Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Referring back to what I was responding to in my original post on this, how so?

Listen to her, not me. I'm not the one who has experienced these things.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Listen to her, not me. I'm not the one who has experienced these things.

If men are supposed to be listening but not talking, does that mean that they shouldn't say "you're fired" to someone who has been doing bad things, or is that a sort of a exception to the be-quiet-and-don't-say-anything rule?

Also, having not only listened to her but also linked to that article so that more people could partake of her views, I don't react all that well to the idea that I'm not listening to her. We're only having this exchange because I brought it up. If you say something now in addition to what I linked, does that somehow make me unhear what she has to say?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If men are supposed to be listening but not talking, does that mean that they shouldn't say "you're fired" to someone who has been doing bad things, or is that a sort of a exception to the be-quiet-and-don't-say anything rule?

Also, having not only listened to her but also linked to that article so that more people could partake of her views, I don't react all that well to the idea that I'm not listening to her. We're only having this exchange because I brought it up. If you say something now in addition to what I linked, does that somehow make me unheard what she has to say?

I didn't say you weren't listening to her, I said she was worth listening to, in response to your post saying, essential "meh" to them both. I'm not going to try to convince you why though, I'm just going to refer back to her words for that. I don't think Minnie needs GGG channeling her to be understood.

As to the firing, my personal view is I wouldn't be making a firing decision without involving women in it right now. That said, there are times that responsibility is inescapably mine because of position, and at those times it is a process issue as to what I do and who I consult before making that decision.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I didn't say you weren't listening to her, I said she was worth listening to, in response to your post saying, essential "meh" to them both. I'm not going to try to convince you why though, I'm just going to refer back to her words for that. I don't think Minnie needs GGG channeling her to be understood.

You said "listen to her," which I took as a I suggestion that I wasn't. YMMV.

As to the firing, my personal view is I wouldn't be making a firing decision without involving women in it right now. That said, there are times that responsibility is inescapably mine because of position, and at those times it is a process issue as to what I do and who I consult before making that decision.

Nicely done, but that is of course not responsive to my point.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You said "listen to her," which I took as a I suggestion that I wasn't. YMMV.

Ah, yes, later post. I was suggesting the answers were not in your humble fellow poster but in the text we were both analyzing. I defer to Minnie on the answer to your question.

Nicely done, but that is of course not responsive to my point.

I think it was responsive actually.

It is very hard, isn't it, to be quiet and deferential? I have trouble with it. I wonder how so many women managed to handle it for so long without going crazy?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Ah, yes, later post. I was suggesting the answers were not in your humble fellow poster but in the text we were both analyzing. I defer to Minnie on the answer to your question.

Uh oh -- it turns out that text was written by a man, one Edward Helmore. So I guess we ought to stop paying attention to it.

I think it was responsive actually.

It is very hard, isn't it, to be quiet and deferential? I have trouble with it. I wonder how so many women managed to handle it for so long without going crazy?

Men like you who are in a position to do some good ought to open their mouths and do some good, rather than keeping quiet in circumstances when it does nothing to give women a better chance to be heard. And listening and respecting the views of other people, particularly including women, doesn't mean one accepting misguided ideas. Simone de Beauvoir said man is defined as a human being and woman is defined as female. Respecting what Minnie Driver has to say means responding to it like it was said by a human being, not fearing that her thoughts are so delicate that they can't stand criticism.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Uh oh -- it turns out that text was written by a man, one Edward Helmore. So I guess we ought to stop paying attention to it.



Men like you who are in a position to do some good ought to open their mouths and do some good, rather than keeping quiet in circumstances when it does nothing to give women a better chance to be heard. And listening and respecting the views of other people, particularly including women, doesn't mean one accepting misguided ideas. Simone de Beauvoir said man is defined as a human being and woman is defined as female. Respecting what Minnie Driver has to say means responding to it like it was said by a human being, not fearing that her thoughts are so delicate that they can't stand criticism.

Meh. I listen to enough men. All day. And I speak plenty. It's hard to shut me up a lot of the time.

Watching the Driver fall out on twitter I thought the most apropo little zing was one that compared Matt Damon's interview to someone reminding us the day after a mass shooting that there are lots of people not killing anyone.

I think more men need to really work at listening, which is why, when a woman both criticizes a man and refers to him in the same interview as a good man, I'd like to listen and spend some time thinking about it.

So thank you for posting it, though, of course, I'd already retweeted it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I wouldn't be making a firing decision without involving women in it right now.

Who you picking? One of the 50% of white women that voted for Trump?

Last night my wife and my daughter, two very strong women (both me too people), had a fight over whether Franken deserved better. Here's the thing, if it only takes one woman to fry, every man is toast. And not just on the underlying behavior, which is all vile, but the nuance with which you discuss it?

And it's all fun when it's big hollywood and political types going up in flames, but that same standard won't apply to Acme Welding and McDonald's franchises in Iowa and those are the places where the volume problems lie. And if there isn't some way for men to understand how can we expect it to get better?

See, my wife and daughter's "me too" men were not in congress and have never been nominated for an Oscar. The real war is further from the spotlight, and a man talking about his take like Damon helps others sort out their own world, doesn't it?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Another way of saying this is, whether there is enough to file a claim for discrimination.

That really does sound like an extraordinary set of coincidences. I wonder if the employee thought they were all just coincidences also. I'd love to hear about how these coincidences aligned in such a way that they had an ironclad discrimination claim worth 7 figures. I'm all ears.

TM

1. No it’s not. It’s whether there’s enough to get to a hearing or trial. If this is limbo, it’s putting the bar just shy of a basketball rim.

2. Let’s say a group of people suffered adverse action because they all joined in circulating the same thing. Looks like they were all targeted. In reality, truth is, people from the same backgrounds tend to have exclusive groups where they communicate things (sometimes prohibited things) with each other.

Half of litigation is getting paid where it’s undeserved and getting nothing where payment is deserved. Hence my enormous respect for the law.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. No it’s not. It’s whether there’s enough to get to a hearing or trial. If this is limbo, it’s putting the bar just shy of a basketball rim.

2. Let’s say a group of people suffered adverse action because they all joined in circulating the same thing. Looks like they were all targeted. In reality, truth is, people from the same backgrounds tend to have exclusive groups where they communicate things (sometimes prohibited things) with each other.

Half of litigation is getting paid where it’s undeserved and getting nothing where payment is deserved. Hence my enormous respect for the law.

Well, I'm convinced. Or I'm done with this. In any case, 2 above is written in a foreign language.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Well, I'm convinced. Or I'm done with this. In any case, 2 above is written in a foreign language.

TM

Twelve people in a protected class in overwhelmingly non-minority offices of company circulated something offensive to each other. Looked like they were singled out for discriminatory reasons. They weren’t. But we had a probability argument and it was enough to say, “good luck in front of a jury.”

Did the company fuck up from an HR standpoint? Yes, mishandled (no one involved noticed how it looked). Was the claim deserving of a payout? No.

You’re confusing deserving claims with technically sustainable claims. They’re the same about 1/2 of the time.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Twelve people in a protected class in overwhelmingly non-minority offices of company circulated something offensive to each other. Looked like they were singled out for discriminatory reasons. They weren’t. But we had a probability argument and it was enough to say, “good luck in front of a jury.”

Did the company fuck up from an HR standpoint? Yes, mishandled (no one involved noticed how it looked). Was the claim deserving of a payout? No.

You’re confusing deserving claims with technically sustainable claims. They’re the same about 1/2 of the time.

Wait, why is the company on the hook if a group of its employees send each other an e-mail among themselves? I think you are engaged in a misleading material omission in your weird little story.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Moore defenders were falling all over themselves to say, "Yeah, but what about Franken?" Isn't this evidence of the very conflation you say nobody is engaging in?

I guess. But I’m seeing a lot more “Franken isn’t Moore” which is certainly selection bias. Regardless, I’m not seeing anyone say that Franken must be held accountable because he’s just like Moore.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Referring back to what I was responding to in my original post on this, how so?

Men can’t (or don’t) see what it’s like to be constantly harassed and thus are too quick to explain away what’s trivial out of context.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Wait, why is the company on the hook if a group of its employees send each other an e-mail among themselves? I think you are engaged in a misleading material omission in your weird little story.

Because we said they were targeted based on protected status, into which all fell.