Is this related to #metoo?
As far as I can tell, there is no reason to think that his close collaborators at Google didn’t know about and discovered something unsavoury recently. More to the point, there is no reason to think his behaviour (although offensive to some) was ever non-consensual.
It’s entirely understandable that, after more than a decade at the helm of the most incredible companies of all time, he’s stepping down to simply retire.
Given the times, the question bears being asked -- although as far as we can tell, No.
[1] Source: Google CEO and serial womanizer Eric Schmidt spends $15 million on private, no doorman Manhattan penthouse and then has it totally soundproofed => http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2377785/Google-CEO-s...
[2] “THE CHAPPELLE SHOW” DRAMATIZES SEXUAL CONSENT WITH THE LOVE CONTRACT => https://vimeo.com/183089808
Keep an eye our on the news tomorrow around 4pm EST. You'll see plenty of companies dropping bad news right before the holidays. By the time everyone gets back to work, they've forgotten!
> Empirically speaking, sexual liberation was practiced by women on a wide scale in the sixties and it did not work: that is, it did not free women. Its purpose—it turned out—was to free men to use women without bourgeois constraints, and in that it was successful.
The hippies became Reaganites and women were allowed to participate in the economy to some extent, but that freedom also came with the expectation of sexual availability. You see it even now: suggest that maybe we should prohibit relationships between coworkers, and men flip out. The idea that we might categorically close off some spheres of life to sexual advances, so that women can work in peace and build their careers, induces apoplexy.
I was just listening to NPR this morning where the woman speaking was saying that we need to more strongly define expectations for office behavior, but that women as well as men are against the idea of banning office relationships.
Coworkers abstaining has more to do with risk (greater on the men’s side). Elites have always tried controlling sexual freedom and exploration because it threatens their control over literally creating future elite generations.
The sexual revolution absolutely improved women’s prospects from the Eisenhower era. Instead of forced to religious-coupling or pushed into traditional female roles, instead women were able to more freely choose their mate.
As to the sexual revolution, read Dworkin’s take on it. Her point that it is a distinctly a man-centric view of sexual freedom is prescient. It’s not just about being free to have sex whenever/with whoever you want, but also freedom to live aspects of your life without dealing with sexual advances. It’s about the freedom to go to work and have coworkers look at you as someone who can help advance their careers, or someone who they can mentor, not a potential date.