Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: It isn’t sexual based | |
| Posted by: ryhog 10:11 am EDT 04/08/21 | |
| In reply to: re: It isn’t sexual based - manchurch03104 07:38 am EDT 04/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| I don't necessarily disagree, but for something to "rise to criminality" we have to have a legislature pass a law defining it and making it a crime. A law criminalizing "a clear and distinct pattern of abuse," without more, would be void for vagueness and thus a denial of due process. And even as a crime, as I said, their are gradations of heinousness. Sexual abuse>physical abuse>emotional abuse>verbal abuse, generally speaking. What we need are laws that very clearly set the boundaries. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: It isn’t sexual based | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:19 pm EDT 04/08/21 | |
| In reply to: re: It isn’t sexual based - ryhog 10:11 am EDT 04/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| Verbal abuse *is* generally speaking emotional abuse, and I would equate being yelled at in front of your colleagues as no less violent than being physically harmed in front of your colleagues, even if the scars aren't visible. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: It isn’t sexual based | |
| Posted by: ryhog 06:33 pm EDT 04/08/21 | |
| In reply to: re: It isn’t sexual based - Singapore/Fling 03:19 pm EDT 04/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| I would say we must (and the law does) distinguish between offenses based on nuanced gradations. I think it is dangerous to lump everything in one pot and treat it as equally offensive. We don't punish based on "generally speaking," and we shouldn't. It's a tricky and not simple subject. There are many factors that go into these definitions and that result in different degrees of culpability. What was the intent? What was the circumstance? What was the relationship? What were the words? The list goes on. There is verbal abuse that, while not something to praise, does not rise to the level of actionable conduct. (E.g., I yelled at an umpire who makes a bad call. He heard me.) You think yelling at a person in front of colleagues because they lost some important document is worse than yelling in private about something truly humiliating that leaves the person devastated (and yes scarred)? My point is that we practice injustice when we punish without asking a lot of questions, and also without providing clear lines distinguishing between things. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It isn’t sexual based | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:37 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: It isn’t sexual based - ryhog 06:33 pm EDT 04/08/21 | |
|
|
|
| Yelling is yelling. After working at a theater where the person in charge routinely yelled at everyone, I lost my ability to excuse or parse that abuse as being less than other forms of abuse. Both actions that you describe are about humiliating someone else, and the public nature of yelling at someone in an office is part of that humiliation. There is no call for yelling *at someone* in an office, even if an important document has been lost (I'm trying to make a distinction here for a person exclaiming loudly in frustration, versus someone yelling directly at an employee), as that creates a toxic workplace that operates on fear and degradation. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It isn’t sexual based | |
| Posted by: ryhog 05:07 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: It isn’t sexual based - Singapore/Fling 03:37 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| I think we are talking about different things (both nonetheless bad). I think there are actions that create a toxic workplace and we have (and should have more and better) laws and sanctions addressing these things. But yelling at someone because they lost a document is not a crime, and I don't think we want for it to be equated with throwing office equipment at people (or grabbing someone's breasts or shooting them etc etc ) in the eyes of the law. When we equate, we diminish the severity of the more egregious behavior, and that's bad. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It isn’t sexual based | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 09:01 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: It isn’t sexual based - ryhog 05:07 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| What are you imagining the person is yelling at the other person when the document gets lost? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It isn’t sexual based | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:02 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: It isn’t sexual based - Singapore/Fling 09:01 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| I wasn't imagining. It actually happened. Mostly it was in the nature of a generalized freakout about the consequences of not having a signed document that was needed that day. [It was found, later that day, accidentally attached to the back of something else by a paper clip so there is a happily ever after aspect to this.] I am not sure why you asked. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It isn’t sexual based | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:22 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
| In reply to: re: It isn’t sexual based - ryhog 11:02 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| I asked to see if we could role play and get deeper into the specifics of what's being said and how it's being directed at the person. And then also, the follow-up question would be if this was a one-time situation, followed by a genuine apology and change in behavior, or if this kind of yelling happened on a weekly basis. In the situation that I've been in, the yelling was constant and frequent and part of a larger set of tools that the person in charge used to humiliate the staff and artists who worked at the theater. I do think that those specifics can help us parse where we want to draw the boundaries on acceptable and unacceptable. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It isn’t sexual based | |
| Last Edit: ryhog 05:11 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
| Posted by: ryhog 04:56 pm EDT 04/10/21 | |
| In reply to: re: It isn’t sexual based - Singapore/Fling 11:22 pm EDT 04/09/21 | |
|
|
|
| I thought I had responded on this before. I am not really into role play. I don't think the situation I described was Rudin-esque. It was not one time but it was also not weekly. I think it was mostly a result of freaking out about the consequences. I think the "larger set of tools" can be a useful perspective. I want to add a few more things that are worth saying. People are talking about crimes but not everything illegal is a crime. In New York, harassment is illegal even if it is not pervasive. (The only defense available to the employer (other than denial obviously) is that the complained about action(s) were "petty slights or trivial inconveniences.”) Another interesting aspect of the current law is that confidentiality agreements do not apply to communications with an attorney or any governmental entity that has jurisdiction, and it is the employee's choice if any settlement is confidential. There's more of course, but there is zero doubt that Rudin's conduct would be proscribed and actionable. Oh and an employee can be awarded punitive damages and attorney's fees. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.026084 seconds.