On Oct 28, 5:18 pm, Joe Hass <[email protected]> wrote: > Donz: Speaking as a white male who works in a primarily white male > industry (advertising), I can say this with absolute, drop-dead > certainty about your opinion as to what defines a "hostile work > environment": > > You are completely and unequivocally wrong. And I don't mean that in > the smarmy, Sheldon Cooper-smug way. I mean it in the > staring-at-you-as-if-you-just-farted-in-front-of-the-Queen way.
In your opinion, of course. > > You do not get to decide what a "hostile work environment" is. Someone > else does. Anyone can decide, or claim to decide, what a "hostile work environment" is. And just because anyone is free to claim it doesn't necessarily make that claim a documented, credible fact. I've spelled the reasons why, based on what Nell has written, her claims lack merit to her personally. > > It is, of course, easy for white guys (and lemme tell ya, it's > *always* white guys) to say "she should've spoken up at the time." > You're not the one who gets labeled the troublemaker. And I'm not the one who's made that argument. We're into strawman territory here. > > I've known of women in my workplaces who have been taken advantage of > in a manner I found horrific. I have offered to go to HR on their > behalf, stand up for them, be a full witness, and everything under the > sun short of punching the offending party in the nose, only to be > rebuffed and told to keep my mouth shut because they don't want that > label. > > I had someone complain about me on what I thought was an absolutely > trivial (but fair) point, had people of both genders agree that it was > an absolutely trivial (but fair) point, and I still say if she felt it > was the only way to do what she did, I could never hold it against > her. What you describe does not necessarily mean that every claim of a "hostile work environment" is identical. > > It, in fact, is *exactly* what happened/is happening/will sadly > continue to happen at ESPN. It is why the culture there has never > changed. Same as the entertainment industry. Same as any industry that > has even a whiff of coolness (and, I have no doubt, those that have no > coolness whatsoever). See above. A reported incident in one place of business does not prove that the same damn thing occurred in another place of business. This transference of circumstance doesn't work. > > As long as there are careers and industries and jobs that sound > "cool," there will be bosses who will use their power as keys to the > castle and whisper networks to get what the hell they want. Which has what to do with Nell's claim of a "hostile work environment"? > > I strongly advise you to not pursue that line of argument. I "strongly advise" you to not attach my views as I've expressed them here to your strawman arguments. > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 4:43 PM, donz5 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Oct 28, 4:22 pm, "Pollak, Melissa F." <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But would you want to work in the kind of environment she described: > > >> "Did these female staffers have access to information and wield power > >> disproportionate to their job titles? Yes. Did that create a hostile > >> work environment? Yes. Did I believe these female staffers were > >> benefiting professionally from their personal relationships? Yes. Did > >> that make me feel demeaned? Completely." > > > I've already addressed this in my initial post. > > >> And -- how do you know "it had no bearing whatsoever on her own job > >> status, responsibility, and security"? You don't. > > > She was offered an extension on her contract. Thus, her own job status > > was secure for at least another 13 weeks. That's nothing but > > encouraging for a just-hired writer on Late Night. She didn't complain > > about the actual work she did, and, as I first posted, her job status > > was already rather high up there in the first place. She wasn't going > > anywhere further within the show for some time, if ever, based on (1) > > her rookie status and (2) the fact that writers didn't ordinarily > > advance to executive positions. > > > There's nothing in her current complaint that even hints of her job > > being threatened in any way whatsoever. > > > Nothing that involved other staffers had any relevance to Nell's > > position on the show. > > > Perhaps she has more dirt to dish, but until she does, what she's > > presented doesn't constitute a "hostile work environment." > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > >> Behalf Of donz5 > >> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:15 PM > >> To: TVorNotTV > >> Subject: [TV orNotTV] Re: Well, here's the first one. > > >> You're referring to women who claim to have been personally harassed. > >> That's not the situation in Nell's case. She's only perceiving what she > >> believed to be a "hostile work environment" based on what she claims she > >> witnessed. But, as I first wrote, it had no bearing whatsoever on her > >> own job status, responsibility, and security. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
