That's one of the things that I find truly mind-blowing about all of this. Rosebud's mere claim to have been sexually harassed is, in the minds of those who believe she was sexually harassed, allowed to erase any evidence to the contrary from the time before she accused him on the grounds that sexually abused people generally don't know when they are being sexually abused. Once she says, "I'm a victim," her entire sexual history with JD is subject to reinterpretation in a very narrow way to reach the pre-determined conclusion of: yes, he did abuse you. It does not matter how consensual it appears. It does not matter that she sometimes seems more insistent on pushing the relationship forward than he does. Once the allegation is made, the evidence must be read to lead to the conclusion that JD was a sexual harasser.
Absolutely not. This is a nonsensical, overblown attack on the victim.
My assessment of sexual harassment relies on the objective facts, and nothing about Rosebud's various claims. A superior had a sexual relationship with a subordinate, and then the superior and the Open Stories Foundation board forced the subordinate out of her job as a result.
Absolutely not. This is a nonsensical, overblown attack on the victim.
My assessment of sexual harassment relies on the objective facts, and nothing about Rosebud's various claims. A superior had a sexual relationship with a subordinate, and then the superior and the Open Stories Foundation board forced the subordinate out of her job as a result.
Sorry. Not so. It is an absolutely legitimate criticism of arguments that she is a victim. I appreciate the elegantly streamlined nature of your position, but I don't find it persuasive because of everything else factual that you leave out.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Your impartiality as a podcaster is just shining through.
Don't get me wrong, you have every right to weigh in on this. But your comments do give me a better understanding of your podcast on the topic. Your statement below also gives me a lot of information.
If Rosebud had ceased and desisted as JD asked, there is no reason to suspect the board would ever have gotten involved.
Rosebud could still have been working for Open Stories Foundation doing the thing she loved if she had just backed down when asked and cooled her jets.
Does this mean you don’t find Rosebud’s publicly talking about JD’s penile dysfunctions to be sexual harassment?
No, I find it highly inappropriate, and I have made similar comments repeatedly about Rosebud's behavior.
Are you suggesting that Rosebud's bad behavior is the reason for your lack of impartiality?
Or are you suggesting it is the reason for your highly sexist comment that if a woman would have just "ceased and desisted", and "just backed down when asked and cooled her jets" when a superior was finished with her as a sexual plaything, she could have kept her job?
It was clear she was trying to entrap him, too. That whole gambit was skeezy as “F”.
- Doc
I think that there is evidence to support a case for that, yes. In a way, I think John's mistake was to underestimate woefully Rosebud and to miss a lot of what she was communicating to him at the time. He should have known that his only play at that point, if he wanted to avoid trouble, was to join Rosebud in ejecting Joanna Brooks. Anything else was bound to lead to where we are right now.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Or are you suggesting it is the reason for your highly sexist comment that if a woman would have just "ceased and desisted", and "just backed down when asked and cooled her jets" when a superior was finished with her as a sexual plaything, she could have kept her job?
Are you saying that a superior is not allowed to tell a subordinate to desist from unwanted sexual advances?
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Is there any way JD could have broken off the affair without it being sexual harassment?
I don’t see how. He was The Man. He had real Power. Whether or not she delusionally saw herself as an equal, she was not. He came out on top. He got what he wanted (the whole contractor thing was as see-through as my window). She did not. Sure, she was offered something, but it was in a diminished capacity. Dehlin’s work wasn’t diminished.
The way a victim responds, even badly, to sexual harassment, is not considered to be a "fact" that should influence the discussion, any more than the way a victim of rape was dressed should be considered a "fact" that influences the discussion.
This continued evaluation of the mindset of the victim as a way to mitigate the sexual harassment, defined as the act of a superior having an affair with a victim that results in the victim losing their job is really disturbing.
Is there any way JD could have broken off the affair without it being sexual harassment?
I don’t see how. He was The Man. He had real Power. Whether or not she delusionally saw herself as an equal, she was not. He came out on top. He got what he wanted (the whole contractor thing was as see-through as my window). She did not. Sure, she was offered something, but it was in a diminished capacity. Dehlin’s work wasn’t diminished.
- Doc
That's what I don't get about that comment. Does he not understand that it is being suggested that the superior should have the right to say that to a subordinate, AFTER he has already had a relationship with the subordinate?
And, referring back to consig's comment, that he is suggesting that if the subordinate had just gone along with his request that the sexual relationship be ended on his terms, she would have kept her job.
So in other words, the superior should be able to tell her to shut up about the relationship or lose her job. Unreal.
The way a victim responds, even badly, to sexual harassment, is not considered to be a "fact" that should influence the discussion, any more than the way a victim of rape was dressed should be considered a "fact" that influences the discussion.
This continued evaluation of the mindset of the victim as a way to mitigate the sexual harassment, defined as the act of a superior having an affair with a victim that results in the victim losing their job is really disturbing.
We need to be on the same page regarding her status as a victim. We aren’t. I can accept that you believe she is a victim according to the definition you have adopted. That does not apply to everyone here. There are a lot of pertinent facts that I believe are useful in judging what happened. I don’t have to leave them out because, according to your definition, Rosebud is a victim, and therefore sacrosanct.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
That's what I don't get about that comment. Does he not understand that it is being suggested that the superior should have the right to say that to a subordinate, AFTER he has already had a relationship with the subordinate?
And, referring back to consig's comment, that he is suggesting that if the subordinate had just gone along with his request that the sexual relationship be ended on his terms, she would have kept her job.
So in other words, the superior should be able to tell her to shut up about the relationship or lose her job. Unreal.
Yeah, that’s not what he thinks. That’s how you interpreted his post.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Your impartiality as a podcaster is just shining through.