2611 Before you forgive, know what you are forgiving!

 Monday, October 5, 2009

L. Long: "Anyone who considers protocol unimportant

has never dealt with a cat."

---------------------------------------------

I rarely comment on anything that's going on beyond my sphere, because it can cause arguments in the comments, and I don't want to get into that.  But I don't have many commenters anyway, so I'll chance it.

I was watching the news (oops, "news") this morning, and the first item was David Letterman's recent admission, followed by Jon and Kate Gosselin's latest spat, then Michelle Obama's exercise routine, then I forget what was next, but it was definitely not what I tune in to the news for.  Is nothing else happening in the world?  Do I really have to go to the BBC to get US and world news?

The talk shows this morning were also full of Letterman and the Gosselins, but that's ok.  That's where one should expect to hear that kind of "news".

Most people commenting on the Letterman thing despise the blackmailer, but seem to see nothing wrong with what Letterman had done.  Like, "Well, he was single then" (as if infidelity was the issue), and "Coworkers date all the time", and "He's rich and famous and fun - who wouldn't want to date him", and "What's the big deal?"  I think any woman who doesn't understand what's wrong must have entered her working life after woman's lib, after recognition of such things as sexual harassment, and they've never experienced what can occur.  Kathie Lee and Hoda seem to have understood the issues, and now they're getting slammed in comments on their website.

It reminds me of the Polanski thing, people who want to excuse a man who raped a child and then jumped bail simply because they like his movies.  Please! 

I've copied a comment I left on another blog:

I'm a little upset at the "what's the big deal" attitude [re Letterman]. Yeah, he's rich and powerful and probably fun, and a woman might flirt and invite attention. But even if that's what was going on, it's still not ok.

Most companies have rules about relationships between people in the workplace in the "line of command", and for good reason. When someone has control of your job, your appraisals, your paycheck, acquiescence to advances is not always voluntary. This was a huge problem in the '50s and '60s, before such rules were in place. Back then, if a superior made unwelcome advances, a woman's only choice was to give in or quit the job.

In the Very Large Computer Manufacturer I used to work for, if a manager wanted to date someone who reported to him or her at any level, the underling had to be transferred to another area first. Otherwise, both would be fired, and it DID happen. Even husbands and wives working as peers had to be separated by at least two levels of management.

Any time one person has control over another's livelihood and employment, there's an element of coercion. If not to start, then at the end, and the coercion can go either way. It might start out consensual, but what if you want to end it and he doesn't? Does servicing the boss become part of your job description?

So far, no woman has come forward to say she felt coerced. But the power threat is still there - "if you want to continue in the job, keep your mouth shut".

Yeah, I think this is a big deal.

 I think that about covers it.