MsJack wrote:
It's pretty disappointing to me, as a survivor of both sexual harassment and infidelity, that Rosebud spent years trying to convince this community she was a fellow survivor of sexual harassment/assault when it sounds like she was little more than a scorned Other Woman.
I agree that Rosebud's telling of her story has always been exasperating, overdramatized, and inappropriate. I think on an earlier page I called her bat-crap crazy, based on my interactions with her. Her anger at my recommendation, after she doxxed herself, that she separate her victim stance from her professional information was truly baffling.
That's why my assessment of this situation has been based on as objective sources as possible. To me, this is necessary, because a case of sexual harassment on the part of the superior and in this case, the Open Stories Foundation board, should never be judged by how well or how badly the victim responded to the harassment, and how well or badly they have behaved since then. It should be judged solely on whether the superior(s) instigated a loss of employment, as a result of a sexual affair.
But as someone recently pointed out, the umbrella of sexual harassment covers many things, some far more egregious and harmful than others. Without taking away anything from those who experience far more harm and damage, I think it is vitally important, especially for women in the workplace, to take a firm stance against relationships in the workplace between a superior and a subordinate that result in the subordinate's loss of employment. Losing a job pales against some of the greater harm and pain in this category of sexual harassment, but it still defines a significant threat, an unfairness and an imbalance that has historically affected women disproportionately. Calling it sexual harassment isn't meant to offend other victims. It simply recognizes the significance of not allowing this kind of harm to continue.
Earlier it was asked what people wanted of Dehlin as a result of this thread. For me, absolutely nothing. I've gained information and had a great discussion. I think very little of Dehlin and have come to the conclusion, based on actual evidence and not on Rosebud's wild stories, that he behaved extremely badly in this case, and that he continues to do so with his insistence that he has NEVER harassed anyone. His own foundation has a sexual harassment policy now that spells out in very specific detail that the relationship he had with Rosebud would now be unequivocally considered sexual harassment, even before adding in loss of employment. The policy spells out the penalties, but just because the penalties for sexual harassment didn't legally exist before this case doesn't mean that the principle of sexual harassment didn't exist. In my opinion, it requires the addition of a loss of employment, but many here have made the case that the relationship alone in a power imbalance is sufficient for the definition.
Oh well. One chapter of MDB that we can close for good.
we can only hope.
People knew 9 years ago that firing a subordinate as a result of a sexual relationship with their superior was wrong. 