Examining the Validity of Sexual Harassment Claims in the Media

  • News
  • Thread starter DoggerDan
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the media's tendency to give equal time to all stories, even small ones, and the story of a man who was accused of sexual harassment for tapping a female subordinate on the shoulder. The man believes it was blown out of proportion by the liberal media and that it will backfire on them. However, others point out that the physical contact is not necessary for it to be considered sexual harassment. Overall, there is a lack of trust in the media and concern about how Cain is handling the situation.
  • #1
DoggerDan
Cain and sexual "harassment"

The media feels it needs to give every item "equal time." Thus, a presidential sneeze gets 30 seconds, the same as bronchitis. I once had the "audacity" to tap a female subordinate on the shoulder to get her attention. Why did I have to touch her? She was wearing earphones on the job, which entailed monitoring and using radios, which she couldn't hear because she was listening to her iPod. Before I tapped her on her shoulder, I queried her twice, once in a normal tone of voice, the second rather loudly, much louder than the radios she was supposed to be monitoring. One guess as to her response to my directing her to ditch her iPod while on the job. Fortunately, two witnesses were right there and emphatically supported the truth, so her idiotic effort backfired before it began. The fact that she claimed sexual harassment despite the fact that two witnesses were right there underscores her idiocy. Perhaps she thought it might help keep her from being fired.

Nope.

As for Cain, no physical contact was involved, which tells me it's the liberal, ant-right media which is digging up this speck of dust and shouting it from the mountaintops. This behavior gives the media a VERY bad name, as well as anyone else who joins in the shouting.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Wow. Really? A sexual harassment suit because you tapped someone on the shoulder?
 
  • #3


This has Karl Rove written all over it.
 
  • #4


There's an old saying - the truth will set you free.

I think this will backfire on the Left - given their earlier defense of President Clinton through his scandals. EVERYBODY can see the hypocrisy in this matter - one more reason not to trust the main stream media.

On the other hand - if Cain is covering up any part of the story - he's done. People will understand and forgive a bumbling/fumbled but truthful response as he's embarrassed and uncomfortable with the topic - but they won't tolerate a lie.

Romney/Gingrich 2012 is looking like the ticket.
 
  • #5


I don't know if the charge has merit, but he has so far botched the response effort.
 
  • #6


russ_watters said:
I don't know if the charge has merit, but he has so far botched the response effort.

Might be making it worse now.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...consultant-for-his-harassment-scandal/247799/

"As the scandal surrounding Herman Cain's alleged sexual harassment problem takes on a life of its own, the former pizza titan is hitting back with accusations that the story was a hit job from Rick Perry's campaign."
 
  • #7


DoggerDan said:
As for Cain, no physical contact was involved, which tells me it's the liberal, ant-right media which is digging up this speck of dust and shouting it from the mountaintops. This behavior gives the media a VERY bad name, as well as anyone else who joins in the shouting.

Where did you hear no physical contact was involved? Do you know who the source was for this story or are you just blaming the usual suspects (the liberal, ant-right media)?
 
  • #8


If he wants to be a politician but he can't handle thiis sort of stuff, he's failed. The truth or falsity of the allegations is as irrelevant as whether Obama is really a Martian who converted to Islam.
 
  • #9


skeptic2 said:
Where did you hear no physical contact was involved? Do you know who the source was for this story or are you just blaming the usual suspects (the liberal, ant-right media)?

Politico broke the harassment story.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67398.html
 
  • #10


Have Reverend Al and Jesse Jackson weighed in on this yet?
 
  • #11


DoggerDan said:
As for Cain, no physical contact was involved, which tells me it's the liberal, ant-right media which is digging up this speck of dust and shouting it from the mountaintops. This behavior gives the media a VERY bad name, as well as anyone else who joins in the shouting.

Ah, so you were there when this happened, I take it, otherwise there's no way you could know whether physical contact was involved or not. Please fill us in on what really happened.
 
  • #12


The guys on the right are correct, this will backfire on the left.

The right loves the Herman Cain controversy because it deflects attention away from Perry and Romney eating their own to the 'liberal media conspiracy' against a candidate who never had a chance against Romney anyway.
 
  • #13


chaoseverlasting said:
Wow. Really? A sexual harassment suit because you tapped someone on the shoulder?

I had a similar situation to the OP where me (a male) and a male subordinate came around the corner too quickly and collided. I instinctively put my hands on his arms and steadied each other and guided him around me. He reported the contact to HR whom called me and wanted an explanation. I gave them myside of the story and never heard anything of it again. He was getting fired in a few days for repeated performance failures (he had a specific goal after several months of evaluations and was very far from meeting it), and I think he saw the writing on the wall so was doing any little thing to keep a foothold.

On Cain - I agree he's handling it very poorly. It's hard to reply to oddball accusations without drawing extra attention to them (but at the same time addressing them).
 
  • #14


DoggerDan said:
As for Cain, no physical contact was involved, which tells me it's the liberal, ant-right media which is digging up this speck of dust and shouting it from the mountaintops. This behavior gives the media a VERY bad name, as well as anyone else who joins in the shouting.

So you're trying to tell us that physical contact is required for it to be sexual harassment?
The EEOC defines sexual harassment as:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:
1. Submission to such conduct was made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
1. and 2. are called "quid pro quo" (Latin for "this for that" or "something for something"). They are essentially "sexual bribery", or promising of benefits, and "sexual coercion".
Type 3. known as "hostile work environment," is by far the most common form. This form is less clear cut and is more subjective.[6]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment#United_States_2"

Given that the EEOC is the enforcement agency responsible for dealing with claims of unlawful sexual harassment, I'd say their definition supersedes yours.

Your argument appears to go like this:
"I touched a woman at work once and she cried foul. Because I wasn't sexually harassing her, someone else must touch a woman for it to be sexual harassment."

It's a complete non-sequitur. And that's ignoring the fact that you have no idea of any of the details of what actually happened.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15


chaoseverlasting said:
Wow. Really? A sexual harassment suit because you tapped someone on the shoulder?

Never made it past her complaint to HR. They got statements from the witnesses before showing them to her as they fired her.

mege said:
On Cain - I agree he's handling it very poorly. It's hard to reply to oddball accusations without drawing extra attention to them (but at the same time addressing them).

Agreed. His best response should have been something along the lines of "it was investigated and dismissed." It's not the sort of topic one wants to spend hard-earned media time discussing at length.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16


WhoWee said:
Might be making it worse now.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...consultant-for-his-harassment-scandal/247799/

"As the scandal surrounding Herman Cain's alleged sexual harassment problem takes on a life of its own, the former pizza titan is hitting back with accusations that the story was a hit job from Rick Perry's campaign."

Which is very problematic for Cain - first he says he was unaware of any sexual harrassment lawsuit against him, then later says one of his former advisors leaked the story to Perry's camp - either way, he lied then or is doing so now (by lie, I mean lied about knowing if there was a suit, not that it actuall happened).
 
  • #17


daveb said:
Which is very problematic for Cain - first he says he was unaware of any sexual harrassment lawsuit against him, then later says one of his former advisors leaked the story to Perry's camp - either way, he lied then or is doing so now (by lie, I mean lied about knowing if there was a suit, not that it actuall happened).

Your claim rests on the false assumption that human memories are perfect.

Mine's not. I've reviewed Cain's interviews on this subject, and they're smack dab in line with the way the human brain remembers relatively un-rememberable events.
 
  • #18


At this point, there are 2 anonymous women another anonymous woman that has been cleared to speak but chooses not to and instead has a spokesperson lawyer?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/u...lls-of-harassment-pattern-lawyer-attests.html

""WASHINGTON — The lawyer for one of the women who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment said Friday that Mr. Cain engaged in a “series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances” toward his client over two months in the 1990s, and he directly accused Mr. Cain, a Republican presidential candidate, of not telling the truth about his behavior.
The lawyer, Joel P. Bennett, who represents a former employee of Mr. Cain’s at the National Restaurant Association, said the accusations did not center on a single exchange that could be easily misinterpreted, which is how Mr. Cain has characterized it. Mr. Bennett said there were multiple episodes that led his client to file a formal complaint with the restaurant association.


If this woman is unwilling to testify (and unless this lawyer was a witness to events spread over a 2 month period) - perhaps Cain or (more appropriately) the National Restaurant Association should hold the lawyer's feet to the fire?

Actually, at this point there's no proof the lawyer actually has a client. The National Restaurant Association continues to suffer damages to it's reputation every time the lawyer speaks - something it sought to avoid when it settled nearly 20 years ago. The damages to the National Restaurant Association (actually a global enterprise) may be hundreds of millions of dollars.
 
  • #19


WhoWee said:
There's an old saying - the truth will set you free.

I think this will backfire on the Left - given their earlier defense of President Clinton through his scandals. EVERYBODY can see the hypocrisy in this matter - one more reason not to trust the main stream media.

On the other hand - if Cain is covering up any part of the story - he's done. People will understand and forgive a bumbling/fumbled but truthful response as he's embarrassed and uncomfortable with the topic - but they won't tolerate a lie.

Romney/Gingrich 2012 is looking like the ticket.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/herman-cain-woman-45000-payout

Romney and Perry are the left, now?

In another setback, Cain's team backed off its claim that rival Rick Perry's team had originally planted the story in a dirty tricks operation. Cain had blamed a Perry strategist, Curt Anderson, as the source.

But Cain's team on Thursday was forced into a climbdown after Anderson denied it. Anderson said he had known nothing about the sexual allegations until he read about them on Politico.

He added that he continued to have enormous respect for Cain and would not speak negatively about him either on or off the record.

Mark Block, Cain's campaign chief, said: "Until we get all the facts, I'm just going to say that we accept what Mr Anderson has said, and we want to move on with the campaign."

Anderson had worked for Cain as a consultant in a failed bid for the Senate in 2004. Cain's team claim he was briefed at the time about the sex harrassment allegations.

Perry's team suggested that another rival, Mitt Romney, might have been the culprit, noting that one of Romney's big donors was in the restaurant industry.

To be fair, Cain has nothing to back up his suspicions about Perry and Romney except that people in their campaign staff could have known about the incidents. But thinking this was leaked by "the left" is equally unfounded at this point.
 
  • #20


BobG said:
To be fair, Cain has nothing to b...[B]He clearly did something wrong.[/B]" "[/I]
 
  • #21


that's some bold speculation
 
  • #22


DoggerDan said:
Your claim rests on the false assumption that human memories are perfect.

Mine's not. I've reviewed Cain's interviews on this subject, and they're smack dab in line with the way the human brain remembers relatively un-rememberable events.

Perhaps so, but if I were to ever be accused of this, I wouldn't ever call it "un-rememberable".
 
  • #23


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...uses-cain-of-sexually-inappropriate-behavior/

This is someone new, who it appears never pursued it but felt the need now to talk about it.
While I find it abhorrent to try to extort sexual favors with a job offer, I don't find it surprising. While the moral content of our president is an external symbol of our national moral values, I really don't know if I'd refuse to vote for someone SOLELY on an event such as this. But a history of it would show his lack of respect for women, and that IS a huge problem.
 
  • #24


Hepth said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...uses-cain-of-sexually-inappropriate-behavior/

This is someone new, who it appears never pursued it but felt the need now to talk about it.
While I find it abhorrent to try to extort sexual favors with a job offer, I don't find it surprising. While the moral content of our president is an external symbol of our national moral values, I really don't know if I'd refuse to vote for someone SOLELY on an event such as this. But a history of it would show his lack of respect for women, and that IS a huge problem.

I don't know what to think of this - as a long time member of the NRA - I have lot's of questions.
1.) Why wait until now - Cain ran for Senate?
2.) How did Atty Gloria Allred find this woman?
3.) Why was David Axelrod's name connected to hers in Google searches?
4.) Why did she lose her job at NRA before she met Cain under these circumstances - what was going on inside NRA politics?
5.) Was she planning to leave her boyfriend (in NJ?) and move to DC - or did she live in Chicago where the Education foundation and trade shows are based?
 
  • #25


WhoWee said:
I don't know what to think of this - as a long time member of the NRA - I have lot's of questions.
1.) Why wait until now - Cain ran for Senate?
2.) How did Atty Gloria Allred find this woman?
3.) Why was David Axelrod's name connected to hers in Google searches?
4.) Why did she lose her job at NRA before she met Cain under these circumstances - what was going on inside NRA politics?
5.) Was she planning to leave her boyfriend (in NJ?) and move to DC - or did she live in Chicago where the Education foundation and trade shows are based?

In addition she states she told her boyfriend and friend after the incident:
The lawyer said she had two sworn statements from Ms Bialek's then boyfriend, as well as a longstanding friend, who said she had told them about Mr Cain's alleged behaviour shortly afterwards.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15628860
So 6) Why her boyfriend and friend waited until now?
 
  • #26


DoggerDan said:
Your claim rests on the false assumption that human memories are perfect.

Mine's not. I've reviewed Cain's interviews on this subject, and they're smack dab in line with the way the human brain remembers relatively un-rememberable events.

daveb said:
Perhaps so, but if I were to ever be accused of this, I wouldn't ever call it "un-rememberable".

Actually, I think something like that would be pretty memorable, too. How often do these type of things happen to him that they'd become un-rememberable?

That still doesn't shed any light on what actually happened - it just shows he doesn't want to talk about it. Nor does does the NRA, hence the 5 figure settlements.

Likewise, Chris Matthew's comments aren't exactly bold speculation, even if I don't think Cain definitely did something legally wrong. Something happened that the NRA felt was worth paying out money instead of defending itself (and Cain?) in court. That doesn't mean the women would have won their case. It only means whatever happened would be embarrassing whether they won or lost. I think Matthew's comments are an overstatement, even if not bold speculation.
 
  • #27


rootX said:
In addition she states she told her boyfriend and friend after the incident:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15628860
So 6) Why her boyfriend and friend waited until now?

Well, to be honest, its more of a "this perv tried to bribe me with a job for "sexual favors"" story that you'd tell your friend. Really doesn't seem like something you rush to the press to talk about.
 
  • #28


Hepth said:
Well, to be honest, its more of a "this perv tried to bribe me with a job for "sexual favors"" story that you'd tell your friend. Really doesn't seem like something you rush to the press to talk about.

Accordingly, why are there 2 sworn statements?
 
  • #30


edward said:

Ok - coincidence it is. I'll replace that one with how does one place a hand up a (you know what) and pull a head down to (you know where) at the same time - if standing? That sounds very aggressive - why would she ask him to drive her back to her hotel after that encounter? If there is any truth to this - my guess is they knew each other better than either are stipulating.
 
  • #31


WhoWee said:
Ok - coincidence it is. I'll replace that one with how does one place a hand up a (you know what) and pull a head down to (you know where) at the same time - if standing? That sounds very aggressive - why would she ask him to drive her back to her hotel after that encounter? If there is any truth to this - my guess is they knew each other better than either are stipulating.

Who said they were standing. They were sitting in a car. He stopped the touchy feely bit when she ask him to. Who else was going to drive her back to the hotel? They probably did know each other better than either stipulated or she would not have come to him seeking a favor.:devil:
 
Last edited:
  • #32


edward said:
Who said they were standing. They were sitting in a car. He stopped when she ask him to. Who else was going to drive her back to the hotel? They probably did know each other better than either stipulated or she would not have come to him seeking a favor.:devil:

I just listened to the whole statement. I thought she had said they gotten out of the car. Now more questions - why would the boyfriend send her to see Cain, how/why would he upgrade her room - then ask "why are you here?", why were they drinking and going to dinner, and what was the purpose of visiting closed offices?

If I were in her shoes - just lost a job and wanted to speak to the President about it - the meeting would have been in his office during regular business hours.

Likewise, if I was in Cain's shoes - even when I was single - there wouldn't have been any room upgrades and private drinks and dinners if I didn't know what this former employee had in mind.

The entire affair sounds shady to me.
 
  • #33


WhoWee said:
I don't know what to think of this - as a long time member of the NRA - I have lot's of questions.
1.) Why wait until now - Cain ran for Senate?

Most of the time something like this happens to a woman, it doesn't occur to her that there have been others in the same situation. Seeing this scandal unfold probably gave her the courage to step forward.

Also, frankly, it's humiliating. Especially since she was, in fact, asking him for a favor - maybe she was afraid it would make her look bad. I bet she just wanted it to go away, and pretend it didn't happen.

Btw, she has identified herself as a "registered Republican" (NPR).
 
  • #34


i just want to know if he pulled a Clinton and bit her nose.
 
  • #35


Seriously, how can someone respond to undocumented charges more than a decade later? "She has witnesses". Yea, the entire ACRON organization would make get witnesses for each other, lol. Do you really think the Democratic Party nuts like Soros, MoveOn.org, etc. couldn't set this up on short notice? Remember, none of these "victims" have filed a legal complaint, so they can't be punished for filing a false police report. "Oh, but they put themselves up to public reticule and exposure". Yea, they get to brag to their friends they help sandbag some guy running for president, and make a little money selling the story.

Let’s examine recent history. Voter registration fraud, completed voter ballots mailed out recently in one state by democrats, etc. Is it too hard to image that a popular candidate may have a false claim made against him which is so late it's almost impossible to defend? Anyone remember these same people that hate Cain come to defend Clinton against those false allegations by Flowers, Lewinski, etc.? Even with tapes and Clinton’s “DNA”, they still defended him. With Cain, we only have decade plus old undocumented or discredited claims.
 
<h2>1. What is the purpose of examining the validity of sexual harassment claims in the media?</h2><p>The purpose of examining the validity of sexual harassment claims in the media is to ensure that the claims being made are based on factual evidence and not just speculation or hearsay. It is important to distinguish between actual instances of sexual harassment and false accusations in order to protect the rights of both the accuser and the accused.</p><h2>2. How are sexual harassment claims typically portrayed in the media?</h2><p>Sexual harassment claims are often sensationalized in the media, with a focus on the accuser's story and the alleged perpetrator's reputation. This can lead to bias and misinformation, making it difficult to determine the truth behind the claims.</p><h2>3. What factors should be considered when examining the validity of sexual harassment claims?</h2><p>When examining the validity of sexual harassment claims, it is important to consider the evidence presented, the credibility of the parties involved, and any potential motives for making false accusations. It is also important to approach the investigation with objectivity and avoid making assumptions based on stereotypes or biases.</p><h2>4. How does the media's coverage of sexual harassment claims impact public perception?</h2><p>The media's coverage of sexual harassment claims can greatly influence public perception and can contribute to the stigma surrounding victims of sexual harassment. It is important for the media to report on these issues responsibly and accurately, in order to avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes and biases.</p><h2>5. What are the potential consequences of false sexual harassment claims?</h2><p>False sexual harassment claims can have serious consequences for both the accuser and the accused. It can damage the reputation and career of the accused, while also undermining the credibility of legitimate claims. It is important to thoroughly examine the validity of claims in order to prevent these potential consequences.</p>

1. What is the purpose of examining the validity of sexual harassment claims in the media?

The purpose of examining the validity of sexual harassment claims in the media is to ensure that the claims being made are based on factual evidence and not just speculation or hearsay. It is important to distinguish between actual instances of sexual harassment and false accusations in order to protect the rights of both the accuser and the accused.

2. How are sexual harassment claims typically portrayed in the media?

Sexual harassment claims are often sensationalized in the media, with a focus on the accuser's story and the alleged perpetrator's reputation. This can lead to bias and misinformation, making it difficult to determine the truth behind the claims.

3. What factors should be considered when examining the validity of sexual harassment claims?

When examining the validity of sexual harassment claims, it is important to consider the evidence presented, the credibility of the parties involved, and any potential motives for making false accusations. It is also important to approach the investigation with objectivity and avoid making assumptions based on stereotypes or biases.

4. How does the media's coverage of sexual harassment claims impact public perception?

The media's coverage of sexual harassment claims can greatly influence public perception and can contribute to the stigma surrounding victims of sexual harassment. It is important for the media to report on these issues responsibly and accurately, in order to avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes and biases.

5. What are the potential consequences of false sexual harassment claims?

False sexual harassment claims can have serious consequences for both the accuser and the accused. It can damage the reputation and career of the accused, while also undermining the credibility of legitimate claims. It is important to thoroughly examine the validity of claims in order to prevent these potential consequences.

Similar threads

Replies
44
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
4K
Back
Top