Comments on: On Second Thought, I’ll Have The Kibbeh

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:17:19 +0000

I know a young woman who found herself in a similar situation. She also tape recorded several conversations, including one she had with HR folks who told her she was wrong, the stuff she had recorded hadn’t happened. Of course, they didn’t know she had recorded any of it. She then quit and sued. She had to fire two lawyers who wanted to settle out of court. But any such settlement would have entailed her having to shut up about it. What she wanted is for them to stop it. Not just with her, but with the women who might come after her. And she wanted to be able to talk about it. Because she thought it was wrong. I consider her one of the most courageous people I know, first for putting up with the crap, and second for nailing the bastards.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:02:13 +0000

Winston- I know what you mean. This really is an academic blog. Academia is alot like the army; every few years I get nostalgic for one or the other, but it only takes about ten minutes in the presence of either one to remember why I left. Steve

By: mona

mona — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:10:28 +0000

Last attempt: why does someone who actually wants to keep a job on one of the main news shows of the country bear responsibility if her boss continues to be an asshole, in fact, behaves more and more like an asshole, thereby also infringing the law, in spite of repeated requests to stop that? You have a boss who’s a scumbag. You have the job you want. The laws – as well as common sense – say that it’s the scumbag boss who has to answer legally, professionally and financially for being a scumbag, not you. If nothing detracts from O’Reilly’s scumminess, then nothing detracts from it – not even Mackris failing to be a pure disinterested damsel in distress with no interest for money or career (as if wanting money and a career were flaws).

By: Winston Smith

Winston Smith — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:47:21 +0000

Whew, this discussion is getting too heated for me. I’m outta here. But first, let me make it clear that the only points I’m really committed to are relatively abstract and as follows: (a) One has at least some obligation to stand up for one’s own rights. and (b) If Mackris went BACK to work for O’R KNOWING what a scumbag/sexual harasser he is, then it isn’t clear to me that she bears no responsibility for her situation. This does nothing to detract from O’R’s scumminess.

By: Alison

Alison — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:24:22 +0000

The point steve, if I have to spell it out in full, is that the inevitable uncertainty that underlies human emotional relationships does not give you or anyone else carte blanche to perform sexual acts without invitation. That might make relationships tricky if you take a robustly literal approach. I was making it into a joke, by pretending to take seriously your claim that you didn’t know whether to masturbate in front of other people or not. I thought you were playing along with the joke, but it seems you meant it in deadly earnest from the start. Right. (tiptoes away)

By: mona

mona — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:45:50 +0000

There you go, it is getting more and more pathetic – search google news for all stories with the keyword “mackris” and you come up with some real gems, among which: “Why the Left is targeting Bill O’Reilly” “It’s really blackmail” “Did Mackris Plot to Shake Down FOX?” In which you’ll learn all about Andrea Mackris, nickname “Andrea Mattress”, and how she went back to Fox from CNN with a tape recorder and a brilliant plan to pay off her debts… bq. On Oct. 15,… The New York Post published the headline, ‘Lunatic’ O’Reilly Gal Went Nuts In Bar,” over an article that described Ms. Mackris as having thrown “a hissy fit inside a tony Midtown hotel bar.”… Martin Dunn, deputy publisher and editorial director of The News, suggested in an e-mail message on Friday that The Post _might_ be pulling its punches because the News Corporation owns both The Post and Fox. (The News runs Mr. O’Reilly’s syndicated column on its editorial page.) …Mr. Allan said that he felt no such pressure, and that neither Mr. O’Reilly nor his bosses had sought to influence The Post’s coverage…. “In general terms,” Mr. Allan said of his paper’s coverage, “it’s been pretty fair and balanced.” Having appropriated, however temporarily, the slogan of the Fox News Network, Mr. Allan then treated himself to a sustained laugh. You can’t make this stuff up, it’s pure genius.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:26:06 +0000

Alison- You caught me. Immediately after I sent my email, I thought I had misread the issue. The issue is not that “one can’t be ‘completely sure’ that the other person welcomes your sex talk” (as I said). The issue is really “How can one be ‘completely sure’ that the other person welcomes your sex talk, GIVEN THAT THE OTHER PERSON IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO RESPOND TO AN ADVANCE.” How can ANY level of knowledge of the other person in a sexual relationship exist, if the other person doesn’t (isn’t obligated to)respond to one’s affections? That was my original question. The rest of your comment is just silly. If your standard of behavior in relationships is to be ‘completely sure’ of anything, then you have obviously never been in a relationship. Since I assume that is not the case, you are making an argument that you personally couldn’t possibly take seriously-just scoring points with the feminists on the discussion board. steve

By: mona

mona — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:14:56 +0000

vik: have you actually read the details of the allegations against O’Reilly? Yes, of course the lines can be blurred when it’s stuff like one-off jokes or innuendos that can be meant with no intention to harass, but the line is drawn clearly in any case, even the most “trivial” one, when the person clearly and seriously makes her or his lack of appreciation known. If O’Reilly really did what he did – repeatedly called this woman to subject her to his masturbation fantasies about her and boasted about doing the same to other women and that he’d drag them down if they only attempted to call him on it, etc., everything as is detailed in the papers – then, there is no fucking way he didn’t know where the line was and that he’d crossed it very heavily. This is way beyond silly jokes. Your boss masturbating over the phone to you and explicitely saying if you sleep with him he’d take care of your career. I don’t see what’s blurred about it. We’re not talking all the theoretical cases in which sexual harassment can be alleged when no harassment was meant – yes, in theory, I agree the laws – like any laws – can be abused. We’re talking a specific case. With details that have come out. With an out of court settlement. With tapes that cost him $2 million. I’m not in Mackris’s or O’Reilly’s head. I wasn’t there. But those public facts paint a picture that seems rather clear. It looks most definitely like harassment, and if you accept that everything that was alleged is true, there is no other way to interpret it and no other responsibility but O’Reilly. That is what I meant: if there is harassment, there is no other responsibility than the one who perpetrated it. No, I’m not looking for any mysoginists to attack. I am genuinely sickened by views such as in Cohen’s article (btw, interesting bit of background information, the one posted by Sally, don’t you think?). Any attempt to infer that O’Reilly was naively led into some trap or couldn’t really tell if her subordinate welcomed his behaviour or not and if she really meant it when she said he should stop and stick to professional talk and behaviour are really poor excuses for something that is clearly out of line. I don’t even think this is so much about sexism as power, really. Gee, I’m so sorry to be so “judgemental” about some big megalomaniac hypocrite who stalked his employee with calls where he masturbated while boasting about his experiences with prostitutes. Of course the settlement means O’Reilly had “nothing to gain by prolonging this and substantial amounts to lose” – because prolonging meant that all the details would come out in court hence in the media and on tv as opposed to on a website. Because as long as it’s just an allegation like now, he can dismiss it or say he was stupid or naive or duped – and can even imply he’s really proud of his sexual appetite, the worst that can happen to him is be subject of jokes on the Letterman show. “I just had a call from O’Reilly” is going to be a classic line for a while now. It can’t hurt his popularity among those who already worship him. It won’t add anything much to the dislike those who despise him already feel. But if he went to court, and if there are tapes to be heard, then that’d be a LOT more to explain or dismiss. Compare to Michael Jackson. Again, innocent til proven guilty. But with the information available so far about him and his personality and habits as well as the lawsuits, do you honestly think settling out of court paints a more favourable picture of him? and an unfavourable one of his accusers? Another case of sly extortion? How? did they make it all up? In addition, any feeling that Andrea Mackris is somehow congenitally incapable of seeing that here is a golden opportunity to make a lot of money very easily is highly patronizing to her intelligence and reveals a pretty flawed understanding of human nature Oh really. Well, I actually said, kudos to her for asking for $2 million, actually, even if she’d asked for $60, it still alone wouldn’t be enough to invalidate her claims and the fact O’Reilly felt threatened enough to pay the money. I’m sure she saw the opportunity for that. After the harassment started. Unless you believe she really got him into a trap from the start, plotting all the way, and in theory that is always possible, but I don’t see it in this one case and from the publicly available facts about it. Do you? Are you suggesting she got him to believe she was very turned on by his behaviour, and that when she said “stop” she really meant “ah go on”? So her lawyers submitted false allegations? Or do you simply object to the fact she didn’t sue immediately? Or that she settled for money? I’m not sure what you really object to in her behaviour, but settling for money out of court is allowed by the system. I personally don’t agree with that system, but that’s how it works, and I don’t see how people are to be blamed for doing something they’re perfectly allowed to do – settle for money instead of a trial – while those who did something illegal and unethical as well as unprofessional – harassment – are the victims. That’s turning the whole thing on its head. Finally – yes, I have worked in a real workplace, thanks, and I have known people involved in real harassment cases, both sexual and non-sexual. Luckily nothing too heavy, but very unpleasant all the same. So yeah, that’s also why this whole thing enrages me so much. None of those cases I have had the closest experience of – and even witnessed, in one instance – ever went to court, and you know why? exactly because of the views perpetrated by people like Cohen. Those people didn’t have hard evidence and other people willing to back them up and most of all the financial resources to start a lawsuit, so they were definitely not going to have it that “easy” challenging someone more powerful and risking their entire careers and reputations, and they were not prepared to have people infer some scheming motive if they asked for damages from the company or university. So they put up with it or just changed jobs. I’m sure there’s also instances of those very scheming tactics by which people just make up allegations or plot to frame somebody for money, but going to court is not like firing a gun, it’s a risk. You can’t fool a court that easily if you’ve got nothing but fake charges and a thirst for money. But again, in theory, everything is possible. Why not talk of the real actual case in question?

By: Alison

Alison — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:41:43 +0000

steve said he couldn’t be quite certain whether masturbation was welcome in the workplace ‘completely sure’? Categorically impossible. In a sense of strict epistemology you are probably right. In the sense of knowing how to behave in mixed company, you may be missing the point. But, in cases where you aren’t completely certain that such practices are welcome, the rule is that the risk is borne by the person doing the masturbating, rather than the bystanders.

By: vik

vik — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:33:48 +0000

“I also don’t see what, short of severe neurological disorders, can prevent any person from recognising the clear line between harassment and consensual activity.” Have you ever worked in a real workplace setting? Or even gone through a sexual harassment workshop and actually listened? The workshops will give you plenty of examples of the many many situations where the line is not so clear. We are not all automatons who only act in set patterns and both sides in any relationship may have feelings that change in the middle, conflicting thoughts/actions,, etc. that erase the ‘clear line’ you seem to think exists in your fantasy world. Since you clearly want someone to attack for misogynistic attitudes and no one has yet given you any real material, here goes…Sexual harassment laws are very very vague and in some cases, the claims made under them are ridiculous (ex. a person tells a sexual joke to a colleague while on break and a coworker passes by who overhears it—that is sexual harassment on par with saying “Sleep with me or you are fired” according to the law). Now you seem to think that pointing out that sexual harassment claims are not as cut and dried as all of us would want and/or that real life doesnt always fit the villain/shocked damsel or evil boss/always professional underling schematic is akin to approving of o’reilly’s or other harassers’ behavior. That is absurd conflation. Moreover, a settlement doesn’t always indicate guilt (though in o’reilly’s case, him being a scumbag leads me to believe otherwise); more often than not, it indicates good sense—there is nothing for o’reilly to gain by prolonging this and substantial amounts to lose. In addition, any feeling that Andrea Mackris is somehow congenitally incapable of seeing that here is a golden opportunity to make a lot of money very easily is highly patronizing to her intelligence and reveals a pretty flawed understanding of human nature. In that sense, Cohen’s article and ALL of our comments stop short of many of the observations that ppl less sympathetic to (and possibly more realistic about) sexual harassment claims would have made. Your attitude of judgmental condemnation to anyone who brings up the awkward issues surrounding sexual harassment cases is pretty unproductive…

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:32:15 +0000

Alison- “Profoundly intimate activities, such as masturbating while talking to someone, should never be initiated unless you are completely sure that a very high level of intimacy has been reached, and the other person is happy with it.” This level of knowledge about what someone else is thinking never exists and never has. One can infer it (by being married to that person, by having dated that person for X amount of time, by having slept with that person, by having done it before and gotten a favorable response?, etc etc). But ‘completely sure’? Categorically impossible. And that’s the point. Steve

By: Sally

Sally — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:15:15 +0000

Cohen isn’t exactly neutral on the whole sexual harassment question: he was very publicly accused of sexual harassment about five years back, and he was forced to move his office so he wouldn’t be in the vicinity of any young female reporters. I found a little blurb from New York magazine about it:

‘The New York-bureau chief, Blaine Harden, passed along to management a complaint against Cohen made by Devon Spurgeon, a 23-year-old female special correspondent in the bureau. One Post insider says Harden and others in the bureau witnessed several instances in which Cohen made inappropriately sexual remarks to the young assistant. Management took the situation seriously enough to fly to New York to talk with Cohen on April 3, the insider continues, while Spurgeon was asked to take a paid leave of absence during the negotiations. Eventually, management decided that Cohen’s office would be moved. Cohen vehemently denies the charges. “There was, for want of a better term, a personality conflict,” he explains. “It didn’t involve sexual harassment—it didn’t involve sex, it didn’t involve harassment—and no disciplinary action was taken.”’

Frankly, this seems like something he should have disclosed before opining on a case in which a media figure is accused of sexual harassment.

By: mona

mona — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:02:44 +0000

PS - no, yours isn’t a straw man at all, because yes, it is 100% “impossible for any victim of sexual harassment ever to be responsible for anything” (where anything is limited to “the harassment”, obviously) – if she is genuinely a victim of sexual harassment, rather than someone who brilliantly executed a genius masterplan to produce fake evidence to incriminate the other person and ‘frame’ them, or to conceal all evidence that they were actually consensually enganged in a relationship, or something like that. I don’t see any other scenarios in which the target of harassment is responsible for the harassment. I also don’t see what, short of severe neurological disorders, can prevent any person from recognising the clear line between harassment and consensual activity. There’s people saying all this stuff, and worse, like Cohen – yet, it becomes offensive and insulting to express revulsion at this kind of view? I don’t think so.

By: mona

mona — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:32:04 +0000

Winston, Cohen in that article is most definitely and overtly finding excuses for O’Reilly, even ‘feeling pity for him’, and I can’t see how anyone who thinks that a victim of sexual harassment on the job can bear some “responsibility” for that is doing anything different, since that’s precisely the core of Cohen’s argument, that he believes O’Reilly has been duped and that she somehow set him up for that. Or didn’t quite stop him earlier or something. As if she provoked him. Possibly only to get the money. And the fame. Fame and fortune, that’s what sexual harassment lawsuits are for, yeah… For the record, I obviously believe in innocent til proven guilty – but, amongst other things, the two facts of O’Reilly admitting to what he did, and him accepting to pay an expensive settlement out of court to avoid those tapes coming out, lead me to infer he is likely guilty of the allegations. I don’t care if Mackris is the most scheming bitch ever to walk the planet. Or the most whiney “victimised” damsel that supposedly single-handedly sets feminism back 40 years (I genuinely don’t get that, but whatever). If O’Reilly did what he is alleged to have done, and if there is his own admission and evidence that cost him $2 million to keep out of the public eye, he is the one who did it all, it wasn’t Macrkis or her lawyer who drugged him up and put a vibrator in his hands and a phone in the other and nudged him to continue on and on, even after it was made clear to him his games and calls and “have dinner with me, I’ll take care of you” wink wink weren’t welcome. How on earth could she ever be responsible? Because she didn’t quit her job immediately and for good? Or go to Fox’s human resources where it’s oh so very likely that calling O’Reilly a perv would have gotten her lots of support and career opportunities? She is guilty because she cared for her career and so actually managed to put up with that crap as long as she thought she could take it? I’m not using straw men, I’m just baffled – but I’m not trying to be polemical for the sake of it, it’s just frustrating to find anyone defending Cohen’s view. It’s not just mysoginist and totally unsympathetic, as well as so disgustingly sycophantic to an egomaniac like O’Reilly, it’s also illogical.

By: Winston Smith

Winston Smith — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:46:02 +0000

Mona, Sounds to me like you’re attacking a Straw Man. No one here has tried to excuse O’Reilly. This discussion seems to be divided between two sides, (a) the “O’R is scum and probably guilty, but she may bear some measure of responsibility for knowingly going back to working for a known sexual harasser” side and (b) the “O’R is scum and guilty and it is impossible for any victim of sexual harassment ever to be responsible for anything” side. O.k., now there I just did it, too. Straw Man. But not by much… Why distort the views of people who are honestly wrestling with a tough question? We may be dumb, but we’re not evil. Explain it to us if we’re wrong, but at least do us the courtesy of addressing our actual arguments.