Andy Rubin Takes Leave From Essential as Probe Into 'Inappropriate' Google Relationship Goes Public, Report Claims (theverge.com) 240
An anonymous reader shares a report: Essential founder and CEO Andy Rubin has taken a leave of absence from his new company for "personal reasons" following a report on the circumstances of his 2014 departure from Google. According to The Information, Rubin left Google shortly after an investigation found that he had maintained an "inappropriate relationship" with a woman who worked under him and filed a complaint to HR. The nature of that relationship isn't detailed in the report, and Rubin's spokesperson Mike Sitrick denies the connection. "Any relationship that Mr. Rubin had while at Google was consensual," Sitrick tells The Information. "Mr. Rubin was never told by Google that he engaged in any misconduct while at Google and he did not, either while at Google or since." Rubin is said to have told Essential employees of his leave of absence on Monday after The Information informed Sitrick of its story.
GO DOWN IN FLAMES (Score:2, Funny)
All these psychopaths that have been publicly outed in the last few weeks are a GREAT BEGINNING !!
Let's clean up the human race and put these predators in jail!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the predator party?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Color me shocked (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, that may be the case, but the fact remains that the woman reported it, which indicates either:
-She did *not* find him attractive and was uncomfortable with unwelcome advances he was making
-It was a consensual relationship that ended very badly, and she wanted to punish him through work
Calling it an 'inappropriate relationship' is a nice neutral way of getting rid of the problem without having to weigh in on who is telling the truth and who is lying.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, that may be the case, but the fact remains that the woman reported it, which indicates either: -She did *not* find him attractive and was uncomfortable with unwelcome advances he was making -It was a consensual relationship that ended very badly, and she wanted to punish him through work
Calling it an 'inappropriate relationship' is a nice neutral way of getting rid of the problem without having to weigh in on who is telling the truth and who is lying.
I highly doubt that she reported him for unwanted advances while he says they had a consensual relationship. If the advances were indeed unwanted why would she then proceed to sex? If she proceeded to the sexual stage under duress/force/threats then it's most certainly a criminal offence and the cops have to be involved.
There is no explanation that can support a "not a consensual relationship that ended badly"; any explanation (unwanted advances, assault) fails under even a cursory examination.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no explanation that can support a "not a consensual relationship that ended badly";
You missed the word "Either". That a good explanation ? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
why would she then proceed to sex?
Exaggerating the relationship to be able to better defend his image seems to be a plausible outcome. I read another story about someone being exceptionally creepy but not actually going to 'assault', and the woman said it never got anywhere and just wanted him to be forced to leave her alone, and he claimed they were in a relationship and he had been having sex with her. In that case, she was just glad not to have to interact with him anymore and wasn't going to officially challenge the account because sh
Re: (Score:2)
why would she then proceed to sex?
Exaggerating the relationship to be able to better defend his image seems to be a plausible outcome. I read another story about someone being exceptionally creepy but not actually going to 'assault', and the woman said it never got anywhere and just wanted him to be forced to leave her alone, and he claimed they were in a relationship and he had been having sex with her. In that case, she was just glad not to have to interact with him anymore and wasn't going to officially challenge the account because she just wanted him away.
We are not privy to the subtlety and nuance of the situation, so it's unreasonable to assume it is one thing or the other. After a healthy dose of PR and an anonymous complaint, it's impossible to determine what really happened.
We know what he says, because he said it to the press. We don't know if she claimed unwanted advances because we don't know what she said, or even if she said anything. At this point it is safe to assume that they had a sexual relationship, because that's all we were told.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it warrants a more balanced perspective, we have a woman who is anonymous (and probably wants to remain so) and Rubin. The silence of someone who probably wants to just stay out of it cannot be 'safe to assume' to be in agreement with Rubin. Rubin can't avoid the spotlight and *must* say something and he sure as hell isn't going to say something bad about himself if he can help it, and depending on the woman's situation, she may never want to come forward to challenge.
We can neither condemn him nor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why assume either one is the victim? What about them being two compatible people who enter into a relationship? Assuming a reasonably good job market, one or both are free to leave the company at any time if there's an issue.
The real victimizers here? HR and their zero-tolerance policies. Zero tolerance = zero brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Because either:
-She was made uncomfortable by improper interactions with Rubin
-Rubin was unfairly smeared by a relationship with a subordinate
He wouldn't be having to leave his 'Essential' endeavor behind if neither person was a victim.
Re: (Score:2)
-It was a consensual relationship that ended very badly, and she wanted to punish him through work
It didn't necessarily end badly, it could have just ended. Continuing to report to an ex would be very uncomfortable for anyone, no matter how they parted. She may have simply gone to HR about a transfer or something, and had to supply the reason, so it would be in the report.
This is why you don't shit where you eat. Important rule.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of person finds the respect of people whose destiny they control flattering? It's just arse-kissing. Real respect comes from peers and from those who do not benefit from giving it.
Not safe to relate to a woman in the workplace (Score:5, Interesting)
If you care about your carreer limit to a bare minimum all non work related relations. I for one, I'm growing more paranoid about having a coffee with a female collegue. And If I do, I always do in public.
Considering that many buisness decisions are made over coffee, this will slowly lead the to exclusion of women.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Supposedly there was a NYT article coming out about Matt Lauer, and others are reporting something happened in 2014. And maybe Matt Lauer said, "Yea I did that," and they said, "well we need to let you go, here's a severance."
Re:Not safe to relate to a woman in the workplace (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't worry, the articles will be coming out shortly about how women are being frozen out of social events and the big boys club. Never mind that people have been fired for inviting women out to happy hours because it was "harassment".
My informal, personal pledge from now on is to never help anyone professionally who even gives a hint of being of the SJW crowd; and I have zero tolerance for real harassment (and, AFAIK, have never been accused of harassment, but from what I've read from men working in HR, as a male in management, you've probably been accused and didn't even know it at least once in your career).
You can't have your cake and eat it too (Score:5, Insightful)
Feminists and feminism-inclined women want to be on all sides of the issue in a "heads we win, tails you lose" way. Don't believe me? Consider two facts about male-female interaction and how they approach them:
Office time:
1. Closing the door is dangerous.
2. Not closing the door is sexist because it makes her feel less comfortable having an honest discussion.
3. Women are always to be given the benefit of the doubt when they say something happened.
4. Behind a closed door it's impossible, short of secretly recording (which isn't always legal), for a man to have any evidence to defend himself.
Moral of the story: due your duty and fall on your sword if a woman wants to advance over you.
Fraternization:
1. If a woman wants to romantically pursue coworkers you are an awful person who thinks they own women for telling her to not shit where she eats, particularly if you threaten to fire her pursuant to an archaic policy that prohibits relationships.
2. If a woman feels there are any consequences to saying no other than "totally cool, I get you" from the man, she's automatically a victim if he is nominally more powerful than her in the org chart. This holds true even if he's above her but in a totally unrelated group and actually protected by a manager with real authority over her.
3. If a woman agrees, for any reason, to have sex or be in a relationship she is not expected to "put on her big girl panties and be a professional" instead of complaining about her one night stand or ex.
4. If a man decides to call it off because he decides it is unprofessional, he is fully responsible and to be condemned and not lauded.
Moral of the story: women get a total free pass short of sexually assaulting barely legal interns in full view of corporate counsel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, I'm not a huge fan of women but none of what you say is remotely true.
This is true.
People who make the "male victimisation" posts are almost always angry men (boys is a better description, regardless of age) who cant form a proper relationship with a woman. They have no idea how to handle them or secretly harbour misogynist desires (much as we aren't surprised when some of the most ardent anti-gays are gay themselves). Given that it's become popular to be a victim, they create elaborate fantasies where someone else is to blame for their problems and how they're the innocent v
Re: (Score:2)
1. Closing the door is dangerous.
2. Not closing the door is sexist because it makes her feel less comfortable having an honest discussion.
3. Women are always to be given the benefit of the doubt when they say something happened.
4. Behind a closed door it's impossible, short of secretly recording (which isn't always legal), for a man to have any evidence to defend himself.
You are just being obtuse. When people say "women should be believed", they don't mean that an accusation is always true, they mean that an accusation should not be dismissed as "she was asking for it" or "it must have been consensual". It should be investigated, which is in everyone's interests, especially people who are falsely accused because it will both clear them and punish malicious accusers.
And before you complain that there is no punishment for lying, tell that to the people in jail for lying about
That is not what they mean by "believe them" (Score:2)
1. It is taken as an axiom of feminist thinking that if women ever lie about such things, it is so rare as to be unworthy of altering public policy. If you tell us you have never seen this sort of thinking you are either too ignorant of feminist arguments to have an opinion worth a damn or you are lying because it is repeated by every major and m
Re: (Score:2)
It is taken as an axiom of feminist thinking that if women ever lie about such things, it is so rare as to be unworthy of altering public policy.
It's impossible to have a debate with you when you think that feminists are inherently dishonest. Your mind is closed and I don't think there is anything I can possibly say to pry it open.
People frequently have their names trashed, even when exonerated, because some bitch or asshole will keep saying "yeah, I bet they did it." I've seen it happen
So maybe instead of demanding that there are no investigations, try to fix that bit. Change attitudes, and get malicious accusations prosecuted. Do something productive instead of just ranting about feminism.
Re: (Score:2)
1. It is taken as an axiom of feminist thinking that if women ever lie about such things, it is so rare as to be unworthy of altering public policy.
Not sure about that, but it is taken as an axiom that people arguing on the internet will simply make whatever shit up that comes into their head if it supports their point.
Re: (Score:3)
Behind a closed door it's impossible, short of secretly recording (which isn't always legal), for a man to have any evidence to defend himself.
My office has glass doors.
Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too (Score:5, Insightful)
All in all it feels like dating in the tech sector has become a serious liability for men when misconduct allegations are essentially a no-win scenario regardless if they're real or made up. When you consider all of this, mail order brides, while still a completely disgusting idea, begin to make some amount of sense.
Re: You can't have your cake and eat it too (Score:2)
Who you can control and dominate
People very seldom do things just because they can. The difference between control and domination by me and by a romantic partner of mine is that I *know* that I'm incapable of it, but I can't really see into the heads of other people.
Re: (Score:2)
As a male feminist I can tell you that is complete crap.
So because you're an ideologue you somehow know better than everyone who isn't an ideologue? Right...
Feminists "understanding masculinity" is about as much of a lie as South Africa's Aparheid policy was about blacks and whites being being "Good Neighbors" to each other. I've never seen self-titled feminists react to male issues being discussed with anything except an attempt to shut down the discussion, either by disingenuously claiming that feminists somehow totally care about these issues they never actua
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen self-titled feminists react to male issues being discussed with anything except an attempt to shut down the discussion
I've discussed such things right here on Slashdot many times. I'm a feminist, and I prove you wrong. Look, here I am, ready to talk about it, no interesting in shutting you down.
Sometimes non-feminists try to shut it down with troll and flamebait mods, but it's not something I've ever attempted to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I've discussed such things right here on Slashdot many times. I'm a feminist, and I prove you wrong.
I sure as hell haven't seen you ever do anything of the sort. In case you're not familiar with your own reputation, you're basically infamous for the kind of dishonesty you showed in your last reply. That dishonesty is why you got downvoted (not by me if you must know, I'm out of mod points).
Look, here I am, ready to talk about it, no interesting in shutting you down
Well I sure has hell didn't get that impression from the way you started going on about how I supposedly don't see any issues in mail order brides when what I actually said was that I'm beginning to understand why peopl
Re: (Score:2)
I sure as hell haven't seen you ever do anything of the sort.
Then you haven't looked. I've discussed it too.
I'll bet you will claim never to have seen that either.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he really didn't, since it often gets modded down. I mean, he didn't bother to check out ask for examples, just went straight to justifying a troll mod. He's clearly not interested in facts or realty.
Re: (Score:2)
I sure as hell haven't seen you ever do anything of the sort.
So basically if you have not personally witnessed it you won't make any effort to check or ask for examples, you will just assume it's a lie. No wonder you think everyone who contradicts you is dishonest.
If you are not going to argue in good faith, you have already lost.
That dishonesty is why you got downvoted
No, it's because snowflakes like you get triggered when people point out that they are wrong, and react by trying to silence their critics.
Re: (Score:2)
Male feminist is the ultimate trigger for right wing snowflakes. It hits all their trigger points:
- Beta
- Cuck
- Feminist
- Progressive
Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too (Score:5, Interesting)
Yea, but then people started getting political protestors fired for going to rallies in their social lives. Taking away people's incomes has been the new weapon of the left, even when it isn't work related.
Re: (Score:3)
I assume you're talking about the guys that got publicly outed for being tiki nazis? Guess what - it's a business liability to hire a known anti-semite. You're welcome to be one if you want, but don't expect to march down the street yelling "jews will not replace us" without some social and professional consequences. No business or individual with even a modicum of decency will willingly associate with white supremacists.
There's a reason the KKK uses hoods, after all, but hilariously the new generation of T
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Antifa are the new KKK.
Look everybody, we found a Trump supporter!
The KKK is defined by white supremacy, racially motivated lynchings, and racially motivated terror campaigns. Antifa, who have been around since the 40's (and so can't really be the new KKK, since they co-existed alongside them) are defined by opposition to fascism, are politically motivated, and have declared their willingness to use violence in their campaigns against fascism.
The only thing they might have in common is a willingness to use violence. But conservat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When you wear hoods in public to conceal your identity, that means you're the bad guys.
SWAT officers wear balaclavas. Are they the bad guys? Stop using juvenile definitions to try to make it seem like you have a point.
Using violence to stop people from speaking isn't fighting fascism, it is fascism!
Anti-fascists are LITERALLY in direct opposition to fascism. Don't you realize that your own words directly contradict themselves? Or do you have retardation so profound that what you wrote makes sense to you?
Fascism:a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your vigorous defense of the indefensible makes me think you're one of the two.
I'm not in any way defending antifa - I'm calling you out for arbitrarily redefining words. Anti-fascists are not fascists. Words have meaning. Changing the meaning of words is a classic tactic of authoritarian propagandists - do you realize that you're operating out of Stalin's playbook right now? War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Anti-fascism is fascism.
Using violence to stop people from speaking isn't fighting fascism, it is fascism.
Holy shit. Using violence to oppose fascists is not fascism. You might want to call it political terrorism, or criminal activity - but it isn't fascism
Re: (Score:3)
The idea that there are two types of fascism, fascism and anti-fascism, isn't an idea I came up with and I'm shocked that you're unaware of that. It's by Ennio Flaiano, who wrote La Dolce Vita, 8 1/2, and the bon mot "I got so upset I couldn't sleep the whole afternoon." He knew far more about the topic than any American wannabe will ever.
Silencing freedom of speech is what fascists do. When you use fascism to fight fascism, you become a fascist yourself. This isn't new either, he who fights monsters mu
Re: (Score:2)
Antifa are the new KKK.
James Fields, the cretin that drove his car into a bunch of protesters opposing a white supremacists rally was antifa? How about the people who beat up the black person in Charlottesville, were they Antifa?
How hard do you need to work to keep reality at bay to keep spouting absolute bollocks like that.
People like you make me happy that the far right is failing in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, but then people started getting political protestors fired for going to rallies in their social lives. Taking away people's incomes has been the new weapon of the left, even when it isn't work related.
Its been going on since the 30's and you misspelled the "right".
In the 50's, the mere accusation of being a communist was enough not just to get you fired, but to have your entire life turned upside down in a witch hunt.
Now days we're enlightened enough that only the extremists are fired, if these are all on the "right", then you need to ask yourself why are all the extremists on the far right?
Re: (Score:2)
Power corrupts, I guess? (Score:2)
I think if this keeps up, they're going to eventually hit every male executive in every company.
It must be a power thing...I've never worked in a department with someone who was crazy enough to get involved with a work relationship, especially the superior-and-subordinate kind. I've worked with salespeople in some aspects of my work -- those guys, even at the non-exec level, always pegged the slimebag-meter so I wouldn't be surprised if sales orgs get cleaned out as well. What's interesting is that I've alw
Who? (Score:2)
What is "Essential"? I have never heard of this company before, and I have no idea what kind of relationship it would have with Google. Just because it's familiar to the submitter doesn't mean the rest of Slashdot has any clue about it!
Also, ho hum, another domino falls.
Re: (Score:3)
PastIsPast (Score:2)
Re: Ho Hum (Score:5, Insightful)
He had a consensual relationship with someone. He was deemed to have never interacted inappropriately or caused any harassment. Their relationship violated a company policy that saw him requested to part. This isnâ(TM)t sexual harassment. You people on a witch hunt are going to seriously screw up a lot of lives before you finally stop this. It helps to read.
Re: Ho Hum (Score:5, Insightful)
"a woman who worked under him and filed a complaint to HR."
Sounds like there's probably some disagreement about whether it was a mutual relationship or not. If it was just a violation of company policy, the woman wouldn't exactly be lining up to report it herself.
Both outcomes are plausible, Rubin claiming it was mutual to save his reputation despite it not being harassment, or a sour end to a consensual relationship that caused the woman to file a complaint and screw things up for Rubin.
We have about 0 data to go on to make an intelligent call here.
Don't blame her (Score:4, Funny)
"a woman who worked under him and filed a complaint to HR."
She was expected to work at the same time! Now that is unreasonable
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's George Takei.
Re: (Score:2)
Why yes, thanks for pointing out that minorities are heavily underrepresented in executive positions at tech companies.
Re: Ho Hum (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Ho Hum (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we just talk about this issue please?
When people say that the victim should be believed, what they mean is that the assumption by those responsible for investigating should be that they are not lying and the claims should be checked out. It doesn't mean an assumption of guilt, merely that the claims are worth checking out (with consequences if they are malicious).
All too often victims are told that they must have been "asking for it" or simply fobbed off and then decades later 20 of them come forward with the same story.
Of course it's important for the investigation to be fair. Ideally the accused should remain anonymous initially. Unfortunately this tendency to dismiss potential victims means that eventually one is forced to go public and hope others also come forward, which is bad for everyone involved. If the accused is innocent they suffer reputation damage that an investigation could have avoided, and the lack of investigation often means that they are unable to clear their name definitively.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't actually responding to that post.
Re: (Score:2)
"a woman who worked under him and filed a complaint to HR."
Sounds like there's probably some disagreement about whether it was a mutual relationship or not. If it was just a violation of company policy, the woman wouldn't exactly be lining up to report it herself.
Both outcomes are plausible, Rubin claiming it was mutual to save his reputation despite it not being harassment, or a sour end to a consensual relationship that caused the woman to file a complaint and screw things up for Rubin.
We have about 0 data to go on to make an intelligent call here.
One of those options is more likely than the other, because if it wasn't a mutual relationship then it was an assault (or a series of them), and that makes it a crime that Google's HR would have had to report to the nearest police station; they don't get the option of investigating internally instead of calling the cops.
As of writing no crime has been reported, ergo it was a mutual relationship.
Re: Ho Hum (Score:4, Insightful)
He had a consensual relationship with someone.
Who was his subordinate. Forget whether or not that's ethical for a minute: it's a fucking stupid move. A CEO having a relationship with an employee = a big liability and terrible PR.
If Rubin had decided "Hey, we don't need to secure user data," what would slashdot's response be? Probably that he shouldn't be in charge of anything beyond a mop.
That's the level of stupidity we're dealing with here.
If you're defending this moronic decision, I have to ask why. Is it because it involves a personal fantasy of yours (eg "having a relationship with a woman")? Is it because this (gasp) is kinda-sorta-almost a progressive thing of maybe female employees are there to do a job, not for sex?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So your argument is either that women don't have a brain in their head, or that they don't have the responsibility to choose their sexual partners without your approval.
Re: (Score:2)
No, his argument is that when your boss tries to start a relationship with you it puts you in a very difficult position. If you say no, there could be retribution. Some people, especially younger ones, don't handle it very well. We have seen that with Kevin Spacey debacle and the young men working under him.
In the end she went to HR. We don't know more than that at this point, but it's not hard to imagine that it was because she refused him or broke off the relationship and suffered retribution. I'm not say
Re: Ho Hum (Score:2)
No, his argument is that when your boss tries to start a relationship with you it puts you in a very difficult position. If you say no, there could be retribution.
And it goes the other way round, too. One can't really win this.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like false accusations of rape: yes, bad, but pretending the extremely rare reverse situations balance out for the extremely common forward situations is idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't rocket science.
Again I have to ask why slashdotters are so anxious to make excuses for behavior that is idiotic. Is the only way YOU can get sex to use authority at work?
Re: (Score:2)
A CEO having a relationship with an employee = a big liability and terrible PR.
Unless they marry later (having both been already single, etc.). Then it's the feel good love story of the year.
Re: (Score:3)
I've worked for very big, very follow-the-rules companies for a long time. Almost every place I've been has had compulsory sexual harassment training regardless of whether or not we're too busy to harass anyone. And almost every place has a written policy banning relationships with subordinates, or puts so many rules around them that it's crazy to bother with them. The norm for big companies is also a zero-tolerance policy...if anyone reports anything, it's very likely that the company will cut the accused
Re: (Score:3)
He had a consensual relationship with someone. He was deemed to have never interacted inappropriately or caused any harassment. Their relationship violated a company policy that saw him requested to part. This isnâ(TM)t sexual harassment. You people on a witch hunt are going to seriously screw up a lot of lives before you finally stop this. It helps to read.
The word consensual should always be air-quoted when describing an inherently superior-subordinate relationship. That's why statutory rape is a law, even if the relationship is claimed to be consensual. That's why the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits an officer from having sexual relationships with an enlisted member in all circumstances. That's why some companies have rules against these types of relationships. There is an implicit inability to freely consent for someone in a subordinate posi
Re: (Score:2)
-1, Liar
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Andy Rubin is one of the biggest names in tech. This is essentially the downfall of Essential. It won't survive this.
How will this affect the price of my 1986 Andy Rubin rookie year tech collector's card?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll swap you a Hans Reiser ... for it.
Signed? In 'red ink'?
Re: (Score:2)
Is the McAfee signed by him, or his hooker, or his accountant? I'm still looking for one with the accountant's signature, but can trade you a foil "hooker-signed" for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Essential was the downfall of Essential. It was never going to survive.
Re: Why is it on Slashdot? (Score:3)
Andy Rubin is one of the biggest names in tech.
Funny, when people say "one of the biggest names", I always think of Watt, Otto, Diesel, Siemens, Edison...as in, who the hell is this Rubin?
Re: (Score:3)
The scandal angle I don’t care to read here, but hearing that a famous founder of a company is “taking a leave of absence” just a few weeks after the launch of their much-hyped device? That’s news for nerds, since it’s a klaxon call for anyone still working at Essential to abandon ship, and it’s a signal to the rest of us that Essential is essentially done at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that note has already gone out [androidauthority.com].
Re:Why is it on Slashdot? (Score:4, Funny)
You should go and make your own news site, with hookers, and blackjack!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because 'Essential' had basically one big selling point for it: From the big Android guy formerly of Google. Without that, all that venture capital will stall out and the company is pretty well doomed, as they don't have a sustainable business model yet and need the investment to keep going.
Re:2018, Year of the Women (Score:4, Funny)
2018, Year of the Women
That sounds more fun than the year of the Linux Desktop
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Many folks on the left aren't actually ideological - they enjoy power and the trappings of power and just hitched their sails to where the wind was blowing. They don't actually believe in the social justice B.S. and powerful men without morals will use the women as their personal harems if they can regardless of their ideological bent.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of curious how most of the people getting shitcanned for pussy grabbing (Harvey Weinstein, Rob Malda, Al Franken, John Conyors, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, etc) are liberals.
I'm not saying conservatives don't like pussy. But they get busted for it. Liberals have been getting a free pass (Bill Clinton much) for years and now the bill is coming due.
The current outpouring of sexual harassment accusations are primarily focused against politicians, Hollywood, and the press. It's not surprising that most of those accused would have Democratic leaning views considering the demographics of those groups. As for politicians, there are plenty of Republicans being accused such as Trump, Moore, and Bush Sr.
This is not a partisan issue. This is a gender issue.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bush Sr. story was hilarious. He's sitting in a wheelchair for a photo op, and while posing he says "Hey, you know my favorite magician? David Cop-a-feel," and he grabs some ass. I mean, come on!
Re: Matt Lauer says (Score:3)
This is a gender issue.
It's not even that, any man or woman can get harassed by any other man or woman.
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothetical paranoid anti-feminist fears verses the actual laws against gender based discrimination.
Re: (Score:2)
-1, Misogynistic
Re: (Score:2)
Since all the people getting accused and sued are men I'd suggest the risk involves hiring men.
No need to ban guns or Muslims, just ban men and build a wall to keep them out and crime would drop like a rock in the US.
Re:Women are becoming a liability . (Score:4, Informative)
Define "safe". I see lots of police shooting unarmed black men in the news.
No, actually you don't see a lot of that. You've seen a few instances of that. What you don't see in the news is the even greater number of white men shot by police.
Re: (Score:2)
Without Googling it, list 5 instances of "unarmed black men" being shot or killed by police.
Now, without Googling it, list 5 instances of "unarmed white men" being shot or killed by police. I'll even give credit for "Hispanic white men".
That fact is that not many unarmed people are actually shot or killed by police, out of a population of over 300 million. However, lately nearly every instance of an unarmed black man being shot or killed is trumpeted across the internet and nightly news as if it's an epidem
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you post the actual statistic, then we could see if there is a particular problem for black guys or not.
Re: (Score:2)
What matters is the probability of a black man being shot by police vs. the probability of a white man being shot by police.
Why does that matter? Seems like it matters more about the probability of a criminal being shot by police vs a non-criminal. And blacks are overrepresented as criminals. So it stands to reason they will be shot at a proportion higher than their share of the general population.
Re: (Score:2)
When did Judge Moore start posting on Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
I have. I do. I worked in a company where the boss' wife was the accountant. I worked where the other dev guy was the son. My current employer is nepotism central. Sons, daughters friends all come and go.
That's small family businesses for you. SME sector is full of this. But you know I'll go half way with you on your point.
If the person doing the job is doing a good job, their pay and bonus structure is none of my business. It is my business to make sure that I am remunerated appropriately for my skillset a