Female Congressional Candidate Ends Run After Being Accused of Sexual Harassment | Hacker News Reader

Female Congressional Candidate Ends Run After Being Accused of Sexual Harassment

npr.org

54 pointsCorrado101 comments

A relevant take on the metoo debate, although is contains some rather contentious points:

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/12/06/the-warlock...

'Several cases recently in the headlines are simply baffling. They do not involve the workplace—or vast discrepancies in power—at all. Perhaps there is more to the story, but from what I’ve read, the improprieties committed by the UK’s (now former) Defense Secretary Michael Fallon amount to this: He kissed a journalist—not his employee, and not someone over whom he had power, but another adult in another profession—fifteen years ago. What transmogrified Fallon’s kiss to a crime that cost him his career were these words, and only these words: “I felt humiliated, ashamed.” Had the object of his affection said, “I felt flattered,” there would be no offense. '

I think the chilling effect is already here now. Nobody will say it, nobody would admit to it and commit career suicide, but I have no doubt countless startups, corps, research groups will just not hire any women in the wake of this debate.

I am a PhD student and it makes me think about teaching female undergrads at all or taking them on for projects. If I meet female undergrads for teaching, it's already only in public places in the department, never in my office or an actual teaching room. I am not the type who would ever make lewd comments, or anything of the sort, but it does not matter. There are no bonus points for being a good guy, an 'ally'.

An internal document leaked that listed the Conservative party's internal investigations into their members' potential scandals.

Micheal Fallon had several items listed, none of which were about kissing a journalist.

Now, I can't guarantee the veracity of that document but Fallon could just be seizing on a relatively harmless accusation to make his exit and hoping that reduces the chances of other things blowing up.

Similar to that Congressman who quit because he'd discussed surrogacy with his staff. But not being clear he'd offered them money to have sex with him.

It has already happened with kids - how many men hesitate to become teachers? Even though there are lots of men who want to teach and are good at teaching?

I'm not sure if that is what is happening with teachers. Teaching has been a traditionally female role for many decades now - you guessed it, dominated by females especially at lower levels. I'm not sure that this is a cause of hesitation since there is so much societal baggage that comes along with this.

Nursing has had much of the same struggle, though I think that used to be male dominated and at some point, switched.

Stories like this surely indicate a non-zero problem with getting men in teaching:

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/no-man-th...

Yeah for about 2 decades, which is when that non sense started

Moms, eventhough all the facts suggest otherwise, assume men abuse children more often than women (even though its the opposite).

And ever since the only people teaching young children are mentally challenged girls that wouldn't survive in another city or country for ever a day

> Teaching has been a traditionally female role for many decades now

> Yeah for about 2 decades

I can confirm that for where I live, I've seen the statistics (they're probably public anyway), %male trainee teachers plummeted since the mid 90s across the board. Today the female/male ratio is somewhere between 30 to 1.5. Now, he is correct that the most extreme ratio occurs in primary school and the two basic school tiers, but it's still something like 2.5:1 in higher school. If I remember correctly the most balanced school form is vocational school where it's "only" like 3:2.

And in kindergartens some parents won't even accept male staff. (Other parents start to demand male staff)

Similar issues are on the other side of the interaction. Disciplinary action in schools hits - for all intents and purposes - exclusively male students. Male students at universities and FHs take somewhere between one and four semesters longer to complete their studies than their female fellows. Dropouts and non-participating students are overwhelmingly male across all school forms.

>> Moms, eventhough all the facts suggest otherwise, assume men abuse children more often than women (even though its the opposite).

Do we have any solid, statistical evidence in support of these claims?

Teaching also used to be male dominated, and only became more open to women as it become entwined with rearing.

Teaching became more open to women as men were killed in war.

Teaching young kids is a genuinely hard job which is severely underpaid in almost all countries. I think that is the primary reason for men not flocking into teaching.

That reason isn't limited to men. It's why people in general don't get into teaching. Many more men and women would be interested in teaching if it paid better, and we'd have better teachers.

Completely agree, but I was responding to the comment that suggested men don't become teachers because they are afraid of sexual harassment suits

I think that's a valid concern. It tends to be be dismissed these days because the balance was shifted so far away from real victims. The pendulum will likely adjust a bit soon.

It is a bit over the top right now. I was recently chided for giving a female acquaintance a weak, "side hug" instead of a "real hug". Probably prompted by a subconscious idea that I need to be careful about that kind of thing.

It's become Schrödinger's social norms.

Keeping your distance? For the exact same social context that could be (A) not invading a woman's space or putting her in an uncomfortable situation or (B) a harmful approach fueled by a paranoic attitude that is unfair to womens' careers. It could be either until a woman observer collapses the wave function.

In this case the author of the article made an incorrect assumption. There was an imbalance of power. Journalists need access to politicians to do their jobs. They need professional relationships, they need to be at meetings and press events.

To an extent they have to humour politicians, and Fallon apparently mistook that for an invitation to kiss her.

The pendulum needs to swing a bit further yet I'm afraid.

Another thing I notice is that sometimes the condemnations remark that the perpetrator was old, ugly, gross, and/or bald. The implication is that it's ok to be aggressive if you're handsome.

Well of course it's relative. Some things you like, some things you don't. When someone attractive makes a gesture, you're more inclined to be flattered.

It exposes the accusation as being spurious and impetuous, and the accuser as being shallow, though, because whether the ‘crime’ actually occurred or not is now dependent on how attractive the woman judged the man to be.

I don't think so. It's a crime to do something (to me) against my will. And I decide what I want and don't want other people to do to me (my will is subjective). If an attractive person kisses me out of the blue, I might enjoy it, and it's not a crime by any definition. If I didn't like the other person, I didn't want them to kiss me, and the accusation is fair.

That they mention the physical appearance doesn't mean they wouldn't have accused anyway. And it certainly does not mean the accusation is spurious. A crime is a crime even if you don't like the moral character of the victim.

But it’s not a crime as established by a criminal conviction, hence the quotes where I use that word. It’s treatment as a criminal by (fairly, or unfairly) passing moral judgement with a desire that others do the same — no better than a lynch mob. Or, as the article puts it, a witch hunt. That it relates to physical appearance makes it all the more ridiculous a proposition. The accused was guilty in part because they were not deemed attractive enough by the accuser. If not the case, why even bring up the accused’s appearance given the supposed gravity of the alleged ‘crime’?

Hahaha. Welcome to the real world. It is not pretty.

Would you please read the site guidelines and not post like this here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We're looking for civil, substantive comments only.

Only the unattractive are sex predators /s

> If I meet female undergrads for teaching, it's already only in public places in the department, never in my office or an actual teaching room.

For many years trainee teachers are reminded not to be alone with a pupil (esp. female) in the class room (before or after class to answer questions, for example). There are directives that school administration can't call a student in for an interview (e.g. disciplinary stuff) unless at least two staff people are present and at least one has to be the sex of the student. (This is in not the US).

Some companies have de-facto "at least three people" rules.

My SO was a PhD student at a large west coast university and TA'd. This was also the rule/guidelines for them and professors. The 'Pence Rule' has been in effect for a very long time, it turns out.

Not that it mattered in the end, this particular University has been embroiled with sexual harassment allegations for a long time too.

Why does the chilling effect work only against women? Why don't the decision makers at those countless startups, corps and research groups say: "We should probably not hire any men from now on because so many of them are sexual predators."

If you think that would be a completely unreasonable response to #metoo, maybe reconsider your position against working with women in the same light?

Because the decision makers in those groups are primarily men themselves.

Also: they do not believe the accusations are all genuine.

My issue is with the poster's intention to not work with women in light of the sexual harassment scandals. That response seems completely out of proportion.

Men don't get discriminated against based on the actions of a small minority. For example, male employees regularly download porn on work computers and expose the network to malware. Some store child porn on company networks, which can expose the organization to severe consequences (there are many court cases documenting this kind of behavior). Yet the risk of hiring a horny man never comes up in recruitment.

If women are portrayed as unreliable employees because they supposedly invent sexual harassment charges, it seems fair to avoid men because almost all child pornographers are male.

It's not my intention to not work with women. I do collaborate with women. I am just saying if I am being put in a position of power in teaching, and I can choose between male and female undergrads, I would rather not be in a position of power over females in this current climate because we are at a hyper-sensitive stage.

There is no specific gain for them being taught by me instead of a female PhD student, and there is only risk for me, so all things being equal, I am suggesting that this is a stance many men might being to take or at least find themselves wondering about.

it seems fair to avoid men because almost all child pornographers are male.

Paedophilia is quite common amongst women, it just tends not be called that. Search the newspapers for stories of female teachers sleeping with under-age male pupils and you will encounter many such stories. So this claim seems rather outrageous and also false. If you can't find any such stories I will be happy to provide example links later.

> Search the newspapers for stories

Just want to point out that, while there are plenty of such stories, we can't use newspaper stories to quantify how many men versus how many women are found guilty of pedophilia. When a woman is guilty of pedophilia, it's newsworthy on a national level for being unusual. When a man is found guilty of pedophilia, it's treated like any commonplace murder or burglery.

The same is true for child molestation. Girls being victims of molestation is so commonplace the news barely covers it--and is even less likely to cover it if the victim is a minority, but boys being molested gets much more attention.

...this claim seems rather outrageous and also false

My point exactly: it's a claim that is as ridiculous (as a hiring criterion) as the one that women routinely invent sexual harassment allegations.

That's your subjective opinion though. There are studies that report very high rates of false accusations. You may decide they aren't good studies or you don't believe them or whatever, but if other men don't write these things off immediately, it's not hysteria.

Many of these recent allegations would certainly not have been taken seriously in earlier times: the bar for a report to be considered false has been raised to stratospheric levels. Once, if a woman claimed she'd been sexually assaulted by a man, the fact that she didn't bother to report it, voluntarily chose to work with that man for years afterwards, was routinely photographed in public looking happy with that man, tweeted about what a great time she had that night, wrote him thankyou notes etc would all have been considered fatal to her case. Nowadays many people seem to believe that it's impossible for women to lie or exaggerate such claims and thus ignore any evidence to the contrary.

In such an environment, it does actually make a lot of sense for men to just avoid working with women. The norms of justice can't be relied on, so total exclusion is all that's left. Not that I'd do it. But I understand those who do.

Current events does not make his response unreasonable. Yours neither but if the one doing the hiring is a male, then, guess what.

> I think the chilling effect is already here now. Nobody will say it, nobody would admit to it and commit career suicide, but I have no doubt countless startups, corps, research groups will just not hire any women in the wake of this debate.

I don't think that is probable unless you are a man who has a sexual problem and fears reprisal, which is somebody toxic trying to hide.

Just to clarify sexual harassment isn't something confined to men in power and isn't just a women's problem.

This is stupid easy. Don't make sexual advances at work. Not even it is just joking around. Don't touch your coworks on the ass, kiss them, or any other anything else like that. Any form of affection should be something that is ok in front of your spouse and the news media.

If you do fear reprisal then always meet with your coworkers in public spaces, with doors open, and ensure a third party is in view. Don't hide anything. Again, stupid simple.

If after that you are still afraid then just be unemployed, because you shouldn't be around other people.

> This is stupid easy. Don't make sexual advances at work.

Yet if you're a male, you can still end up falsely accused of sexual harassment, because she didn't like you, she wants your position, she misunderstood you, or she was just a bitch who likes undeserved attention, ruining somebody's life in the process. There were examples of that, and while I don't claim they were numerous, they are the source of the chilling effect.

> Yet if you're a male, you can still end up falsely accused of sexual harassment

Historically, this is exceedingly rare. Nobody wants the negative attention that comes from exposure of a false allegation.

It has happened to me three times in less than a year. Thankfully, I have been recording nearly all of my conversations for quite some time.

In EVERY instance, I was treated like a piece of garbage until I managed to produce my recordings from storage. I have become increasingly paranoid about being around people because of this.

A false allegation is fraud. Where these people fired? If not I would go work somewhere else, as permitting fraud is perhaps as toxic as permitting sexually aggressive behaviors.

> A false allegation is fraud.

This part is not the problem. The problem is that if you're falsely accused, it's on you to prove that you're not a horse, which will require enormous effort or an unusual foresight.

A similar thing to the problem in US of stealing identity. If somebody impersonates you and takes a credit in your name (and you have no control over that, because your personal data could have been lost by some Equifax), suddenly it's your problem to fend off debt collectors.

Why risk it? For the same reason Islamic extremists shouldn't make you fear all Muslims.

A sense of decency and fairness.

Edit: you edited your post to remove "why risk it?" which makes my reply look nonsensical.

> For the same reason Islamic extremists shouldn't make you fear all Muslims

Indeed. And by that same reasoning the fact that a small minority of men behave atrociously shouldn't cast suspicion on all men or empower people to overgeneralize about toxic masculinity or rape culture. Nor should being accused of an offense be considered equivalent to being guilty of an offense (as in this case)

I think that is hyperbole. If you are a man, treat women just like you would treat men. Most men would not try to kiss another man without asking first.

Organisations with more women in leadership roles perform better. [1] Which reflects my experience as well. So it isn't only negative from a human point of view to not treat women correctly, it is also a poor business decision.

[1] https://hbr.org/2016/02/study-firms-with-more-women-in-the-c...

While I have no intention of ever getting involved in that way, I disagree.The article I linked gives a good perspective on this:

'They are subtle to the point of near-invisibility. It seems Michael Oreskes liked to kiss women. Now, it is an embarrassing faux-pas to kiss a woman who does not wish to be kissed, but it happens all the time. Kissing a woman is an early stage of courtship. It is one way that men ask the question, “Would you like more?” Courtship is not a phenomenon so minor to our behavioral repertoire that we can readily expunge it from the workplace. It is central to human life. Men and women are attracted to each other; the human race could not perpetuate itself otherwise; and anyone who imagines they will cease to be attracted to each other—or act as if they were not—in the workplace, or any other place, is delusional. Anyone who imagines it is easy for a man to figure out whether a woman might like to be kissed is insane. The difficulty of ascertaining whether one’s passions are reciprocated is the theme of 90 percent of human literature and every romantic comedy or pop song ever written. '

We cannot eliminate and sterilise male-female relationships or pretend they are not different from male-male.

How are they different?

Sorry, but I'm bisexual. I'm attracted to both sexes, and yet I can keep from kissing women or men. I can treat both as friends. I can have respect from both. I can ask either sex if they are interested in forming a non-business relationship and then go back to a business relationship if they say no.

I just don't see what the problem is. Don't expect to meet women in public places and men in private ones, for example. IF you won't go out with women after work, don't go with men. And so on.

That's the thing though, the goals are constantly shifting and you cannot make assumptions about how other people are going to react. For example when you say "I can ask either sex if they are interested in forming a non-business relationship and then go back to a business relationship if they say no." I really feel that in the current climate this is a very risky move to make.

> I can ask either sex if they are interested in forming a non-business relationship and then go back to a business relationship if they say no.

And blammo, there’s your career-destroying sexual harassment accusation against you, in today’s climate.

Most people are reasonable, though. A few are not, and there is never a proper defense against them. The sort that retell someone being grouchy as yelling at them, a movement as a threat of violence. Someone that lies obsessively, even in normal conversation. Or the one that feels slighted and says the breaks are unfair, even though they are getting the same as everyone else.

Admittedly, asking a woman out is more risky for me since I'm female just as it would with a man asking a man out. That isn't due to sexual harassment, but homophobia.

All that said, though, most folks are reasonable to reasonable people who treat them with respect. That's where I'll set the standard for my own behavior and hope for the best.

As a male with a family to provide for, I can’t just hope for the best or hope that those I’d interact with are reasonable. I’d rather simply not work with any women in the current climate (not a hiring manager, and my industry is predominately male, so it works out).

Disclaimer: I have seen presumably reasonable people act irrationally in the workplace. I’m not anti-women; I have a daughter and want the best work environment for her when she grows up. I’m anti-witch hunt.

The main problem I have with your attitude is that it places more burden on me to prove I'm not "one of those women".. if I even get a chance. It means that I don't have a chance when there is an equally qualified man. And I'll never know. It means that I don't get as many chances to support myself or any family I might have (I was the breadwinner with my ex, for example, as he was on disability).

Sure, some seemingly reasonable folks act irrationally in the workplace. Not all are women just like not all are men. I understand being aware of it happening, but assuming everyone is or treating an entire class of people differently because they might be the crazy one winds up hurting folks and makes it harder to get over the stuff we already have problems with. Especially when there are other ways of dealing with some of the same things.

I agree it’s a shitty prisoner’s dilemma we’ve worked our way into. As I mention, I’m not a hiring manager, and I specifically exclude myself from hiring decisions in order to prevent any of my biases from preventing any candidate from being considered or accepted for a role.

Just as you had a dependent, I have several of my own, and have to play it as safe as possible until I’m financially independent.

How about asking before kissing? It is not "embarrassing faux-pas" to kiss a woman who doesn't want it, it is violating their personal space.

To me this is a serious comment. In my social circles asking before kissing is the norm. I too thought it would kill the romance, but if anything it amplifies it. In asking you show vulnerability, show that you respect the other person, and when the other person agrees it is pretty great.

FWIW - I wouldn't normally say "can I kiss you", I'd normally say something like "Sooo, I'd like to kiss you now" (assuming we'd be chatting for a while). And they'd respond along the lines of "I'd like that too", or "No, but thank you".

There is also a secret to be had here – As a man dating women, seeking consent is a secret weapon. It may feel weird to do, but my experience is that women respond exceptionally well to it.

As an example, I think the gender balance of our social circles has changed over the last few years. I often find myself to be the only guy around the dinner table.

Get consent, treat women as the human beings they are and things will go pretty well.

PS. Also, asking is so much easier. Much less dancing around the subject.

EDIT: Should probably have been in reply to the the child comment.

Even literally asking "can I kiss you" doesn't have to kill the mood. For instance you can whisper it in your love interest's ear rather than bellow it from across the room.

I admit that I have rarely verbally asked, but I think I will do so the next time I have the opportunity to kiss someone outside of my long term relationship.

That said, I think you can ask nonverbally as well.

I suppose that's a joke comment or political correctness out control. Asking prior kissing is likely to kill any romance. The question itself may feel awkward (in my anecdotal 4 women survey). The guy would be considered not confident enough which is good enough reason to be rejected.

If that’s the case then those women are part of the problem.

Some people act like the social dynamic where men are sexually agressive is solely the responsibility of men.

Most surveys I’ve seen suggest that the majority of women expect men to make the first move (always). This leads to an environment where men are to a degree trained to be sexually agressive.

This doesn’t excuse male behavior. But the road to a more balanced society likely requires changes on both sides.

Let us compare this to another crime. So I sometimes keep my wallet on my desk, yes? If some rando comes by and helps themselves to some cash, that's a crime, right? But I'm totally okay with my partner doing that, and there's one or two other people I'd be okay with, too. It is not a crime if one of those people takes the money out of my wallet. But, as it's my wallet, I get to decide who has that privilege.

Note, this depends on how I feel, as it's my wallet. Some people would never be okay with others taking money without asking. For me, at least, there's a small group of people I'd be okay with taking my money without asking.

Now, let us postulate that you think you are in that group with wallet access, but further postulate that you, in fact, are not. You think that I like you more than I actually like you. Even so, if you "confidently" grab money out of my wallet without asking, you are committing a crime, even if someone else performing the exact same action, someone I liked more, would not be committing a crime.

My point here is not to compare kisses to property, of course, but to point out that there are other places in criminal law where the perceptions of the victim and only the perceptions of the victim determine if it is a crime or not. In most of these cases, there's a strong default; by default, it's my wallet, and you can't take the money out without my say-so. By default, it's my body, and you can't touch it in a sexual way without my say so. Yes, you can make your assumptions as to your status, and if you are correct? that's cool. But you do so at your own risk. If you don't want to take that risk, you are free to ask.

That's a really great metaphor, and really great advice. The next time I deal with a man bemoaning how tricky #metoo has made life, I will put this example to him. If you're not really sure, don't take the risk - ask before taking cash or initiating more an a handshake.

Wow. I can't tell if you're a middle-schooler, a troll or Milo.

If asking is enough to kill romance then it needs to die in that instance. Try again with someone else and if that someone else actually likes you they'll just think of you as considerate.

If you are so concerned about romance you don't even have to ask with words. Just lean in slowly, so it's obvious what you want to do, and check their reaction.

Tell us, how do you normally determine if she wants to have sex? Start dry humping her because you are embarrassed to ask?

If asking kills the romance then clearly they don't actually have feelings for you. Speaking as someone who asked, and has had fantastic success.

Do you really want to ask someone if they want to kiss? What are we becoming?

How close are we "Please sign this contract to initiate physical contact"?

Yes I do. It's called basic decency, and attitudes like yours are a big part of why we are in this mess.

There are ways to gauge interest without asking. The classic "getting 70% closer and letting the other person kiss" is one way.

I'm not saying people should be able to kiss someone out of the blue, but if it feels like the other person is interested (for example if they reciprocated your flirting) then I don't see the issue with trying.

I did ask for a kiss more than once when I was socially inept; it killed the mood every time. Never again. The same people I asked came around later and I had meaningful relationships with them. So don't tell me "attitude like yours"

Edit: I should add that different people have different ways to see it, I get that. For example some women might like being asked if they want to split the bill, seeing it as a sign of respect, others might not like it at all. So one has to decide case by case.

I've also had women, in an exasperated tone, finally ask me what I am waiting for - to just go for it.

I've commented on studies like that on HN before, but you have to read them very carefully. They are invariably written by people who wanted to reach a particular conclusion before they started.

In this case there are two problems.

1) They ignored unprofitable companies in their analysis. If more women in leadership roles were to increase the variability of profitability/loss making, their analysis would show only that it increased profitability.

2) Like all such studies they don't restrict to countries that don't have gender quotas. Some rich countries have imposed artificial quotas to get women into leadership roles, e.g. Norway is named in the article. Well, if you take rich successful countries and then force women into leadership roles by legal decree, it will appear that there is a correlation between more women and more success. But it's a correlation/causation problem.

I've never seen a study of this issue that didn't strike me as being artificially set up to reach the authors preferred conclusions.

> If you are a man, treat women just like you would treat men. Most men would not try to kiss another man without asking first.

You realize that most men are heterosexual (or at least consider themselves so), right?

Asking people to treat people of sex that they are sexually interested in as people of sex that they have no interest in is equal to asking people to act as being completely asexual. I sincerely hope that we can end sexual harassment without denying people the right to their sexuality.

Your right to swing your fist ends with my nose. Your right to touch your lips or hands somewhere ends with the other person's lips/other body parts.

You are free to experience and enjoy your heterosexuality, but not free to force any woman to be part of this experience, which you are doing any time you treat a female colleague differently than you would a male colleague. Go experience your sexuality in your free time with other people in their free time.

If you think you can only meet women at work or work-related events and only have time to flirt with them there, you spend too much time working.

> not free to force any woman to be part of this experience, which you are doing any time you treat a female colleague differently than you would a male colleague

I really think you're taking the point a bit too far here. There's plenty of polite and civilized ways of making a romantic advance on a colleague that wouldn't in any way qualify as "forcing" anyone to do something.

but problem is that right now all scandals are like this “male started kissing female without her consent” how is this uncontrollable sexuality ok?

Nohow. Why are you suddenly asking me such a question?

The chilling effect, but not the reasonable assessment. The occurrence are still very rare, the total number of people who lost their careers to accusations over those who didn't is probably in the .1% and lower.

Also, if any of the accused are guilty, losing your powerful job is a pretty small punishment.

What does need to happen though, for everyone's sake, is a discernment between levels of gravity. All news of sexual misconduct shouldn't give the same reaction to the public. And on that I think we agree.

That said, its normal now to have the pendulum swing a bit more one side, everyone is finally for the first time in a place where they feel they can voice their agony, after years of silence.

Personally, I think all of this is great, and will hopefully create a better society. In 10 years, I think that discernment will be established, but speaking up about such issues will have become more accepted, and victims would come forward quicker, allowing normal justice to take place.

Wait

> I am a PhD student and it makes me think about teaching female undergrads at all or taking them on for projects. If I meet female undergrads for teaching, it's already only in public places in the department, never in my office or an actual teaching room. I am not the type who would ever make lewd comments, or anything of the sort, but it does not matter. There are no bonus points for being a good guy, an 'ally'.

The article is about a man claiming he was sexually harassed. Why do you consider only female in your scenario ?

Nobody is going to feel flattered by being kissed without consent.

There are women/men that are flattered/aroused when kissed without consent.

This is the crux of the problem, some of these people have done the exact action many times before with positive outcomes.

Those complainants may be outliers or they may be the majority, it's up to the organization to properly research which is the case and act accordingly (ie, apology, or firing).

Everyone has different wants and expectations.

Consent is not negotiable.

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/bdsm-consent

As someone who loves his female cousins (I call them sisters) and their daughters and as someone who treats his wife as an equal partner (my philosophy: "Man and woman are two wings of the same bird.") I am all for both sexes being protected from any kind of harassment. Yes, and the media must talk about it (especially, when children and minors are harmed).

BUT...

As an outsider to the USA (I live in Europe), I cannot believe what I see in the US media.

Basically, all you can read about is three topics (in no particular order):

(1) Trump is guilty for EVERYTHING

(2) Russia is guilty for EVERYTHING

(3) Sexual harassment

It looks (off the top of my head):

- as if the USA is not fighting numerous wars

- as if the US troops are not in almost every country on the globe

- as if the federal debt is now not over 20.000 billion

- as if military budget is now not almost 700 billion

- as if bridges are not falling and as if infrastructure is not crumbling

- as if the whole society is not in all kinds of (deep) debt

- as if there is no lead and mercury in tap water in numerous municipalities

- as if many cities and municipalities are not bankrupt

- as if banks and other financial institutions are not ripping the US society

- as if corporations are not ripping the US society (latest rip: net neutrality)

- as if there is not less freedoms (of the press, of the expression, of movement [TSA])

- as if everyone has a medical insurance

- as if everyone has access to free college education

- as if there are no race riots

- as if there are no tent cities

- as if, as if, as if...

Can someone from the USA explain this to me:

- Is there critical mass concerned with the latter stuff or is almost everyone concerned with Trump, Russia and sexual harassment?

- If the latter stuff is of more concern for the people, why do the elected representatives (who get elected and re-elected by their constituents) not broach about it?

Thank you.

Sexual harassment gets more viewership. It's salacious - sex sells very well in our puritanical nation. US in debt? Old news. We've been in serious debt for years. Troops in every country? We're there to help "spread freedom." News is a business, and like so many other businesses these days, they're more interested in short term profit over long term sustainability.

Yeah, it's terrible. Yeah, the US has a lot more problems than our current president and the actions of a vast minority of people. You won't read that in a for-profit newspaper though.

Follow the money. If you look at who owns which news outlets, you'll find a connection between what those outlets choose to cover and what their owner's interests are.

I recently stood up for a female colleagues harassment by their manager. I am male and a few months after I privately reported what I witnessed I started to get harassed and then was forced out.

That was towards the middle of this summer and Ive been trying to land my next job in the same local industry but anomalously am having trouble finding my next gig.

I'm not sure what avenues I have as I should still be working there & in my field, but since I reported a manager's harassment I am a problem that needs to go & am suffering?

You might want to consult an employment lawyer. Firing you in retaliation for reporting wrongdoing in the workplace may have been an illegal act.

You did the right thing. I wish you the very best of luck in your job search.

'In a statement, a spokeswoman for the DCCC, Meredith Kelly, "Members and candidates must all be held to the highest standard. If anyone is guilty of sexual harassment or sexual assault, that person should not hold public office.'

Their position is clear here: being accused is being guilty.

No, it's very much not clear. You're reading an implication from a single line quoted from a full email.

> "We are in a national moment where rough justice stands in place of careful analysis, nuance and due process."

Accurate.

Give us one example of someone wrongly punished who was denied due process.

The example in the link is flat out wrong. See my comment above.

It's progress. Heretofore those who are subject to sexual abuse have been forced to accept countless injustices. Now accused abusers are subject to the occasional injustice.

For an example of worse-than-rough-justice, consider the monumental backlog of unprocessed rape kits in this country.

It's progress in the way euthanasia cures cancer.

Things probably have to get worse before they get better. People have been able to ignore the issue for too long. Now the suffering is spreading a tiny bit and those who would rather not confront the agony of others are being forced to.

From the article > According to the Kansas Star, the company reached a settlement with the former employee who had made the allegation, Gary Funkhouser. <

A financial settlement means that there was some basis to the allegations. The fact that she was not convicted does not mean much in a political environment where we need more people with a higher set of standards.

> A financial settlement means that there was some basis to the allegations.

Absolutely not true. Being accused of misconduct can ruin a person's life and it can be better to settle rather than fight it. There are plenty of innocent people who have accepted plea bargains as well.

Apple vs oranges. Being offered a financial settlement to drop a complaint is the exact opposite of accepting a plea bargain.

They are both risk management decisions, so I don't get the "exact opposite" explanation. I suspect it cuts both ways. Some cases were buyouts for obvious bad behavior, and some cases were more like trumped up extortion. I don't know that there's a credible source for how often it's one vs the other.

> A financial settlement means that there was some basis to the allegations.

It means nothing of the sort. It just means that the business decided the cost of fighting the case was likely to outweigh the cost of settling.

Usually it is the company that has more resources at its disposal, not the employee

Sensible companies do cost/benefit estimations and settle if it's financially the best course of action. They're not going to the mat on every case just because they've got money to spend.

Well there analysis wasn't very good, was it? It was her company and it's come back to hurt her years later.

Note she fails to mention the settlement in her denial, giving a misleading version of events.

Relevant: https://xkcd.com/642/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com