A subordinate who lost her job as a result of a relationship with a superior has already demonstrated she was treated unequally.
I still don't understand your comment here:
When I asked about this before, you brought up Rosebud's post about JD's erectile dysfunction, which I agree is inappropriate.
What I am more interested in, however, are your thoughts, so I will repeat my question: are you suggesting 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?
Please answer my question first.
I did not ask if it was inappropriate.
I asked if it constituted sexual harassment.
I await your reply.
No. She posted that while she was not an employee. It was despicable and disgusting, possibly libelous, but not sexual harassment.
I await your reply to my question.
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.
Sexual harassment can be a two-way street.
When I asked about this before, you brought up Rosebud's post about JD's erectile dysfunction, which I agree is inappropriate.
What I am more interested in, however, are your thoughts, so I will repeat my question: are you suggesting 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?
Do you think this fight about sexual harassment is a continuation of the fight about the business model?
It 100% is. If Open Stories Foundation had failed, none of us would be talking about Rosebud or John Dehlin. She'd be sitting around somewhere relishing the thought that John Dehlin is just as penniless as she is. She is doing all of this to get some money, period. And it's sad because she is misappropriating sexual harassment law and sexual harassment sympathy in a totally non-applicable way because, frankly, sexual harassment charges up the court of public opinion. Way more than something as mundane as, like, "he killed my great business idea so I never had a chance to prove it was great." Circle the Wagons was a terrible business idea all along. John finally recognized it. Rosebud wouldn't accept that decision. We all know it too now, because great business ideas eventually get made, and 10 years later we have yet to see a money-making exMo/progMo events business.
Someone might jump in and say, "Yeah what about John's Thrive conferences?" Ahem. They lose money. He does them as a loss leader for his podcast, no doubt.
I think it's totally fair if the Open Stories Foundation wants to scale back because the conferences aren't viable and John needs to focus on his PhD. They could have said that and moved forward with that plan.
The problem is that John wrote an email giving those reasons AND saying he can't deal with the drama and the sexual tension is just too much and he can't bear to keep working with her, etc.
He should have kept his mouth shut about all of that, but he put it in writing.
So when she was pressing JD to have intercourse and he was declining, was she consenting? This was late summer of 2012.
I think the relationship possibly had many consensual and non-consensual things going on throughout it.
As an example, let's consider a date-rape situation. A guy rapes his girlfriend on a date. She doesn't consider it rape at the time and continues to text him that she loves him and asks when can they get together again? She SHOULD consider it rape but she doesn't because she thinks rape only happens when it's a stranger. And she's in denial because she can't imagine labeling her boyfriend as a rapist. She thinks that if she continues to act like nothing bad happened, then she can convince herself that nothing bad happened.
Later, she learns what date-rape actually is and realizes what happened to her. (Very common with victims in this situation. Unable to see it as rape at the time, only coming to terms with it many years later.)
If she tries to pursue anything legally now, her texts will be used against her as proof that the sex was consensual because clearly she didn't seem upset about it, and was texting him the next day asking when she can see him again.
I don't think just because Rosebud asks JD for sex that it means everything about their relationship was consensual. She can at times feel scared, like her job is on the line if she doesn't do what John wants, and at other times feel attraction for him and want to advance their sexual relationship.
The problem is, with the example you shared it was the boyfriend initiating sexual behavior. JD = boyfriend, Rosebud = girlfriend. Rosebud was initiating and asking for sex.
"I advise all to go on to perfection and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness." -Joseph Smith
Were there any non-consensual aspects for JD or only for Rosebud in your view?
"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.”
Unfortunately, yes, ethics go by the wayside when money talks. That's really quite a despicable description of the state of events you have given, Dr. Moore. When we describe victims as engaging in a vendetta that is just a smokescreen to the important business of making money, we have truly lost our touch with an ethical, humane and civilized approach.
I hear you, and on a purely emotional quotient scale, you're right. But that's part of joining a startup and mixing in romance. I don't mean to be harsh to true victims of sexual harassment. However, I honestly believe that Rosebud is not one of those victims. She lost a lot from this experience and I frankly think she and everyone banging this issue to death should just drop it and move on.
It 100% is. If Open Stories Foundation had failed, none of us would be talking about Rosebud or John Dehlin. She'd be sitting around somewhere relishing the thought that John Dehlin is just as penniless as she is. She is doing all of this to get some money, period. And it's sad because she is misappropriating sexual harassment law and sexual harassment sympathy in a totally non-applicable way because, frankly, sexual harassment charges up the court of public opinion. Way more than something as mundane as, like, "he killed my great business idea so I never had a chance to prove it was great." Circle the Wagons was a terrible business idea all along. John finally recognized it. Rosebud wouldn't accept that decision. We all know it too now, because great business ideas eventually get made, and 10 years later we have yet to see a money-making exMo/progMo events business.
Someone might jump in and say, "Yeah what about John's Thrive conferences?" Ahem. They lose money. He does them as a loss leader for his podcast, no doubt.
Thanks. Yes, it is pretty transparently about taking this before the court of public opinion for the benefit of those who don’t like JD’s way of doing business. I have suspected as much, but I did not see it so clearly until now. These guys are increasing their profile by attacking John’s. Simple as that, and extremely gross. Beneath contempt, really.
"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.”
The problem is, with the example you shared it was the boyfriend initiating sexual behavior. JD = boyfriend, Rosebud = girlfriend. Rosebud was initiating and asking for sex.
The point of my analogy was that just because the victim appears to want to continue the relationship (asking to meet up again, asking for sex, whatever) doesn't mean the other violation didn't occur. (date-rape, harassment, etc.).
It's not uncommon for a victim to try to continue or advance the relationship. That doesn't mean the other violation didn't happen and certainly can't be used to prove it didn't happen.
Unfortunately, yes, ethics go by the wayside when money talks. That's really quite a despicable description of the state of events you have given, Dr. Moore. When we describe victims as engaging in a vendetta that is just a smokescreen to the important business of making money, we have truly lost our touch with an ethical, humane and civilized approach.
I hear you, and on a purely emotional quotient scale, you're right. But that's part of joining a startup and mixing in romance. I don't mean to be harsh to true victims of sexual harassment. However, I honestly believe that Rosebud is not one of those victims. She lost a lot from this experience and I frankly think she and everyone banging this issue to death should just drop it and move on.
No, I don't believe that sexual harassment needs to be an unfortunate but necessary "part of joining a startup." I don't teach that to my public policy students, and neither does anyone else I am aware of. None of our policy case studies ever accept that as the price of doing business. People need to stop accepting this as the norm. It is offensive and we owe it to our next generation to teach them a better approach. One that does not discriminate against fellow human beings, regardless of our differences.
