On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Pollak, Melissa F. <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've been meaning to respond. Briefly. > > It's been my experience and observation that men often have difficulty > recognizing what constitutes a hostile work environment. (Perhaps because > they are less likely than women to experience one?) > > An illustration: > > There may have been other interns equally deserving of the opportunity to be > on the air, and maybe they would have done a better job than Stephanie. But > they didn't get the opportunity, perhaps, because they weren't sleeping with > the boss. > > Now, do you get it? Men have never seemed to understand the nature of a > hostile work environment. In particular, they don't realize that it almost > always has ramifications for those who are not the parties engaging in > consensual sexual activities. > > Now, of course no one here knows the facts and circumstances of what went on, > but I'll just repeat what I said before: It's never a good idea for a boss > to be sleeping with a subordinate, whether it's consensual or not. Now, we > don't know if -- or to what extent -- Dave took advantage of his position of > power, but it is a possibility. After all, even Dave himself described his > behavior as doing "terrible things." > > On another aspect, I do believe that Stephanie was victimized by her > ex-boyfriend, too. She's probably seeing her career ruined -- by him.
I can't speak to your experience Melissa (of course). And I am not willing to make generalizations about the kinds of mistakes women are likely to make in this conversation - in my experience both men and women can be on either side of it. Indeed, human sexuality is one of the few areas of human discourse about which fundamentalist Christian men and radical feminist women often agree. I have had some experience working in this area. I don't think I have had much trouble noticing a hostile work environment, but of course the blind man might be the last one to notice his own failing sight. As a matter of law, and as a matter of fact, employers sleeping with employees does not constitute a hostile work environment. As I noted earlier, attempts to equate this practice with a hostile work environment are most harmful to women, as it essentially undercuts them by saying they are not fully adult, and not able to make their own choices about who they have sex with. Also as I noted before, I agree that it is not a good idea for a boss to have consensual sex with an employee (it is more than a bad idea to have non-consensual sex with an employee of course - but that is an entirely different thing). The reason it is not a good idea is because it makes the boss, and the company, vulnerable to a law suit. That is, what is being protected when bosses are discouraged from sleeping with subordinates is not the (often) woman subordinate, but the boss and the company. Worldwide Pants has reported that it does have a sexual harassment policy, and that Dave's actions were not in violation of it. Of course, given that Dave is the (or one of the) top ranking officers of that company, that claim bears further investigation - but there is no basis for the assumption that just because he had sex with an employee he violated sexual harassment policies, or created a hostile work place. I do not agree with your apparent claim that it is always unfair to other employees when a boss sleeps with a subordinate. If there is any evidence that an employee was given a promotion or other job advantage because they slept with the boss, that would be wrong, and actionable. But simply sleeping with an employee who then gets some kind of job advantage is not prima facie evidence of using sexual favor for the advantage. Fellow employees who make that assumption in the absence of evidence do so at their own peril. These issues are more ambiguous in subjective and creative fields like entertainment, which is perhaps why workplace sexual relationships are more common there. You may not have cared for SB's work on the show, but you certainly have not basis for claiming that she was clearly less qualified or successful than other employees for the same role. Indeed, the entire history of the Letterman show is such that almost anyone who does not get caught up in playing to the camera or audience can be successful in those kinds of roles - often the more stiff and awkward they are, the better. Again, the wisdom in not sleeping with an employee here is not to protect the employee (or other non-slept with employees) but to protect the company from allegations of favoritism. [By the way, I notice you refer to SB as an intern, my understanding is that she was an employee, not an intern, at the time of their affair. I guess it is not clear when the affair began, so maybe it did start when she was an intern - but I am pretty sure she was an employee when she did her on air stuff. Do you have specific knowledge that she was an intern during the period in question, or are you just speaking loosely?]. Hostile workplaces are actually a real and serious problem. There really are bosses who extort sexual favors from subordinates, explicitly or implicitly, or inflict shame and humiliation on employees through unwelcome sexual advances or comments. This should not be tolerated, and employers who practice or allow it should be made to pay severely. But the attempt to fight hostile workplaces by equating all workplace sexuality as offensive or illegal is in fact counter-productive, as it inevitably undermines the credibility of employees with genuine complaints. A woman who is made to feel that she must have sex with her boss (or let him pinch her ass in public, or tell jokes about the size of her breasts) in order to maintain her job or have a legitimate chance at advancement has been wronged. A grown woman who is sexually attracted to her boss and makes a choice to engage in a sexual relationship with him is assuming all the risks and rewards that are common to that particular type of adult human relationship. I will not ask you if you "get it" now, because I don't assume that my understanding of this fairly complex area is the only correct one, and I would not imply that the only way you could possibly "get it" is if you agree with me. But perhaps this expansion makes my position more clear? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
