Lem wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 7:08 pm
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.
Part of me wants to engage with this point. The other part of me wants to see everyone ignore the whole issue, as giving it air time is nothing but pointless entropy.
John did make some poor choices, and he's admitted as much. I don't think he broke the law (the 15 employee rule), neither did he break Open Stories Foundation policy (there was none at the time). So the label of "sexual harassment" is only possible based on the fact that Rosebud lost her job over it. Is that what you're saying?
I'm not so sure. As much as it sucks for her, given the circumstances, I think even losing her job doesn't raise this to the standard of sexual harassment. It's murky, but that's because the startup environment made it murky. Which I guess is why the 15 employee rule in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exists in the first place.
As far as I'm aware, from her own recorded statement, Rosebud wanted this job for experience, to express a passion through Open Stories Foundation. She knew John was a talent and wanted the association, coming from a place in which, at the time, non-believers were essentially islands with no camaraderie. But it was a startup, full of risks, ideas, and one lead visionary whose personality and gravity attracted others.
Now, John *should* have chosen to keep it all professional, but didn't. Rosebud *should* have resisted his flirtatious advances, but didn't. I don't see any clear evidence, from the statements provided, that Rosebud ever feared for her job if she resisted those advances. Maybe she did later, or maybe she told herself a story, but this doesn't mean John's experience was anything more than responding to reciprocal flirtation. The point is, who knows how it started. It was consensual. She said as much at the time. Rosebud also said, on numerous occasions, that her marriage was awful, and John filled a real need. Fair enough -- they both made a dumb decision by mixing business with pleasure at a startup.
Startups all come with immense risks, chief among them interpersonal dynamics. The wrong partner early on is death. I feel bad this startup had an affair mixed in with startup people dynamics, and I will reiterate that John was an idiot in those early days. But at stages along the way, John also seems to have realized that not only was Rosebud not right for him romantically, but that she was becoming a liability to the venture. She wanted to lead, to own, and she wanted John to leave his family and get with her. She wanted it all, but her vision on both counts -- relationship and business -- was fundamentally divergent from John's. She wanted to lead localized affinity groups, but John saw a single global platform. He was right to point out that she needed to go or the business was doomed.
It sucks for her, but it was his vision, not hers, that mattered in those early days of Open Stories Foundation. She could probably have salvaged her CTW project, but kept insisting on pursuing the relationship as well. What was his choice, really? Let the business die to avoid making a hard call?
Based on Rosebud's subsequent activities, it seems clear John was right to separate cleanly. I'm 100% convinced that Rosebud would have become a liability in some other way, even if no affair had happened. History seems to have borne out the board's business decision.
