Roy Wood Jr. has a new, interesting perspective on inappropriate dating conduct.
This NYT story about Keith Ellison, Jesus…it feels a lot like the #MeToo movement has devolved into gossipy bullshit masquerading as real news.
Of course fiction is different in that it’s fiction.
Now that is an essay that shows what essays should be like. Nuanced, articulate, well structured, personal, researched, the whole ball of wax. I am very glad you posted it, Nesrie – thank you.
Here’s her other New Yorker essay:
Reading her essays just reminds me how it bothers me when people have strong opinions about how women ought to react to #metoo when those people don’t have any experiences that come within a mile of the stories that Molly Ringwold tells.
Agreed, that was an excellent read.
Yep, I read that back in April and thought it was really interesting and insightful.
Ah yes.
Blaming victims for just wanting attention.
Look at how famous and rich all those victims are now as a result.
Oh wait
I thought maybe drax was referring to the media outlets not the women who came forward.
Quite the opposite, those women got a heaping helping of shit sandwich to go with their so-called justice.
I took the context that seemed to flow from his posts:
“Why didn’t those women do anything??” —> “they just wanted attention”
But I’d be very happy if I’m wrong.
It’s a little iffy to let yourself think that way, but some stories do give off a hint of attention-seeking. I’d put Aziz Ansari’s date in that category. But I don’t get that feeling from any of the women who saw Louis CK’s private one-man show. On the contrary!
I think that what Olivia Munn did was a pretty shitty thing to do. I’m not surprised her co-workers are rightfully showing their displeasure. Penalizing this guy, his friend (the director) and forcing the studio to apologize/cut the scene for an offense that was committed (reportedly) a decade ago, for which the guy has already served his sentence for and has not re-offended.
Is there not such a thing as a second chance?
Does redemption not exist?
I think she made a good point:
If someone wants to share their platform and their power with someone who went to prison for hurting a child, once they’ve gotten out of prison, they’ve served their time, they are allowed to be back out in society, that’s their choice if they want to help that person. I wasn’t given that choice; that decision was made for me. My choice will always be to never give a second chance to anyone who hurts a child or an animal.
That should be her choice to make.
My feeling is that the article was more about revenge and to gain attention. I don’t think there was any need to make such events public when the matter could have been dealt with privately. My entire problem with going to the press is that the mob becomes judge, jury and executioner. There can be no moderate response and without moderation there is only revenge, not justice.
It should absolutely not be her choice to make. It is the companies decision and they should be legally prevented from releasing any details about previous/spent convictions of any employees precisely so that these situations can be avoided.
Obviously it is also the businesses responsibility to protect their employees. So if they have hired a registered sex offended and that person then acts inappropriately then it is the businesses responsibility to deal with it.
You cannot have employees making unilateral decisions based on another employees previous history. Period.
Should a school be able to secretly hire a registered sex offender to teach your kids? It’s a tough question, sure, but that’s the way to think about it.
I should clarify this statement:
If an employee does something criminal then it should be dealt with by the police.
If an employee does something a bit creepy (read possibly inappropriate but not criminal) then it is the employers responsibility to deal with it (and to protect their employees - all of their employees)
The difficulty is that if you don’t allow these people to work how can they successfully be rehabilitated and rejoin society?
A school is a difficult one because obviously there a lot of checks in place to prevent this from occurring. I guess my answer would be: Past offenders (who have served their sentence) should be legally allowed to be employed by schools.
However, would any school knowingly hire one?
If I were an HR person in a school then I definitely wouldn’t hire any past sex offenders.
In the UK, there is a specific check done on school applicants regarding sexual history.
It’s not enough to not have a criminal record.
Also, not to start another, tangential flame war etc, but his crime was sending sexually charged emails to a minor.
I’m not condoning it, because it’s just weird (understatement. I mean…seriously, who does that?)…but is it criminal?
Clearly it is, otherwise he wouldn’t have a criminal record. He could have been propositioning the 14 year old for sex or something of that nature.