Andy Rubin Takes Leave From Essential as Probe Into 'Inappropriate' Google Relationship Goes Public, Report Claims (theverge.com)

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.

Comments

Ho Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

Another corporate sociopath scumbag with no ethics. I am shocked.

Re: Ho Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Junta]

"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.

Re: Ho Hum

[ITRambo]

Thank you for the sensible post. I'm very tired of the current trend where the accused is always believed to be guilty, no matter what.

Re: Ho Hum

[interkin3tic]

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: Ho Hum

[goose-incarnated]

"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

[Anonymous Coward]

all women are like that, always blames men for everything, never takes responibility or held accountable for their own screw ups. women always hurt and exploit men, stay away from women, avoid women at all cost, all women are bad, all women are evil, women has been the same for thousands of years, women will never change. AWALT. It's time for men to go their own way, go MGTOW!

Re: Ho Hum

[ErichTheRed]

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 person loose rather than risk being involved in covering it up. Contrast that with recent examples like Uber where the HR department swept evidence-backed complaints under the rug to protect a "rockstar" manager. In my experience, the only departments that get a free pass in big companies with real HR departments and real legal counsel are the sales team -- and if it's egregious enough that they can't deny it even rockstar salespeople get let go too.

In short, it's just not worth it for a regular employee to get involved with anyone at work. People should be professionals and not go fishing in the company pond.

Re: Ho Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

ITRambo has outed himself as a serial molester.

Re: Ho Hum

[I'm New Around Here]

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: Ho Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading comprehension fail.

Re: Ho Hum

[AmiMoJo]

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: Ho Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

What? No. Try again and this time engage that brain of yours. I know it's dusty from lack of use, but don't you worry slugger it will be a very good use of your time.

Re: Ho Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

well, judging from his nick, he is new around here.

His reading comprehension fail isn't new, in these parts =]

Re: Ho Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

for "men going their own way" you don't half ramble about women a lot

Re: Ho Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way, why should I care, personally?

Re: Ho Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

those responsible for investigating

Those people are not on slashdot. The "We" in "We have about 0 data to go on" means we, the uninvolved, unqualified denizens of an internet forum.

Re: Ho Hum

[AmiMoJo]

I wasn't actually responding to that post.

Re: Ho Hum

[cascadingstylesheet]

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: Ho Hum

[AmiMoJo]

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 that's what happened, merely that your statement is obtuse in the extreme.

Re: Ho Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

>It doesn't mean an assumption of guilt
In the court of public opinion it does.

Who cares, right? Oh wait, we end people's lives over it. We fire people on the allegation of allegation. And blacklist them forever.

I agree with investigating anything and everything. On principle. It turns out a headline saying "The FBI investigated the home of [person], known for owning/being a [relevance] last Monday" isn't in an isolated vacuum.

Consider: If a no-harm investigation is inseparable from the fallout, then an "investigation" does actually comprise the fallout.

The other day I had to ask someone, "Are you arguing against the current state of food stamps, or the idea of food stamps?"

The program works perfectly on paper. It is abused (degree debatable) in practice. Do we vote for changes to the program based on the theory? Or do we vote based on what we understand to be the real-world scenario?

Re: Ho Hum

[larryjoe]

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 position.

Re: Ho Hum

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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: Ho Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for the sensible post. I'm very tired of the current trend where the accused is always believed to be guilty, no matter what.

If you have a relationship, even a consensual one, with a subordinate, you are guilty of being an idiot and a liability to the organization.

I realize this is scary news for all the people out there who are too scared to approach people in the real world and have to rely on captive environments for even the possibility of meeting someone.

Re: Ho Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

As of writing no crime has been reported, ergo it was a mutual relationship.

Actually, no. We don't know what happened but there are a lot of possible ways it would have been improper (and subject to civil, if not criminal prosecution) without it being a "crime." As just one example, what if he told this woman "unless you have sex with me, I will fire you"? It's not a crime (i.e. It's not something which would lead to someone being arrested) to tell this to a subordinate.

Re: Ho Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

you don't know it was the woman making the complaint. It could have been another coworker who saw her having a relationship with the boss and didn't like it.

Re: Ho Hum

[Tough Love]

-1, Liar

Re: Ho Hum

[interkin3tic]

Some lazy sophistry there. Gender is irrelevant. The boss sleeping with subordinates of any gender is an unnecessary liability and poor decision making. The subordinate can plausibly claim HE OR SHE felt like they had to exchange sex for continued employment or advancement. Additionally, instant bad PR.

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: Ho Hum

[interkin3tic]

Not quite clear what you mean by "the other way round." There are MRA types all over slashdot, so just so we're clear, a boss in most cases has little to fear about turning down a subordinate's advances, let alone compared to the vast majority of the time when it's a slimeball superior harassing a subordinate.

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: Ho Hum

[david_thornley]

In what way was GP saying anything about women? (In the final paragraph, GP was talking about attitudes, not realities.) A relationship between two people, one of which has significant power over the other, is always suspect, and that's true no matter what whose sex and/or gender is what. You never really know whether the one without the power is going along out of desire or fear or intimidation.

Therefore, someone having a relationship with a subordinate is opening himself/herself/itself/whatever open to harassment charges that can't really be fully countered. It's a dumb thing to do, unless the intention is to harass a person of the appropriate sex and/or gender.

Re: Ho Hum

[cthulhu11]

I'm tired of posts that assume that we know who some obscure guy and obscure company are.

GO DOWN IN FLAMES

[Anonymous Coward]

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:GO DOWN IN FLAMES

[110010001000]

Exactly. It is not a surprise that a lot of these "leaders" are psychopaths forcing themselves on normal people.

Re:GO DOWN IN FLAMES

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's clean up the human race ...

Very, very oblique attempt at Godwinning.

Re:GO DOWN IN FLAMES

[Anonymous Coward]

TRUMP IS NEXT.

Re:GO DOWN IN FLAMES

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Sorry, but the jails are still full of people who smoked a joint for dessert every night in the privacy of their own home.

Gotta keep those "dangerous" criminals off the streets. After all, they might not actually hurt themselves or anyone else.

Drug War priorities.

Re: GO DOWN IN FLAMES

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol yes of course. You keep telling yourself that, the doctor will see you soon

Re:GO DOWN IN FLAMES

[Tokolosh]

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the predator party?"

Re:GO DOWN IN FLAMES

[e_pluribus_funk]

He's going to drop out any day now. I don't see how he can survive this latest scandal.

Re: GO DOWN IN FLAMES

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up. Men have evolved to grab pussies and stupid bitches like you have evolved to be grabbed by men.

Re: GO DOWN IN FLAMES

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see because you are a stupid pussy.

Re: GO DOWN IN FLAMES

[e_pluribus_funk]

Someone doesn't understand sarcasm.

Matt Lauer says

[Anonymous Coward]

I was first!

But then they ALL say that! GRAB THEM BY THE PUSSY!

Re:Matt Lauer says

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Matt Lauer says

[Anonymous Coward]

Rob Malda?

Re:Matt Lauer says

[Anonymous Coward]

well, cock grabbing.

Re:Matt Lauer says

[e_pluribus_funk]

1. The left always eats it's own, sooner or later.

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:Matt Lauer says

[ranton]

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:Matt Lauer says

[Curunir_wolf]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Moore?

Re: Matt Lauer says

[K. S. Kyosuke]

This is a gender issue.

It's not even that, any man or woman can get harassed by any other man or woman.

Re:Matt Lauer says

[Outta_the_way_peck!]

Al Franken and John Conyers still have their jobs. Conservatives Bill O'Reilly and Roger Ailes do not (although Ailes is no longer alive to worry about that).

Re:Matt Lauer says

[david_thornley]

In my state, deliberately grabbing someone's ass without consent is punishable by up to a year's imprisonment and/or a fine up to a number I don't remember. You may find it funny, but the people grabbed tend not to see it that way.

Re:Matt Lauer says

[david_thornley]

The stuff Franken was accused of is generally not that bad, and he did apologize and say he'd improve. If we start throwing everyone out of office who did anything in the least off-color, we're going to have an awfully hard time finding enough people to make up Congress.

Re:Matt Lauer says

[Curunir_wolf]

In my state, deliberately grabbing someone's ass without consent is punishable by up to a year's imprisonment and/or a fine up to a number I don't remember. You may find it funny, but the people grabbed tend not to see it that way.

Humor is often in the eye of the beholder. I don't think getting hit in the balls would be funny to the person it happened to, either, but people still laugh at it...

David Cop-a-feel.

Re:Matt Lauer says

[david_thornley]

Humor may be in the eye of the beholder, but it's bad if the eye of the person potentially being victimized doesn't contain the humor. That's the sort of thing I'd pull on my wife, but for any other woman I'd want consent in advance.

Re:Matt Lauer says

[Curunir_wolf]

OMG he's in his 90's and in a wheelchair. Lighten up.

Re:Matt Lauer says

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The left always eats it's own, sooner or later.

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.

Seek help, you projecting loon

Re:Matt Lauer says

[david_thornley]

At what point of age and disability do I get to start ignoring the law and common courtesy? Harass people without warning in a way that my critics get told to lighten up?

Re:Matt Lauer says

[Curunir_wolf]

At what point of age and disability do I get to start ignoring the law and common courtesy? Harass people without warning in a way that my critics get told to lighten up?

Is that really what you want to do? You seem so anxious to be a White Knight and walk on eggshells around anyone of an apparent opposite sex, that I think it's best you avoid initiating any contact with them whatsoever.

Re:Matt Lauer says

[david_thornley]

The Bush Sr. story was hilarious.

That's from you, several postings back. I replied that the act would be a gross misdemeanor in my state, and that the story didn't include anything about the woman finding it funny. You excused it because Bush was old and feeble. You're not exactly the right person to excuse it, in the first place, and being old and feeble doesn't mean you get to be an asshole.

I know when to grab a woman I don't know by the ass without warning or darn good reason, and that is never. You seem to believe that it's justified if the grabber is sufficiently something or other. I'm going to suggest that, if you're not clear when it's OK to grab a woman's ass without consent, you stay well away from women. This is only reinforced by your equating walking on eggshells with not committing fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct. If you're that unclear, stay away. I treat women with respect, don't grab them by various parts of the body for alleged humor value, and get along just fine with them.

I have no good idea what you mean by White Knight, unless you mean someone who wants to discourage lawbreaking and violence.

Re:Matt Lauer says

[Curunir_wolf]

I have no good idea what you mean by White Knight

Well read back through your over reactionary response to the "David Cop-a-feel" joke, and you'll see a perfect illustration of the term.

You must be a lot of fun at parties :/

I think the only "excuse" Bush got for being old and feeble is the girl didn't turn around and slap him across the face, something Taylor Swift should have done which would have gotten that disc jockey fired a lot faster and avoided the media circus of a court case.

Re:Matt Lauer says

[david_thornley]

In what way am I being over-reactionary? You're the one who called it hilarious, and I was just explaining that not everyone may have thought it so, and that at least one state considers the action serious enough to be a gross misdemeanor. You seem to want to gloss over these facts, and blame the person who brings them up.

I'm rather quiet at parties, but people seem to want me there. It may have something to do with the fact that I don't get invited to parties that involve sexual assault. One advantage of this is that I get attractive young women relaxing and being themselves at parties I'm at, not worrying about being taken advantage of. It's very nice.

It's hard to know exactly how hard to slap an old, feeble, ex-President. That doesn't mean the woman should have no recourse.

Get fucked libtards

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what you get for acting like your shit doesn't stink.

Re:Get fucked libtards

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what you get for acting like your shit doesn't stink.

Just wait until that orange shitstain you morons put in the Oval Office gets impeached and all those women he harassed & assaulted turn the tables on him

Women are becoming a liability .

[Anonymous Coward]

Hiring a woman these days seems to have become a liability for a company. Why on earth a company would expose itself to potential problems is behind my understanding.

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't hire women, the government will fuck you up the ass because you're not allowed to make good business decisions.

Re: Women are becoming a liability .

[Anonymous Coward]

Recent events are all parts of the Russian conspiracy. They plot to empower women so America is weakened.

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[Anonymous Coward]

you can reduce the damage with psy evaluation . My guess it's pretty easy to pinpoint those women that are more prone to screem sexual harassment just if you look at them, and those more sane and able to related to males . Not saying that all males are saints, but it seems to me that nowadays the best course of action for anybody that cares about his carreer is to avoid any contact with their females coworkers. It's not safe to talk to a women on the work place.

Re: Women are becoming a liability .

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah and they way they dress these days with no clothes at all . just want to put my hands all over them.

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not safe to talk to a women on the work place.

Define "safe". I see lots of police shooting unarmed black men in the news. Does that mean it's not safe to be a black man? The largest cause of death among my demographic is car crashes. Does that mean it's not safe for me to be around cars?

dom

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[I'm New Around Here]

It's not safe to talk to a women on the work place.

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:Women are becoming a liability .

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly you don't manage a single person in work, life, or anywhere else

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Are you really do thick you don't understand that there are more white men than black men in the US, and that therefore a direct numerical comparison of police shootings is largely meaningless? What matters is the probability of a black man being shot by police vs. the probability of a white man being shot by police. And the stats are pretty clear on that: You don't want to be black.

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[Anonymous Coward]

safe as : this woman can screw up my carrer if she wants to.

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[Anonymous Coward]

IOW, not very many black men are being shot by the police.

What happens to the probability of being shot by the police to the population that commits more violent crime?

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[I'm New Around Here]

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 epidemic, while any story of a white guy being shot or killed is ignored.

Also, it isn't my fault that the black population in the US is many times greater to be involved in serious criminal activity than the white population. A direct numerical comparison is not meaningless. It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[stdarg]

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:Women are becoming a liability .

[AmiMoJo]

What matters is your poor grasp of statistics. Perhaps you would like to clarify your claim before I rip it apart.

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[AmiMoJo]

Why don't you post the actual statistic, then we could see if there is a particular problem for black guys or not.

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the hire was a mistake. It's what happened afterthe hire that is causing problems.

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[AmiMoJo]

Hypothetical paranoid anti-feminist fears verses the actual laws against gender based discrimination.

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[Tough Love]

-1, Misogynistic

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[naughtynaughty]

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 .

[naughtynaughty]

When did Judge Moore start posting on Slashdot?

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[david_thornley]

How do you tell exactly who commits how much more violent crime when the justice system is slanted one way? Arrests, prosecutions, verdicts, and sentences all partly depend on what color your skin is.

Re: Women are becoming a liability .

[david_thornley]

Personally, there's a fair number of things I "just want to" do, that I don't.

Re:Women are becoming a liability .

[stdarg]

What matters is your poor grasp of statistics.

Really, that's odd. Even if it's true (and it's not), this is what you just turned the discussion into:

You: what matters is race
Me: what matters is criminal history
You: no I take it back, what matters is your poor grasp of statistics!! boom!

and so I reply,

Me: okay so you don't care about race anymore?

Perhaps you would like to clarify your claim before I rip it apart.

No, please, "rip it apart." I'd like to see your argument for why race matters and criminal history does not.

Color me shocked

[butchersong]

Women find men in positions of authority over them attractive. Men find women subordinate to them attractive because authority and respect are strong aphrodisiacs for men...

Re:Color me shocked

[Junta]

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:Color me shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

It's clearly BS. They had a relationship. He did not rape her, molest her, force her to suck his penis etc. She changed her mind, perhaps when her other half found out or she was thinking of a me-too payday. Had she not have been willing, Rubin would have been reported instantly and there would be either a dismissal, or official warning. There are neither.

Re:Color me shocked

[goose-incarnated]

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:Color me shocked

[Solandri]

That about covers why a superior and subordinate at work shouldn't enter a relationship. Most people assume it's to protect the subordinate from improper pressure to enter the relationship. But it's also to protect the superior from false accusations of pressuring the subordinate to enter the relationship. Although people usually assume the subordinate is the victim, either can be the victim.

Re:Color me shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up.

Re:Color me shocked

[RedK]

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:Color me shocked

[Junta]

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.

Re:Color me shocked

[b0s0z0ku]

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:Color me shocked

[b0s0z0ku]

What if someone else (say a jealous coworker) reported them and she spoke to someone from HR without being aware of the consequences?

Re:Color me shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Off to the Evergreen Re-Education Camp for you...

Re:Color me shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, scumbag.

Re:Color me shocked

[goose-incarnated]

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:Color me shocked

[Curunir_wolf]

-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:Color me shocked

[Junta]

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 white knight for him with the given information, as it reasonably would look the same way if it was a jilted ex or a victim that doesn't want to revisit this situation in depth. All we can really do is recognize this as bad news for Essential.

Re:Color me shocked

[Junta]

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:Color me shocked

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Color me shocked

[Junta]

If that was the scenario, I couldn't imagine how that would lead to Rubin being forced to leave Google (he's not exactly a rank and file, 'zero-tolerance' HR policies tend to have wiggle room when it comes to such well-known leaders in a company, unless said company thinks they could have a legal problem, which they wouldn't if it were as described.

Even assuming Google is insane and would force out Rubin, it seems strange for him to be forced to step away from his *new* company, just based on that sort of scenario from the old company. One it has no bearing on his current situation, and for another Rubin is *more* critical to Essential than he was to Google.

No, he was accused of *something* by this woman, though we have no idea what and whether or not it's true. Whether it was him making up/imagining a consensual relationship and sexually harassing, or her making up accusations after a bad breakup, or an initially consensual encounter/relationship that he pushed too far for her comfort (making unwelcome requests/remarks after the breakup, whatever). We can only make wild guesses, but it's something awkward whatever it is.

Re:Color me shocked

[david_thornley]

Nope. He had power over her, so any consent is suspect. If she had sex with him, it's hard to tell whether it was because she wanted to or because she feared for her job or prospects of something. Reporting people to HR is dangerous. In some companies, they'll take the woman (or man or nonbinary or whatever) seriously and act appropriately. In some, they'll let the person complained about know about the complaint and do nothing to shield the woman (or whatever) from retaliation.

This is why people with any intelligence and self-control don't get into these relationships. It always has the potential to end badly, and the person with the power never really knows if they've got consent or intimidation.

Why is it on Slashdot?

[sTERNKERN]

Ok, I understand.. you put the word Google in the article, but I do not see any "news for nerds, stuff that matters" content in there. Please don't ruin this site any more.

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[110010001000]

Andy Rubin is one of the biggest names in tech. This is essentially the downfall of Essential. It won't survive this.

Re: Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is news to me. Why are you commenting? Even silly first post comments are more helpful and entertaining than, why is this news? posts. If you don't like it, stfu. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anubis IV]

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:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Kierthos]

You should go and make your own news site, with hookers, and blackjack!

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose we could talk about Matt Lauer instead.

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Junta]

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:Why is it on Slashdot?

[slashdice]

According to the complaint, he's actually quite small.

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[XxtraLarGe]

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:Why is it on Slashdot?

[110010001000]

The industry values your card at $1.4 trillion now. Truly a Unicorn.

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll swap you a Hans Reiser and a John McAfee for it.

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

And there it is, that loud fart in a crowded upscale restaurant, the creimer post!

You're being "hounded" by normal people who want to get rid of the creep.

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Lost Race]

That one is called Soylent News.

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[I'm New Around Here]

I'll swap you a Hans Reiser ... for it.

Signed? In 'red ink'?

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious? Andy Rubin left his post; and some Slashdot readers who have time to post are looking for a job! Maybe *no* coding skills needed...

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you by chance have a Hans Gruber card?

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Doctor Memory]

I think that note has already gone out.

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[sexconker]

Essential was the downfall of Essential. It was never going to survive.

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

This user is a Pedobear Troll! Hide your chikdren and goats!

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chris, did you seriously just copy and paste the same typo from this morning? When I told you to keep your stupid replies in a text file, I MEANT WITHOUT TYPOS!

"chikdren "

You dunderhead.

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Gibgezr]

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: Why is it on Slashdot?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

John McAfee's signature is blockchain verified.

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

CREIMER' SUBMISSIONS UPDATE:
Note also that creimer is trying to regain karma by getting his submissions published as articles on /. so make sure to go to:
https://slashdot.org/~cdreimer
and mod down his submissions as well. The great thing is that you don't even need mod points to mod down a submission, just click on the "minus" icon!

creimer wrote:

I don't bother with mod points. I'm doing something much more sinister. It took ten story submissions ? I'll have to double check the number ? to move cdreimer's karma from neutral to excellent without ever being exposed to the capricious mods. Mmmmmwwwwahahahahahahaha!

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! Creimy is posting more than 2 posts a day. Hurry! mod down otherwise /. will go to hell again!

Note: you can mod down even if already at -1 to lower karma and to prevent lost /. users to accidentally mod up.

creimer wrote:

All you need to do is find a website with a permissive TOS, say, Slashdot, create a Python script to scrape your own comments, sprinkle Amazon affiliate links in various posts, and then re-post past links whenever possible. Won't be long before you start making "coffee money" each month.

https://slashdot.org/comments....

C.D. Reimer is a renowned Slashdot collaborator, as he puts it himself; "Because of the quality of my posts and my article submissions, I'm a highly rated commentator and moderator."

But does anybody ever wondered what "C.D." stands for? Well, it stands for Creimy Dumpty of course!

Creimy Dumpty sat on the wall,
Creimy Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses
And all the king's men
Couldn't put Creimy Dumpty
Together again.

Creimy's siblings video and theme song, very realistic, especially the pants, just like Creimy's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

With "Vice President Pence Vowing US Astronauts Will Return To the Moon", we are sure they will need miracle workers up there, here is what it would look like. Note that Creimy takes care of bringing a lot of food to the moon as depicted below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Creimy's real pictures:
Before the sex change:
https://ibb.co/cc7Ddw
After the sex change:
https://ibb.co/gVad65

Creimy's "enterprise-level" chair, he talks about it all the time on slashdot:
http://www.keynamics.com/image...

Creimy's head, while his supervisor was talking to him, not with him, since it is impossible to do with Creimy:
https://school.discoveryeducat...

Creimy acting in educational resource document, he actually confirmed himself on Slashdot that he was handled by Special Education for the Santa Clara County Office of Education! He is really a king Dumpty!:
http://www.sccoe.org/depts/stu...

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chris' case is getting worse, he spends all day replying to himself as AC on /.

The tests we ran on Chris have shown that Chris has the intelligence of an ameba:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So, technically, he is able to conceive some kind of agenda but it will be silly or impossible to follow on a human scale.

For example, Chris had an agenda to post anything he felt like on Slashdot which did not work well because it was based on his false beliefs that he had an infinite number of karma points as he wrote here several times.

Several people here explained to Chris that karma maxed out at some level like 50 or so but Chris kept on insisting that his python script had confirmed that he had millions of karma points!

Oh well, as I wrote before: "It isn't Chris' fault if he is the way he is. We do the best we can do with him and he is partially integrated into society. We try to cure his abnormal need for attention but he is kind of stubborn and won't listen to anybody."

For the valuable /. users that might already have read the following, please note that there is an important update.

IMPORTANT UPDATE:
Special Education for the Santa Clara County Office of Education has invested money to buy Chris a new chair:
http://www.keynamics.com/image...

Information about Christopher Dale Reimer and autistic people:

Autistic people have obsessions about things normal people don't care. For example, one of our autistic patient went haywire when he realized that there was a penny missing in his pocket change.

To calm him down, one of our educator pretended to have found it on the floor and gave a penny to him.

The autistic patient condition went even worse because he realized it wasn't the same penny!

Chris has an obsession with budgeting every penny. He doesn't understand that most people do not budget to the penny and have a flexible amount they allow for miscellaneous items.

I am Nancy Guerrero and I am Director of Special Education for the Santa Clara County Office of Education. We use Chris' (a.k.a. creimer,cdreimer) picture in our document because he is the hardest case we have ever had to handle:
http://www.sccoe.org/depts/stu...

Our artists were inspired by the low carb diet that Christopher follows scrupulously for the small lunch box and by the picture linked below for the rest. I am sure that you will notice the similarities such as the bump on the side of his chest and more:
https://ibb.co/gVad65

Please be easy on Christopher although, I am aware that some of our staff handling Chris post joke comments here and obvoiusly, the Santa Clara County Office of Education disapprove that behavior vehemently:
https://school.discoveryeducat...

But it isn't Chris' fault if he is the way he is. We do the best we can do with him and he is partially integrated into society. We try to cure his abnormal need for attention but he is kind of stubborn and won't listen to anybody.

Thank You dear users,
---
Nancy Guerrero
Director
Special Education
Santa Clara County Office of Education

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Nancy,

Your posts are always enlightening and right on topic! Keep up the good work over there at Special Education!

Also, I have noted that Chris uses child psychology to convince his so called trolls to give up by pretending they just give him free publicity. That's adoring! ;-)

Anyway Chris would have a hard time to learn anything above child level matters, including psychology.

https://childdevelopmentinfo.c...

---
Silvia Bunge
Psychology Department
University of California, Berkeley

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Christopher, my love,

Never mind those "hump leg" trolls.

I am deeply sorry. I didn't feel well lately but I am better now since I had my meds adjusted. I am sorry that I called you all sorts of names and I feel truly ashamed of myself.

The python click script you wrote for me my sweet love for my pheromone revenue stream web site suddenly stopped to work.

Could you come visit me in my studio so we could look at it?

Signed:
Your sweetee who will love you for ever.

P.S. when I posted there was a funny form that asked me to retype the word "biceps" in a text field. That's funny and I went to look at your new picture again and got turned on. Please contact me ASAP.

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true enough!

Creimer came in my cubicle the other day around 1:30 PM to fix my Ethernet connectivity. He had to crawl under my desk to reach the cable and oh my god! While crawling under the desk, he released an unbelievable amount of gas and the whole floor had to be evacuated for the rest of the day.

An HAZMAT team was requested to approve the condition before we could go in again the next day and entrance was delayed until 10:45 AM.

3 workers with respiratory problems had to go to the hospital and 1 is still in critical state.

Re: Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lame :(

Re: Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks creimer!

I have been watching you for a while and you are so transparent that anybody can see right through you.

In short, you just confirmed that I scored a point here.

Re: Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself troll! Realize that you are creimer's troll and that creimer controls you since he has come to control 99.5% of the corporate latter.

You will see who will have the last laugh troll.

Re:Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey creimer!

Here is another one that will repeat itself regularly in the future, although not as often as the shit you post, I have to admit :-)

creimer confuses his Slashdot signature with an animated gif.

Re: Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not creimer I just thought that fart joke was pretty lame :(

However I generally approve of making fun of creimer.

Well, also the copypasta is getting a bit stale.

Re: Why is it on Slashdot?

[Brockmire]

Rick Rubin is a legendary producer in the music business. He'll be remembered by future generations a lot more than Andy.

Re: Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... Are you positive that you are not creimer?

Because you seem to lack reading comprehension as much as he does. I never made any "fart jokes". The gas seemed to come out of is ears. My guess is that gas accumulates in his large empty head.

https://school.discoveryeducat...

Re: Why is it on Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

But you were replying to "that loud fart in a crowded upscale restaurant." :(

Why is it on RelationshipDot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe trying to dispel the myth that geeks don't get laid. Besides the larger story more relevant to everyone who works is that workplace relationships are a bad idea. Consensual or otherwise.

Not safe to relate to a woman in the workplace

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Not safe to relate to a woman in the workplace

[computational super]

I'm not convinced that even this will be enough - they fired Matt Lauer immediately, with no evidence. You could shut yourself up in a room and have 0 contact with women and STILL find yourself fired for "inappropriate sexual behavior".

Re:Not safe to relate to a woman in the workplace

[e_pluribus_funk]

>Considering that many buisness decisions are made over coffee, this will slowly lead the to exclusion of women.

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).

Re:Not safe to relate to a woman in the workplace

[TheCastro1689]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

They fired Matt Lauer immediately, based on evidence that has not been made public. That is not the same thing as "no evidence".

Re:Not safe to relate to a woman in the workplace

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how they broke up men only clubs 20 years ago in the first place! Looks like they bring it on themselves.

Re:Not safe to relate to a woman in the workplace

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, found this the hard way. I had a claim from an employee of mine that I was harassing her, allegedly sexually.
I have no idea why, she was no different to any other employee in the way I interacted. We have a very professional environment. Lots of HR meeting later, she decides to leave abruptly and drop all claims. To this day it was never revealed the actual complaint, but it still persists in my HR file :/

Years of reflection and I still don't get it. I am very (overly) conscious of my professional behaviour, more-so now. I will not be put in that position again, so I will not let myself be unattended with ANY employee.

Re:Not safe to relate to a woman in the workplace

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what I've always done and it still doesn't work sometimes. Clearly going to work, doing your job, leaving at the end of the day to go HOME is the best policy. Limit anything you do or say to an absolute minimum. Had a bitch that accused me of wrongdoing. Too bad for her the supposed day it happened I wasn't even on site. She was really sure. I was really sure she was wrong. Boom. She had to eat crow. Nothing was done to her as a result of course. If I had been at work that day, who knows what would have happened to my life. Later they found out she is crazy.

If you're a man, haven't been accused yet, hold onto your ass. It's probably coming. Some dumb bitch will accuse you and there's nothing you can do about it and nothing will happen to her.

2018, Year of the Women

[Anonymous Coward]

It ain't over yet.

Re:2018, Year of the Women

[Chrisq]

2018, Year of the Women

That sounds more fun than the year of the Linux Desktop

Re:2018, Year of the Women

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux doesn't complain when you leave the toilet seat up.

Re:2018, Year of the Women

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure there is a distro that does.

Let people fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

if that's what they want. Don't stick your nose in other people's sexual or romantic relations. This kind of political correctness is nothing but plain envy and jealousy.

Re:Let people fuck

[micahraleigh]

Would you want to work at a place where your peer was your boss's wife?

What if she gets bonuses and you don't (regardless if she deserves them).

This is not Bible thumping.

Re:Let people fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked at a place where my peer was fucking the boss, if that counts. She ended up being promoted from accounting to Network Admin, with no experience, and orders to me to train her. Shit like this happens all the time, and there's nothing that can be done about it if you're a guy.

Re:Let people fuck

[gigne]

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 and deliver what is contractually asked.
I'm also pretty sure all standard employment contracts say something along the lines of not talking about your pay.

Here's the halfway I'll go with you....
Theres always the niggling thought they are getting an easier time. Or maybe let off being late. Or a break. Or they get to go and do personal things on work time. That stuff is a shitter sometimes, but I have never worked somewhere where even the incompetence of a family member is stood for. If anything there is more criticism as there is a higher expectation to set a good ethic.
But I have to refer to my first point, keep my head down and be glad I am employed, glad I earn enough to get by and happy to do the job my contract asks of me

Re:Let people fuck

[micahraleigh]

Frequently companies (usually larger ones) fire the leader and the subordinate for this behavior. If you aren't subject to much age discrimination you can get a job elsewhere.

Perhaps you are too young to recall the Lewinsky saga.

Perhaps it is harder to get them fired if you are a dude. Anyway, I think companies can make an effort to remove this junk.

Re:Let people fuck

[micahraleigh]

You seemed to have weighed things out with your personal standards and made some generally true observations.

It looked like the OP could be read along the lines of "don't mess with nepotism" like people were getting pushed into religion. My point was that some of these protections have no real basis in religion.

Don't blame her

[Chrisq]

"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: Don't blame her

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice that nearly all the accused are white men. Hmmm!!

Re: Don't blame her

[I'm New Around Here]

Well, there's George Takei.

Re: Don't blame her

[SirSlud]

Why yes, thanks for pointing out that minorities are heavily underrepresented in executive positions at tech companies.

Re: Don't blame her

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? How about infestation by smelly shitty obnoxious hindu-chimps. Did you miss that conveniently.

Re: Don't blame her

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Cosby

You can't have your cake and eat it too

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

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:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[ColdWetDog]

Moral of the story: women get a total free pass short of sexually assaulting barely legal interns in full view of corporate counsel.

Leave your twisted fantasies out of this.

It has long been good advice to keep your social and professional lives separate. For many reasons.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

Fear not. We feminists are not out to castrate you, just to have a more balanced relationship among sexes.

Calm down, and perhaps go see a psychiatrists about your fears.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

it all boils down to trust. If you don't trust your coworkers to be able to have professional relations with you, you should not work with them, and the company should not have employed them in the first place. Same goes for men and women. In the case of women, this trust is even more volatile as in our current situation they have the upper hand and can fuck your carrer very easily.

Always open door. Never accept non work related contacts. Be a robotic dick. Follow rules and policies, but nothing more. You are not paid to be friendly and get potentially get yourself in trouble.

And in the end, if I've to choose how to work with, and get him/her and advancement in his carrer, I'll choose the person I trust the most.

And then you wonder why women are paid less. It's a fucking consequence !!!

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[110010001000]

Dude, I'm not a huge fan of women but none of what you say is remotely true. Women get harassed regularly. So do some men, usually by gay men. People really need to stop harassing people in the workplace and focus on their job.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

These are not just fears. This is reality. People's carrears are fucked at the whim of a women. Some men screwed it up badly (no excuses for these scum bags). Others are just caught in the middle of this nonesense. And the consequence is no men in theit sane mind would work in the same way with their women collegues, they will get paid less, and start complaining more and this will never stop. It's about building trust. screw "a more balanced relationship among sexes". Without trust this will be never possible.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[The Cynical Critic]

I have a hard time understanding what's so balanced about the feminist idea of a relationship. What the woman says about the relationship is always treated as gospel and men are punished in some form regardless if the accusations are true or not while men may as well plead the 5th and stay silent considering how a differing view is always treated as being made up with malicious purposes. We've seen this happen time and time again over the year so as far as fears go it's like the fear of being run over when you walk into traffic without looking.

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

[TheCastro1689]

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:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

I was harassed by a homosexual man on the job once many years ago. Once. A quick come-to-Jesus meeting with him looking up at me from the ground quickly ended any idea on his part. Another male colleague was witness to the event. Nothing happened to either of us because I didn't report it and if he had, he'd be terminated. Needless to say, this particular sodomite gave me a wide berth after the incident.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh poor little you.

Does it shock you to learn that it is men who make a habit of having relationships with women at work who are the ones getting outed as harassers?
Does it shock you to learn that it is almost always men leveraging their workplace power who are getting outed as harassers?

Now go find your safe space and keep thinking how terrible it is that you can;t harass women easily any longer

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[AmiMoJo]

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 sexual assault.

As for men behind closed doors not having any evidence, I can point you to several recent rape cases where men were able to call witnesses who had previously slept with the accuser to testify about their behaviour during consensual sex, which it turns out was similar to when they were with the accused. Often text messages sent after the event are used as evidence that it was consensual.

In fact, it's very often difficult to prove it wasn't consensual. Take the recent Weinstein case, where there was a recording made in a police sting operation of him sexually harassing a young actress and they still didn't move against him.

The rest of your arguments are just anti-feminist crap, not worthy of a response.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like that time when that commie McCarthy went after all those god fearing Republicans?

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[edtice1559]

Whether this is good advice or not, I am not qualified to say. However, there are enough cases out there where people *do* mix personal and professional lives that we can look at the *distribution* of the *consequences* of this and draw conclusions about how various demographic groups are treated.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story, except majority of US couples meet at work.
Oh, and that includes Obamas.
Oh, and she was his boss.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46368364/ns/business-careers/t/behind-numbers-office-romance/#.Wh77BlWnGDx

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

And before you complain that there is no punishment for lying, tell that to the people in jail for lying about sexual assault.

Too bad Crystal Magnum didn't go to jail for falsely accusing the Duke Lacrosse players. If she had, then perhaps she wouldn't have been free to murder someone several years later.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

As a male feminist I can tell you that is complete crap.

As a male you cannot be a femminist. You are part of the problem.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

The feminist ideal is...

Not what's being discussed; that's what it is. What has been presented is how things operate, now, in the real world. Ideals are fine and dandy, but when they fail to play out as desired, you need to be adult enough to recognize that.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

male feminist is an oxymoron.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[werepants]

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 Trumpist alt-right neonazies aren't sharp enough to take the same basic precautions.

Re: You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

Ami is an X dude, who wants to be a female.

Re: You can't have your cake and eat it too

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[The Cynical Critic]

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 actually talk about except to say they talk about them or by just screaming and calling everyone trying to talk about the issues misogynists or worse. As for masculinity, it's been years since I last saw a feminist talk about it in any other terms than just flat out labeling all of it as "toxic".

In other words feminists' "understanding" of masculinity is about the same as the KKK's "understanding" of the civil rights movement.

You mean someone who is totally dependent on you for their visa and often their livelihood? Who you can control and dominate because they can't say "no" for fear of being deported or made destitute? And you say feminists are the ones who want to dominate.

This type of disingenuous crap is why feminists are seen as a nuisance group on par with bible thumpers and scientologists. I never said that his was somehow acceptable, I specifically called it "totally disgusting idea", just that I understand why some people go for them. The fact that you understand why people chose to do or think awful things doesn't mean that you must agree somehow with them. Understanding does not equal agreement even if the current day left seems to think that it does with the way it reacts to everything that isn't complete demonization of the people they disagree with.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[DNS-and-BIND]

Antifa are the new KKK.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[AmiMoJo]

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:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[werepants]

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 conservatives thrive off of fear, authoritarians like Trump doubly so, and painting Antifa as the new bogeyman (along with Muslims, BLM, feminists, and immigrants generally) is the best tactic in the alt-right's playbook for consolidating power. It's sad that you willingly disseminate such abhorrent propaganda.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

"The feminist ideal is to have a relationship of equal partners, based on mutual understanding and respect. That's why so much effort has been put into understanding masculinity and how notions of what it means affect men. It's why so much effort has gone into understanding the male role in society."

that is complete crap! and i dont need a label to tell you that it is!

ANY movement that labels its self is full of a spectrum of people who believe that such a label means many different things. So while you may believe that your definition is the one true definition of what feminism is, there is a sampling of "feminists" who would disagree. Some of those people are the man hating kind and others are wolves in a sheep's clothing (male predators claiming to be feminists). Please understand that you can never speak for all of feminism as just like any social group they are a multi-faceted group comprised of many beliefs and ideals that range from "go equality!" to "some men must be sacrificed for the good of the species".

there is no need to virtue signal to have a relevant debate, for example i feel confident making the statement:

While a large portion of feminists may believe in equality, there is a very vocal group of them who are more than happy to make it a movement about female superiority BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. This includes false accusations of innocent people, twisting truths to suit the narrative and ignoring facts that may disprove their foregone conclusions.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[DNS-and-BIND]

When you wear hoods in public to conceal your identity, that means you're the bad guys. When you defend them, that makes you the bad guys too. Using violence to stop people from speaking isn't fighting fascism, it is fascism!

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[The Cynical Critic]

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 people would people are actually interested in something as awful as that.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[serviscope_minor]

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:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a feminist, and I prove you wrong. Look, here I am, ready to talk about it, no interesting in shutting you down.

Those are diametrically opposite statements. And they're right next to each other. On purpose.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[AmiMoJo]

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:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[werepants]

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 a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Is Antifa nationalist? No, it's an international group. Are they associated with any particular race? No. Are they supporting a dictator? No, their stated purpose is to oppose such. Are they for centralized autocracy and regimented society? No, they tend almost to the point of anarchy in some cases.

You can rightly take a moral stand against Antifa's anarchist or pro-violence positions, but calling them fascist is just stupid and shows that you're a credulous simpleton at best, and what's more, a complicit propagandist, wittingly or no. There is one anti-democratic, anti-liberty, fascist movement in the U.S. right now, and it is represented by the alt-right and their white supremacist, tiki-nazi ilk, who seek to impose their religious and economic fetishes on the rest of the nation and would gladly make Trump a dictator to do so. Authoritarianism is the most un-American thing there is - and Trumpists are wrapping it in the stars-and-stripes and doubling down on it as fast and hard as possible. Stop helping them. You're better than this.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[AmiMoJo]

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:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[AmiMoJo]

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

[DNS-and-BIND]

There are two kinds of fascism: fascism and anti-fascism. Your vigorous defense of the indefensible makes me think you're one of the two. Wearing hoods on the street to conceal your identity is what the KKK did, and anyone who copies their tactics might as well be them. Using violence to stop people from speaking isn't fighting fascism, it is fascism.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[mjwx]

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 victim in all of this when nothing could be further from the truth.

The sad part is that they also have mod points, so you risk a downmod for calling them out on their bollocks.

I am a person who finds relationships difficult (not just with women, even just friendship in general) but I've learned from my mistakes (and currently have a steady girlfriend) which is why I recognise that these male victims and MGTOW's are making all the classic mistakes of someone who cant (or doesn't want to learn) how to have a proper relationship. First step of fixing a problem, is admitting you have one, as long as they live in their victimisation fantasies they'll never be able to do that

Women get harassed regularly.

This isn't true.

The media love a good beat up story. There are a few high profile cases like Harvey Weinstein which has merit and a few in the UK parliament that some of which have merit (I.E. the MP who asked his assistant to buy a sex toy for him) and some are just political assassinations. Hollywood and politics are far from normal careers, the power imbalance makes doing the wrong thing tempting and difficult for a victim to reveal, in that regards these industries need to be held and monitored to a higher standard.

However in a normal workplace, there isn't a great deal of harassment unless there is a culture of harassment. In which case its completely indiscriminate about who gets harassed (not equal in the slightest, but there's no pattern to the targets). Most businesses do not permit a culture of harassment. Women are harassed more than men, but its not as common as we've been lead to believe (note, I am in no way justifying any kind of harassment, against women or anything else).

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[mjwx]

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:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[mjwx]

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:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

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, I think he's concluding that based on witnessing first hand how you haven't made any effort to show him your good side or provide examples in your replies to him.

Just declaring how you're a male feminist and "prove him wrong" is no more effort than a KKK member declaring he's not a racist.

No wonder you think everyone who contradicts you is dishonest.

He didn't say that. He was talking specifically about you being dishonest, not everyone.

No, it's because snowflakes like you

Whereas you think anyone who contradicts you is a "snowflake" (who listens to "fake news" and gets "triggered" etc.)

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[werepants]

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. Your insistence on this point actually hurts you, because instead of making meaningful criticisms of antifa, you keep saying things that are obviously incorrect on a very basic level.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[DNS-and-BIND]

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 must take care that he doesn't become a monster himself...etc.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[werepants]

He knew far more about the topic than any American wannabe will ever.

This is a meaningless appeal to authority. Make the argument on its own merits.

Silencing freedom of speech is what fascists do. When you use fascism to fight fascism, you become a fascist yourself.

Silencing freedom of speech is what authoritarians do. The communists did it - were they fascist? Antifa isn't using fascism to fight fascism - they are using organized protest, political demonstration, and at some points have advocated for physical violence, at which point they would become criminals and potentially terrorists depending on their particular activities. Nowhere are they using government power to curtail civil liberties (something that real authoritarians and fascists do). They don't have any racial superiority philosophies, or nationalistic tendencies.

Define fascism. It doesn't mean "anti free speech". It doesn't mean "willing to use violence". The term describes a specific, authoritarian political ideology based on nationalism and racism. Provide your own definition, if you don't accept mine. It needs to be specific enough to include Nazis but exclude Soviet communists, otherwise you have failed to provide a usefully descriptive term.

Why does it matter so much to you anyway? Why can't you be content to call antifa criminals, or terrorists? I suspect it's because redefining fascism is critically important to the alt-right. I can't imagine why.

Re:You can't have your cake and eat it too

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true. Not all women of course. However it's like not all men are animals. Some are, some women are bitches that will use whatever they can to advance.

Let me tell you, there is nothing like doing your job, having and following a policy of not going after women in the workplace and out of the blue you're accused of wrongdoing. They often won't even tell you by whom. You're kind of screwed. I beat mine by logic. Took what she said and used it against her. I think it took about two weeks and she admitted she made the whole thing up and as the previous poster said - nothing happened to her. Nothing ever does, not even in Trump's case where I think all of his so called women vanished right after the election. Same thing with Roy Moore. Bullshit accusations. I'm sure they'll get away with it along with the Washington Post so called journalists. If it happens to you, good luck. I hope you did nothing wrong.

This reminds me...

[Anonymous Coward]

of when the Monica Lewinski scandal broke. I was living in the D.C. Metro are at the time as a sysadmin, and for years the local papers advertised for federal interns with the heading "Gain experience under our nation's leaders". Needless to say, that heading was quickly changed.

This brings me to a point. I have no doubt quite a few of the recent "exposures" of sexual misconduct are quite legitimate, especially the sodomite actor. Now Matt Lauer. When I was in the Navy in the early 90s, the Tailhook scandal broke and after that, a man could not even look askance at a Navy female without the risk of harassment charges. The military went full on PC after that. This is going to be witch hunts.

Re: This reminds me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Naval idiot.

The Lewinsky scandal broke because the Special C. Kenny Starr went on a real witch hunt when he went from investigation of Whitewater to Clinton's cock. Because Clinton's cock is what GOP has obsessed over for more the 3 decades now.

Not safe to relate to a hand in the workplace

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! Hey! Leave my hand out of this.

Power corrupts, I guess?

[ErichTheRed]

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 always avoided even the hint of impropriety because I like my job, like getting paid and my family likes that I contribute. I guess when you're an executive, you're set for life anyway and untouchable so you go after what you want regardless of the consequences. From the outside looking in, it seems like a very nice life...you basically have a waitstaff taking care of your every need, chauffeuring you around, handling your daily business, etc. and you don't really have to do a lot other than be the company cheerleader.

Who?

[Megane]

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:Who?

[110010001000]

Ever heard of Android? He created it.

Creimer child bride expert

[Anonymous Coward]

Go away creimer
Creimer why don't you tell us how it's ok for 50 year old men to marry 16 year old mexican girls "with village permission".

Most people actually hold slashdot in high regard even if it doesn't have a high post count these days. The worst part of slashdot are all the leftover weirdos. The intelligent userbase readily evaporates leaving behind ugly clumps of creimer and other idiots.

Re:Creimer child bride expert

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people actually hold slashdot in high regard even if it doesn't have a high post count these days.

You mean the people who haven't left Slashdot for Reddit yet?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

More 'non harrassment'

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't figured out why men yet haven't gotten together to start to fight radical feminism that we are seeing everywhere around us these days.

Sleeping with a girl and her "regretting being a slut" later and not filing a claim, is not sexual harassment (by the guy at least).
Or check out "mattress girl",
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/38nrgy/who_is_mattress_girl/
  who had a whole relationship with a guy, then after the fact, declared it 'assault', and got the guy kicked out of school for doing absolutely nothing wrong! ..and on .. and on..

Pretty much every guy I know are against rape and actual sexual assault against women and have never raped a girl. However most have been accused (formally or informally) of 'sexual' assault by disgruntled ex-lovers, psychos and other associated crazies or entitled fem-princesses..

When does this end?
Guys are pussies for letting this all continue... it needs to be shut down..

Another Jewish pervert!

[Anonymous Coward]

What a surprise!

This IS the tech world

[micahraleigh]

The tech world is run by lizards who hire people primarily based on looks and age and want to put as many lives into the ground to scratch whatever itch enters into their head. Crimes to them are just reminders about how 'ahead of their time' they are, and it pains them to be held to the same standard as others.

Exhibit A: Eric Schmit, Exhibit B: Steve Jobs

And these guys want to be able to run the world, but they can't even run their own lives and deserve jail time.

Re: This IS the tech world

[Anonymous Coward]

Rubbish.

Eric and Steve are not known to have weak minds for women. Nope. You are just rumormongering.

Matt Lauer

[Anonymous Coward]

and now Mr Rubin.

All these lascivious Jews...

I used to think Trump was a Jew. The only people he ever hangs out with are his Jew attorneys or his Jew relatives. For years, his best friend was Roy Cohn. Trump has always wished he was Carl Icahn, a real shark.

PastIsPast

[sdinfoserv]

What does a complaint to HR at an organization he left have to do with the current company? I miss the connection.

Re:PastIsPast

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I agree with it, but the groupthink on this is that it's lawsuit bait to keep somebody on if it can be proven that the company knows about past sexual misconduct in the workplace. The idea goes that HR has a responsibility to protect the workforce from somebody they know to be a predator.

Whether that actually plays out in court the way some people think it will is another matter entirely... but the idea that your entire professional career can be ruined based on an unproven, unchallenged, anonymous complaint, is fucking terrifying.

That is not what they mean by "believe them"

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

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

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 most minor feminists on the Internet.

2. Merely having an open investigation can destroy a career or someone's life, so just starting one because some woman said someone did bad things is guaranteed to hurt a lot of innocent men. 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, and unfortunately that sort of speech is not defamation per se despite it being a malicious, quasi-statement of fact aimed at hurting a reputation with no evidence to back it up other than feelz.

3. We don't even do this for murder. The government's investigators do a preliminary examination, usually as discretely as possible, to determine if it was a murder or some other form of death.

4. Most "sex crimes" involving adults don't have signs of coercion that could be used to prove a lack of consent. It's entirely based on her word against his. If you have sex with your wife tonight and don't use a condom, she can go to the police tomorrow and accuse you of rape. The evidence that sex happened is there. She says it wasn't consensual. You say it was. The average feminist would say she needs to be the one given the benefit of the doubt.

Re:That is not what they mean by "believe them"

[AmiMoJo]

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:That is not what they mean by "believe them"

[serviscope_minor]

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:That is not what they mean by "believe them"

[squiggleslash]

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 most minor feminists on the Internet.

Nope.

I have never heard this. Feminists are well aware there have been liars in the past, but most point out that the issue isn't with the liars being believed, it's with the fact that it's very, very, hard for a woman to be taken seriously at all who claims sexual assault of any kind.

Merely having an open investigation can destroy a career or someone's life, so just starting one because some woman said someone did bad things is guaranteed to hurt a lot of innocent men.

This entire sentence makes me think that there's heavy projection on your part when you assert the position of Feminists is so extreme that they don't want liars to be taken into account when determining public policy. Not even investigating a sexual assault accusation because some women have lied when making them?

I've seen it happen, and unfortunately that sort of speech is not defamation per se despite it being a malicious, quasi-statement of fact aimed at hurting a reputation with no evidence to back it up other than feelz.

Actually making a maliciously false statement of fact that hurts someone's reputation is defamation. I'm not sure where you get it from that it isn't. Maybe you're confusing the act with the difficulty of prosecution, namely it's a civil offense and notoriously difficult (and expensive!) to litigate and, well, doesn't generally, in the end, result in anything positive for either side? Defamation cases are usually pointless and harmful unless your sole intent is to harm someone who defamed you, and the consequences be damned.

Meanwhile, do we have any examples of people whose lives were ruined by false accusations? The most famous person I can think of who was subject to almost certainly false accusations of rape is Bill Clinton. He got elected President, and remains a prominent figure in politics. The accusations seem to be gaining more traction right now, largely as part of the unveiling of accusations against large numbers of people from Bill O'Reilly to Harvey Weinstein, but he was on Conan three weeks ago. Clinton has never been exonerated, it's just pretty clear that the accusations were part of a smear campaign that includes allegations varying from real estate fraud to murder.

Who else? The Village Voice article was debunked and nobody's feeling anything but sympathy for the people originally accused, which contradicts the notion that once exonerated people's lives are still ruined. I've heard people claim other people's accusations were "proven false", but when I've done the research I've found the putative "victim" of such false allegations actually had a history. "Mattress Girl" Emma Sulkowicz's attacker, for example, was accused of assault by three other women, and supposedly the evidence she wasn't raped herself was because the local definition of rape excluded the specific actions her attacker took at the time he took them, despite the fact she wasn't consenting at the time.

3. We don't even do this for murder. The government's investigators do a preliminary examination, usually as discretely as possible, to determine if it was a murder or some other form of death.

This is part of a process of investigation.

4. Most "sex crimes" involving adults don't have signs of coercion that could be used to prove a lack of consent. It's entirely based on her word against his. If you have sex with your wife tonight and don't use a condom, she can go to the police tomorrow and accuse you of rape. The evidence that

Re:That is not what they mean by "believe them"

[squiggleslash]

Oh, and by coincidence USA Today last week tried to get a Feminist to advocate the kind of crap you're accusing Feminists of advocating. They failed to find anyone who supported just firing accused harassers without due process.

So, to be clear: Feminists - for due process. You - apparently opposed to anything that would involve investigating harassment complaints. Which puts Feminists firmly on the right side of this argument and makes a mockery of your assertion that Feminists think that the possibility that women might lie shouldn't relate to policy.

No, YOU post it first ... YOU made the claim

[Anonymous Coward]

You know we can see all the posts, right? So we can see you pull a factoid out of ... wherever ... and then when OtherPoster replies you claim HE needs to provide YOU with a statistic? Nope, you show your cards first, sunshine, since you made the original claim.

Garrison Keillor Fired For Inappropriate Behaviour

[Anonymous Coward]

http://fortune.com/2017/11/29/garrison-keillor-fired-inappropriate-behavior/

Matt Lauer...

[Anonymous Coward]

had issues going on dating back to his time on the Sacramento Good Morning Show (I forget the name, they have rebranded a few times since.) along with the Car Czar, and uhmm the guy with formerly spikey hair who got the DUI not long after splashing on the national scene (including big interviews with hollywood actors.)

The split is just like politicians and civil servants. About half chose the profession so they could get into a position of power and leverage it against others, and the other half spiral into alcoholism, other substance, or unpopular/illegal sexual outlets in order to cope with their work days/make up for lost creativity due to stress.

Sooner or later it happens to everyone who doesn't retire/change careers before they snap. It's nice to imagine these stoic individuals who live up to our highest expectations of morality and work ethic, but in the real world that doesn't happen and there is always another reason.