I'm not a fan of F1 ("televised traffic" as one comedian described it), but this did trigger a memory of visiting my older cousin's house in the late 1970's. She was employed as a model by a brand of cigarettes which sponsored one of the leading F1 teams at the time, and earned good money for doing little more than draping herself across the bonnet of a fast car and smiling, which - for a not particularly bright council house girl - wasn't the worst fate imaginable. Through this, she met and married one of the tobacco company advertising executives and lived in the luxurious (if rather Austin Powers styled) house I visited, shortly before they both moved to California and a life unimaginable to her siblings.
Feminists, naturally, would see this as a story of exploitation and objectification. From what I recall of my cousin, she was a sassy and vivacious young woman in full control of her destiny. The male gaze only seems to be a problem to women who never attract it.
Two people had an awkward, tawdry affair so a man and an entire sport need to be blamed for it. Never mind that the woman acted like a typical homewrecking whore on the lookout for some other woman's successful husband. That doesn't matter at all, in the final analysis.
"No matter the findings of the investigation, a very powerful man in F1 acted in a way that made a subordinate woman uncomfortable enough to report his behavior and seek redress, and that is a power imbalance that F1 needs to address if it intends to continue its current growth.”
Interesting how this logic is never applied when the woman is the person in power.
There is a simple solution to this problem. Apply the logic of adultery. Adultery is a 2 way street. In a case like this, any misconduct was mutually engaged in and thus any punishment must be shared. So...if Horner must be sanctioned...so must Hewitson. Frankly, an even better response would be to follow up on that sanction by barring male drivers/teams from hiring women at all...and vice versa. Women won't be harassed in the workplace if they aren't present at all. At this point, why would anyone hire or even be willing to work around women?!
It looks to me as if Hewitson's primary intention was to break the marriage apart and become the wife. She offered sex in order to bait the trap, but lost interest when she had to face the fact that he wasn't going to leave his wife.
Plan B: get a consolation prize by filing a complaint and characterizing herself as a victim.
The most prudent advice I ever heard in my 42 years in HR in corporate America on the topic was from an old Egyptian Auditor who often quoted Egyptian market place sayings including “Never get your meat where you get your potatoes.” A bit crude but it makes the point. Sexual harassment in the US is whatever the woman says it is. Her willing initial participation has no bearing.
“Having women work with men is like having a grizzly bear work with salmon…dipped in honey.”
Of all the tropes, buzzwords, and feminist-inspired jargon that exist in the modern world, and specifically surround these type of cases, “power imbalance” has to among the most ridiculous and nauseating.
Evidently, I’m just supposed to pretend that men in positions of power and authority within these teams/organizations are just imposing their will upon poor, unwilling damsels in distress. These women play absolutely no part in their involvement with these men, all of whom - completely coincidentally - seem to be several rungs above them on the corporate ladder or organizational hierarchy. Furthermore, they posses no power, influence or agency in any situation involving them.
Their alleged powerlessness relieves them of any complicity. It’s the gender relations version of “racial minorities can’t be racist.”
How great would it be to invoke the concept of “power imbalance” when a female team executive is caught fucking the team bus driver, or perhaps the guy who replaces the urinal cakes in the locker room?
Something tells me I’ll be waiting a while.
It’s like mom used to say:
“Wish in one hand, shit in the other…see which one fills up faster.”
This: "The story does not deserve to be public business.."
not until it is proven that he is/was guilty...
The Media think they are the moral compass for the whole of Mankind. They are nothing but immoral, unethical shit stirrers and the worst thing I can think of is: 1. we/I put up with it, 2. our leaders allow them to keep naming and shaming before the person is proven, at least, guilty by a court.
It is the Colosseum in Rome, all over again.. theatre sports. Throwing humans to the Lions for cheap entertainment.
I'm delighted to discover that there is a name, "grumble bragging," for the outlandish self-congratulatory and yet victim-baiting sport where women--often not great beauty queens--lament the degree of infatuation they inspire in all men who cast their gaze upon them. I've worked with many women--some of whom I've even considered friends--who engage in this ridiculous conduct. In most instances, it's difficult for me to believe that they construed the slightest gesture or facial expression from a man as evidence of his burning lust for them. I'm all in favor of body positivity, but is the female (feminist) ego so radicalized that these women feel comfortable making such preposterous claims and attributing libidinous intentions to any man who happens to enter their visual field? Any man would be laughed out of the room for making analogous allegations about women's uncontrollable desire for them, but the practice seems to go unchecked for women, regardless of their age or appearance. In the most heartbreaking instance, I saw a colleague--a beautifully kind-hearted man--suffer a stroke and soon after pass away when a female colleague (who should have been thrilled if there's a man anywhere on the planet who would get turned on by looking at her) targeted him with this pernicious game.
Blackstock, who writes about autoracing for Jalopnik, a website about automobiles that hates automobiles. Sister (sibling, I supposed we have to say now) website to the late Jezebel and now sold-off Deadspin.
It's a whole media empire based on hysterical bigotry, misery and general unhappiness. When I used to read thar family of websites it struck me just unhappy the tone was of nearly every article. No wonder they're failing even without the lawsuits.
I guess it's just part of Left culture to complain endlessly. I got tired of it.
" If it’s a field that men built and enjoy, it must be in need of a shame-filled reckoning. " Spot on once again. Women think that they deserve the fruits of men's labor, and they whine and shame and threaten when they don't get it. Men invented automobiles and pioneered automobile racing, so how is it that they are obligated to share it with women?
In this case like many other similar ones, it seems to me the most unethical behaviour was that of the complainant who deliberately made public a relationship that she willingly engaged in under a verbal or at least implied and clearly understood contract of privacy. Such breaches of confidentiality have been occurring even when women have accepted large amounts of money for which they signed agreements to remain silent about certain matters. To then go public about those matters is violent treachery yet feminists and journalists avoid acknowledging the woman's wrongdoing, rather they exalt her as some brave flag bearer.
Sure, if laws were broken by an accused, that may void any actual or implied contract of confidentiality but that is rarely the case. Even then, accepting money for promising to keep quiet about past events and moreover later breaking that promise will often be more serious in both wrongdoing and harm caused than the alleged offending was. In addition, the complainant's motivation (e.g. greed, jealousy, revenge for rejection) will often add another layer of ignobility.
There is currently no law against having an extramarital affair (for either party) or for a workplace relationship other than one involving coercion. With regard to a heterosexual workplace relationship that left the woman aggrieved over it ending, feminists treat it as a crime committed by the man but usually no crime was committed at all. With regard to extramarital affairs, modern marriage and relationship laws don't acknowledge the breach of contract involved, at least when a woman does it in either role. (This calls into question the point of marriage now; it's not even a contract.) Instead, Courts will assert the woman's rights as an autonomous individual and will pay lip service to the impact of her betrayal on her husband, indeed more likely punishing him for the emotional abuse of objecting to her behaviour. Other women will claim that it's unreasonable to deny a woman the right to act on her passion regardless of past promises. Not so much for the cheating man though. He should have kept it in his pants, his wife the betrayed damsel in distress must be rescued, her forms of violent objection empathized with and forgiven, or when the man was in the other role as a wife's secret lover he was probably responsible for leading her astray.
I am in favour of laws against marital unfaithfulness involving sex with another person, for both (or all) parties involved unless the married couple have signed a lawful contract to permit open relationship. Law defines and enforces morals as its main purpose so why not that? The harm from marital infidelity is great on partners and especially children suffering broken families. I don't advocate severe punishments, on the contrary, perhaps comparable to that for a moderate traffic violation. However, the fact a law was broken should be on a person's record to warn future potential partners and taken into account in relationship property settlements and other situations. I am also in favour of treating marriage as a contract, for such contracts to be individually tailored to each relationship according to the wishes of the parties (based on a standard, default contract), with clear penalties for breaches as is the case for business and other contracts. Most people will disagree with me about all this; fair enough, we're all entitled to our opinions, but I believe honest, full consideration would lead them to the same conclusions.
I am reminded of the big story breaking this week – that whole Fani Willis/Nathan Wade saga. And I am confounded by the fact that the balance of power angle has never been in play in that case, presumably because of the assumption there can’t possibly have been any coercion on Willis' part. Yet when the man is the one with the power to hire and fire, it is always assumed that he has to have used coercion to get an employee to sleep with him.
So here we have a story about a workplace affair that has gotten wall to wall attention across the entire media spectrum, and not a word has been said throughout the many weeks the story has been in the news, about the power imbalance in their relationship.
What I like about Fiamengo articles (aside from the content) is how she scrupulously cites sources--with internal links--for all her important claims. Unfortunately, that habit is all too rare in social media.
While I think Pense is a RINO,
I think his attitude to female staff is 100% correct.
Never have dealings with them unless totally necessary.
If you need a 24 hr PA use a dude.
We can no longer trust women not to destroy our lives on a whim.
I'm not a fan of F1 ("televised traffic" as one comedian described it), but this did trigger a memory of visiting my older cousin's house in the late 1970's. She was employed as a model by a brand of cigarettes which sponsored one of the leading F1 teams at the time, and earned good money for doing little more than draping herself across the bonnet of a fast car and smiling, which - for a not particularly bright council house girl - wasn't the worst fate imaginable. Through this, she met and married one of the tobacco company advertising executives and lived in the luxurious (if rather Austin Powers styled) house I visited, shortly before they both moved to California and a life unimaginable to her siblings.
Feminists, naturally, would see this as a story of exploitation and objectification. From what I recall of my cousin, she was a sassy and vivacious young woman in full control of her destiny. The male gaze only seems to be a problem to women who never attract it.
Two people had an awkward, tawdry affair so a man and an entire sport need to be blamed for it. Never mind that the woman acted like a typical homewrecking whore on the lookout for some other woman's successful husband. That doesn't matter at all, in the final analysis.
"No matter the findings of the investigation, a very powerful man in F1 acted in a way that made a subordinate woman uncomfortable enough to report his behavior and seek redress, and that is a power imbalance that F1 needs to address if it intends to continue its current growth.”
Interesting how this logic is never applied when the woman is the person in power.
There is a simple solution to this problem. Apply the logic of adultery. Adultery is a 2 way street. In a case like this, any misconduct was mutually engaged in and thus any punishment must be shared. So...if Horner must be sanctioned...so must Hewitson. Frankly, an even better response would be to follow up on that sanction by barring male drivers/teams from hiring women at all...and vice versa. Women won't be harassed in the workplace if they aren't present at all. At this point, why would anyone hire or even be willing to work around women?!
It looks to me as if Hewitson's primary intention was to break the marriage apart and become the wife. She offered sex in order to bait the trap, but lost interest when she had to face the fact that he wasn't going to leave his wife.
Plan B: get a consolation prize by filing a complaint and characterizing herself as a victim.
It all looks completely calculated.
The most prudent advice I ever heard in my 42 years in HR in corporate America on the topic was from an old Egyptian Auditor who often quoted Egyptian market place sayings including “Never get your meat where you get your potatoes.” A bit crude but it makes the point. Sexual harassment in the US is whatever the woman says it is. Her willing initial participation has no bearing.
“Having women work with men is like having a grizzly bear work with salmon…dipped in honey.”
Of all the tropes, buzzwords, and feminist-inspired jargon that exist in the modern world, and specifically surround these type of cases, “power imbalance” has to among the most ridiculous and nauseating.
Evidently, I’m just supposed to pretend that men in positions of power and authority within these teams/organizations are just imposing their will upon poor, unwilling damsels in distress. These women play absolutely no part in their involvement with these men, all of whom - completely coincidentally - seem to be several rungs above them on the corporate ladder or organizational hierarchy. Furthermore, they posses no power, influence or agency in any situation involving them.
Their alleged powerlessness relieves them of any complicity. It’s the gender relations version of “racial minorities can’t be racist.”
How great would it be to invoke the concept of “power imbalance” when a female team executive is caught fucking the team bus driver, or perhaps the guy who replaces the urinal cakes in the locker room?
Something tells me I’ll be waiting a while.
It’s like mom used to say:
“Wish in one hand, shit in the other…see which one fills up faster.”
This: "The story does not deserve to be public business.."
not until it is proven that he is/was guilty...
The Media think they are the moral compass for the whole of Mankind. They are nothing but immoral, unethical shit stirrers and the worst thing I can think of is: 1. we/I put up with it, 2. our leaders allow them to keep naming and shaming before the person is proven, at least, guilty by a court.
It is the Colosseum in Rome, all over again.. theatre sports. Throwing humans to the Lions for cheap entertainment.
I'm delighted to discover that there is a name, "grumble bragging," for the outlandish self-congratulatory and yet victim-baiting sport where women--often not great beauty queens--lament the degree of infatuation they inspire in all men who cast their gaze upon them. I've worked with many women--some of whom I've even considered friends--who engage in this ridiculous conduct. In most instances, it's difficult for me to believe that they construed the slightest gesture or facial expression from a man as evidence of his burning lust for them. I'm all in favor of body positivity, but is the female (feminist) ego so radicalized that these women feel comfortable making such preposterous claims and attributing libidinous intentions to any man who happens to enter their visual field? Any man would be laughed out of the room for making analogous allegations about women's uncontrollable desire for them, but the practice seems to go unchecked for women, regardless of their age or appearance. In the most heartbreaking instance, I saw a colleague--a beautifully kind-hearted man--suffer a stroke and soon after pass away when a female colleague (who should have been thrilled if there's a man anywhere on the planet who would get turned on by looking at her) targeted him with this pernicious game.
Blackstock, who writes about autoracing for Jalopnik, a website about automobiles that hates automobiles. Sister (sibling, I supposed we have to say now) website to the late Jezebel and now sold-off Deadspin.
It's a whole media empire based on hysterical bigotry, misery and general unhappiness. When I used to read thar family of websites it struck me just unhappy the tone was of nearly every article. No wonder they're failing even without the lawsuits.
I guess it's just part of Left culture to complain endlessly. I got tired of it.
" If it’s a field that men built and enjoy, it must be in need of a shame-filled reckoning. " Spot on once again. Women think that they deserve the fruits of men's labor, and they whine and shame and threaten when they don't get it. Men invented automobiles and pioneered automobile racing, so how is it that they are obligated to share it with women?
In this case like many other similar ones, it seems to me the most unethical behaviour was that of the complainant who deliberately made public a relationship that she willingly engaged in under a verbal or at least implied and clearly understood contract of privacy. Such breaches of confidentiality have been occurring even when women have accepted large amounts of money for which they signed agreements to remain silent about certain matters. To then go public about those matters is violent treachery yet feminists and journalists avoid acknowledging the woman's wrongdoing, rather they exalt her as some brave flag bearer.
Sure, if laws were broken by an accused, that may void any actual or implied contract of confidentiality but that is rarely the case. Even then, accepting money for promising to keep quiet about past events and moreover later breaking that promise will often be more serious in both wrongdoing and harm caused than the alleged offending was. In addition, the complainant's motivation (e.g. greed, jealousy, revenge for rejection) will often add another layer of ignobility.
There is currently no law against having an extramarital affair (for either party) or for a workplace relationship other than one involving coercion. With regard to a heterosexual workplace relationship that left the woman aggrieved over it ending, feminists treat it as a crime committed by the man but usually no crime was committed at all. With regard to extramarital affairs, modern marriage and relationship laws don't acknowledge the breach of contract involved, at least when a woman does it in either role. (This calls into question the point of marriage now; it's not even a contract.) Instead, Courts will assert the woman's rights as an autonomous individual and will pay lip service to the impact of her betrayal on her husband, indeed more likely punishing him for the emotional abuse of objecting to her behaviour. Other women will claim that it's unreasonable to deny a woman the right to act on her passion regardless of past promises. Not so much for the cheating man though. He should have kept it in his pants, his wife the betrayed damsel in distress must be rescued, her forms of violent objection empathized with and forgiven, or when the man was in the other role as a wife's secret lover he was probably responsible for leading her astray.
I am in favour of laws against marital unfaithfulness involving sex with another person, for both (or all) parties involved unless the married couple have signed a lawful contract to permit open relationship. Law defines and enforces morals as its main purpose so why not that? The harm from marital infidelity is great on partners and especially children suffering broken families. I don't advocate severe punishments, on the contrary, perhaps comparable to that for a moderate traffic violation. However, the fact a law was broken should be on a person's record to warn future potential partners and taken into account in relationship property settlements and other situations. I am also in favour of treating marriage as a contract, for such contracts to be individually tailored to each relationship according to the wishes of the parties (based on a standard, default contract), with clear penalties for breaches as is the case for business and other contracts. Most people will disagree with me about all this; fair enough, we're all entitled to our opinions, but I believe honest, full consideration would lead them to the same conclusions.
Feminists have produced DNA evidence. Anyone with a Y chromosome is a rapist...
Feminist philosophers debate: if a man is alone in a forest and says something and no one hears him, is he still wrong?
I am reminded of the big story breaking this week – that whole Fani Willis/Nathan Wade saga. And I am confounded by the fact that the balance of power angle has never been in play in that case, presumably because of the assumption there can’t possibly have been any coercion on Willis' part. Yet when the man is the one with the power to hire and fire, it is always assumed that he has to have used coercion to get an employee to sleep with him.
So here we have a story about a workplace affair that has gotten wall to wall attention across the entire media spectrum, and not a word has been said throughout the many weeks the story has been in the news, about the power imbalance in their relationship.
What I like about Fiamengo articles (aside from the content) is how she scrupulously cites sources--with internal links--for all her important claims. Unfortunately, that habit is all too rare in social media.
Two adults were romantically involved. The man was professionally successful. When they split up, the man is deemed a sexual harasser.