3 ms·

Although I respect the point you're trying to make, it's only a part of the problem, by far not the entire problem. And what I find borderline offensive is tha

Although I respect the point you're trying to make, it's only a part of the problem, by far not the entire problem. And what I find borderline offensive is that you completely ignore the fact that the company pretty much swept the whole incident under the rug. This in my opinion has had a much more immediate effect on the victim's sense of self worth than any deeper cultural issue. Basically she was given to believe that what happened to her wasn't that big a deal, and since she clearly experienced it very differently, indirectly she was told she didn't have much value.

wilkie 13y ago
And she had to return to that job without any reason to believe that they would offer any support.
swombat 13y ago
You can't address every possible point from every possible opinion in every post. I find it borderline offensive that you find it borderline offensive that the GP missed out on the point you wanted to make while making other valid points. Respectfully, of course.
Dylan16807 13y ago
To me, it seems an order of magnitude more important to fire the person than to publicly acknowledge his wrongdoing. I would be extremely upset if they had done it the other way around, so I don't think this counts as sweeping it under the rug. Do you think the public acknowledgement is more important than the firing? Is the problem that they were only 80% behind her instead of 100%? Is it something else? I really want to understand your position.
- toasterlovin 13y ago
  False dichotomy. Not either-or. Both.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    They fired him. They appear to have provided support to her. She could go to the police and file a report. It's traumatic, and unlikely to have any effect. But it is not possible for the firm to say "We sacked Bob because he sexually assaulted one of our staff".
    - toasterlovin 13y ago
      "But it is not possible for the firm to say "We sacked Bob because he sexually assaulted one of our staff"." Why not? The event in question happened in a public setting, while her boss was acting in something of an official capacity (it was a work related event). To me, that demands a public acknowledgement and treatment of what happened.
      - DanBC 13y ago
        They leave themselves open to law suits. He hasn't been questioned by police, nor arrested, nor tried, nor convicted. Innocent until proven guilty is a firm principle. Accusing someone of a sex crime will have very serious consequences for that person. She has said that she doesn't want to involve legal processes. When the company publicly says that he assaulted her they force the legal processes to start - either he sues for defamation or police get involved.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    I didn't make a false dichotomy. Read my post again. I think the firing was about 90% of what they should have done. Do you disagree with that? 'Swept under the rug', to me, sounds like doing close to 0%.
    - toasterlovin 13y ago
      Just re-read your comment and you're right, you didn't make a false dichotomy. But it is easy for a moron (like me) to take your comment and turn it into false dichotomy. Sorry about that. I will say, though, that I really don't like assigning percentages because I think they fit the situation poorly. In my opinion, the company should have done two discreet things: fire the guy and address why he was fired (see my comment to other responder for why they should address the firing). Assigning percentages to these to represent their respective importance is not very useful; they are both past the threshold of Very Important. Therefore, they should both get done.

wilkie 13y ago

And she had to return to that job without any reason to believe that they would offer any support.

swombat 13y ago

You can't address every possible point from every possible opinion in every post. I find it borderline offensive that you find it borderline offensive that the GP missed out on the point you wanted to make while making other valid points. Respectfully, of course.

Dylan16807 13y ago

To me, it seems an order of magnitude more important to fire the person than to publicly acknowledge his wrongdoing. I would be extremely upset if they had done it the other way around, so I don't think this counts as sweeping it under the rug. Do you think the public acknowledgement is more important than the firing? Is the problem that they were only 80% behind her instead of 100%? Is it something else? I really want to understand your position.

toasterlovin 13y ago
False dichotomy. Not either-or. Both.
- DanBC 13y ago
  They fired him. They appear to have provided support to her. She could go to the police and file a report. It's traumatic, and unlikely to have any effect. But it is not possible for the firm to say "We sacked Bob because he sexually assaulted one of our staff".
  - toasterlovin 13y ago
    "But it is not possible for the firm to say "We sacked Bob because he sexually assaulted one of our staff"." Why not? The event in question happened in a public setting, while her boss was acting in something of an official capacity (it was a work related event). To me, that demands a public acknowledgement and treatment of what happened.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      They leave themselves open to law suits. He hasn't been questioned by police, nor arrested, nor tried, nor convicted. Innocent until proven guilty is a firm principle. Accusing someone of a sex crime will have very serious consequences for that person. She has said that she doesn't want to involve legal processes. When the company publicly says that he assaulted her they force the legal processes to start - either he sues for defamation or police get involved.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  I didn't make a false dichotomy. Read my post again. I think the firing was about 90% of what they should have done. Do you disagree with that? 'Swept under the rug', to me, sounds like doing close to 0%.
  - toasterlovin 13y ago
    Just re-read your comment and you're right, you didn't make a false dichotomy. But it is easy for a moron (like me) to take your comment and turn it into false dichotomy. Sorry about that. I will say, though, that I really don't like assigning percentages because I think they fit the situation poorly. In my opinion, the company should have done two discreet things: fire the guy and address why he was fired (see my comment to other responder for why they should address the firing). Assigning percentages to these to represent their respective importance is not very useful; they are both past the threshold of Very Important. Therefore, they should both get done.