12 ms·

I don't get this "abuse of power" angle at all. Having a relationship with a subordinate is not an abuse of power. Insisting that your job rests on a relationsh

I don't get this "abuse of power" angle at all. Having a relationship with a subordinate is not an abuse of power. Insisting that your job rests on a relationship is an abuse of power, but without evidence that happened (and it seems like it didnt), there's no abuse. This idea that a power differential invalidates a relationship is nonsense. The fact is, people spend half or more of their waking hours at work. You spend more time with your colleagues than you do your own family in many cases. Relationship are going to happen. We need to learn how to deal with it rather than try to codify rules against it.

jacquesm 7y ago
The abuse of power is that he maneuvered her into a position of dependency, then bailed out and used the fact that she was now dependent on him against her.
- hackinthebochs 7y ago
  Maneuvered implies intent. How do you know that was his intention from the start?
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Well, it certainly didn't happen by accident. Fathers should support their kids, period.
FireBeyond 7y ago
"One of us needs to leave. If you leave, I'll take care of you financially, since I'm making far more money here". "Oh, you left, thanks. Oh, that financial help? I changed my mind about that". It's possible to be abusive in a myriad of ways.
rayiner 7y ago
> This idea that a power differential invalidates a relationship is nonsense. Why? Seems pretty sound to me.
- hackinthebochs 7y ago
  Because power differentials do not invalidate consent? Power differentials do not indicate coercion and people are fully capable of consenting even in the presence of power differentials. We've gotten to the point where we equate potential for abuse with abuse. Its a little ridiculous.
  - harryh 7y ago
    Surely you agree that sometimes power differentials can invalidate consent. Can sex between a police officer and another person that they have placed under arrest be consensual?
    - hackinthebochs 7y ago
      I don't think a power differential in itself invalidates consent. In your example I would say the scenario of an arrest is inherently coercive. But this is just quibbling over semantics.
      - harryh 7y ago
        What's the fundamental difference between an employer / employee relationship (where economic power can be wielded) and a police office / arestee relationship (where legal power can be weilded)? What makes the latter "inherently coercive" but not the former? Aren't these just different degrees of fundamentally the same thing?
        hackinthebochs 7y ago
        I don't think so. With a police officer/arrestee relationship, coercive power is already being wielded. Being detained is inherently coercive. Any "request" from an officer acting in an official capacity is done with the implied backing of state power, and being arrested clearly establishes the coercive relationship. But employment is transactional. There is an expectation that the agreed upon transaction will be upheld. A request that falls outside of the transaction, e.g. your boss asking you out, does not inherently imply economic coercion (whereas a request within the employment transaction does). But specifics of the context can alter that, i.e. wording of the request or specific context can imply coercion.

jacquesm 7y ago

The abuse of power is that he maneuvered her into a position of dependency, then bailed out and used the fact that she was now dependent on him against her.

hackinthebochs 7y ago
Maneuvered implies intent. How do you know that was his intention from the start?
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Well, it certainly didn't happen by accident. Fathers should support their kids, period.

FireBeyond 7y ago

"One of us needs to leave. If you leave, I'll take care of you financially, since I'm making far more money here". "Oh, you left, thanks. Oh, that financial help? I changed my mind about that". It's possible to be abusive in a myriad of ways.

rayiner 7y ago

> This idea that a power differential invalidates a relationship is nonsense. Why? Seems pretty sound to me.

hackinthebochs 7y ago
Because power differentials do not invalidate consent? Power differentials do not indicate coercion and people are fully capable of consenting even in the presence of power differentials. We've gotten to the point where we equate potential for abuse with abuse. Its a little ridiculous.
- harryh 7y ago
  Surely you agree that sometimes power differentials can invalidate consent. Can sex between a police officer and another person that they have placed under arrest be consensual?
  - hackinthebochs 7y ago
    I don't think a power differential in itself invalidates consent. In your example I would say the scenario of an arrest is inherently coercive. But this is just quibbling over semantics.
    - harryh 7y ago
      What's the fundamental difference between an employer / employee relationship (where economic power can be wielded) and a police office / arestee relationship (where legal power can be weilded)? What makes the latter "inherently coercive" but not the former? Aren't these just different degrees of fundamentally the same thing?
      - hackinthebochs 7y ago
        I don't think so. With a police officer/arrestee relationship, coercive power is already being wielded. Being detained is inherently coercive. Any "request" from an officer acting in an official capacity is done with the implied backing of state power, and being arrested clearly establishes the coercive relationship. But employment is transactional. There is an expectation that the agreed upon transaction will be upheld. A request that falls outside of the transaction, e.g. your boss asking you out, does not inherently imply economic coercion (whereas a request within the employment transaction does). But specifics of the context can alter that, i.e. wording of the request or specific context can imply coercion.