would never see me bringing up this topic on the Twitter or Facebook of one of the victims. They would only get my support. I wouldn't bring it up on the Twitter or Facebook of one of the instigators. They would only get my condemnation. When I actually want to discuss the finer points then I go somewhere like, say, a debate forum.

I just don't get why no one thinks there's anything interesting about the conversation on why this happens, or trends in reporting, or whatever. Why is that the only thing folks find interesting on anything having to do with sexual abuse, is talking about how to tweak it so it's easier to get away with?

It's just that my entire What's New feed is full of exactly this type of thread, all saying the exact same thing. That this is the only aspect that's interesting.

Why?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

This post fits better here...

If I remember correctly (correct me if I am wrong) your Basic Training was not gender integrated. Mine was. We had to use the buddy system when speaking to a Drill Sergeant. We could never be alone with a Drill Sergeant, regardless of gender. I trained at Fort Jackson where they had all sorts of sexual misconduct.

It sucks that such steps have to be taken but it is a gamble if you don't. Most people aren't going to harass or assault their subordinates and most subordinates aren't going to lie about it happening. But a significant minority of our population are assholes and can't be trusted. You can rarely be certain which type of person you are dealing with.

 

[apdst]

If I remember correctly (correct me if I am wrong) your Basic Training was not gender integrated. Mine was. We had to use the buddy system when speaking to a Drill Sergeant. We could never be alone with a Drill Sergeant, regardless of gender. I trained at Fort Jackson where they had all sorts of sexual misconduct.

It sucks that such steps have to be taken but it is a gamble if you don't. Most people aren't going to harass or assault their subordinates and most subordinates aren't going to lie about it happening. But a significant minority of our population are assholes and can't be trusted. You can rarely be certain which type of person you are dealing with.

It was not, thank god. My PLDC was gender intergrated. That was a pain in the ass.

 

[holbritter]

Most of us agree that if an employer hits on an employee that is sexual harassment. The reason being that there is an implicit threat, even if unintended, that rejection could hurt the recipient's career. I think at least one of the women that Louis CK exposed himself in front of worked on a show in which he was an executive producer or something. Clearly problematic.

But some weren't his subordinates. They were just comedians who admired Louis. This raises a question in my mind. If you are a very successful and influential person in a particular industry does your success make it inappropriate to hit on somebody in your industry? Assume they don't work for you and aren't currently trying to get a job working for or with you. But because of your success most people in your industry would certainly want to work with you if given the chance.

What if instead of asking these women if he could masturbate in front of them he asked them to go on an overnight trip somewhere? Does the mere fact Louis has a lot of influence in the industry make that question sexual harassment or coercion?

Yes. Any person who has any power or influence should never ask another for anything. It could be seen as coercion. That is the way this country is now going.