|
Post by Sirenna on Oct 26, 2005 13:10:59 GMT -5
A debate you can't argue, Metella? That is a first.
;-D
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Oct 26, 2005 13:18:07 GMT -5
Sirenna, you beat me to the punch. I was about to post the same thing! Seriously, though -- Metella, of course you're right. Whether or not the article is true or not IS an entirely separate issue. If it's a false report, then the entire discussion concerning our various opinions on Mr. D'Onofrio's behavior is moot. And what fun is moot?!
|
|
|
Post by Metella on Oct 26, 2005 14:16:18 GMT -5
Just too much for me to concentrate on - bogs my mind down. but moot is fun if only to see what we think of the issues at hand, that is one reason I joined in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by DNA on Oct 26, 2005 14:48:41 GMT -5
I've seen it reported on a few other news (I use that term loosely) site's but they only quote the Daily's story and interestingly enough some of those are concentrating on whether there is any truth to the report rather than questioning VDO's stance. I agree we do now have 2 separate issues, My initial interest was focused on the media hence my reference to the Forbes article posted on The Reel, But I've really enjoyed reading everything regarding the issue raised in the article true or not.
|
|
|
Post by inspector on Oct 27, 2005 18:42:31 GMT -5
Thanks, LOCIfan, for that run-down of sexual harassment. Very interesting and complicated enough to be worthy of an in-house training seminar for employees. I'm glad to know NBC cares (even if they only care because they're afraid of being sued) enough to educate people about their rights and responsibilities in the workplace.
It's particularly interesting that D'Onofrio took issue with the hypothetical scenario presented, since his complaints about the actor being male and the costume assistant being female are kind of besides the point in terms of whether or not it was sexual harassment. Sometimes there's something to be said for just listening.
|
|
|
Post by Techguy on Oct 27, 2005 23:57:55 GMT -5
Several issues are indeed involved here, not the least of which is whether the report is true or even accurate. Yes, there is a difference.
Anyhow, there are so many subjective hints throughout that make me question the motive and intent of the writer. For instance, D'Onofrio is described as a bachelor, which is completely irrelevant to reporting a story--unless there is a covert attempt to somehow connect bachelor D'Onofrio to the scenario of a male actor viewing hard core porn. The red flags have gone up for me already.
Also, the lawyer is described as "frazzled" and the person giving quotes about D'Onofrio's statements is called a "spy." I don't know much about journalism, but these examples alone are reason enough to make me step back with a wary and skeptical eye as to what the point is being made.
Another issue is whether the example given constitutes sexual harassment, with the implication that D'Onofrio should have just addressed that and left the rest alone. However, as a male, I see his point in that the hypothetical situation presented the subject is a male actor. D'Onofrio quite reasonably could have been upset that a male was specified in the scenario. However, he could have taken a more mature and practical approach to voicing his objection to the manner of the scenario--assuming, of course, that he did act belligerently as described. But this word choice is entirely subjective in and of itself; what's belligerent to one person might be forceful or emphatic to another.
Bottom line: this so-called "report" is too loaded with subjectivity for me to give it much credence. Yes, the NY Daily News is higher on the journalistic evolutionary scale than The Post. But that's like saying a Cro-Magnon is more highly evolved than a Neanderthal.
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Oct 28, 2005 15:13:44 GMT -5
This thread has given me a giggle. ;D
If D'Onofrio did indeed jump up and "butt in", hey, good for him! He's right!! I would have jumped up and helped him. If this did happen, and if I ever met him, I'll give him a pat on the back for it.
Maybe he was pissed he had to go- I would be too- or maybe he was pissed about something similair happening around him and used the seminar to voice it. Women can harass and cause just as many problems as men- and get awayt with it- and I think he was trying to drive that point home.
I disagree these seminars are worth anything. They're a joke. They're all talk and no action. Best to take a book or a walkman to pass the time.
As for hypothetical scenario, is is sexual harassment? No. The actor is in his dressing room and the costume person should have enough sense to knock first. Now, if the actor posted porn all around, etc, then it becomes harassment.
Had Erbe stood up and said something similiar, there never would be an article about it nor any flack about it. (Assuming this happened!) Now if a man (a bachelor at that!) stands up and says he's tired of men being stereotyped or discriminated against, then he's a pig. Double standards die hard, huh?
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Oct 28, 2005 15:36:39 GMT -5
It appears Observer and I are in the same boat!
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Oct 28, 2005 15:44:37 GMT -5
This thread has given me a giggle. ;D I disagree these seminars are worth anything. They're a joke. They're all talk and no action. Well, to an employee who's experiencing sexual harassment at work and who may not know there's something they can do about it, a seminar like this could very well seem like a life line.
|
|
|
Post by NikkiGreen on Oct 28, 2005 18:46:57 GMT -5
Maybe these types of seminars would actually mean something (and be productive), if people stopped treating them as jokes.
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Oct 28, 2005 22:45:06 GMT -5
These seminars would actually mean something if the people who put them on bothered to practice what they preach at those seminars.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Oct 29, 2005 2:39:19 GMT -5
These seminars would actually mean something if the people who put them on bothered to practice what they preach at those seminars. What? It sounds as though you're reacting to a bad personal experience with workplace training seminars. Maybe not. But, either way, you're painting with a mighty broad brush. I've been to many, many such seminars over the course of my career and, as with most things, there are the enlightening, the mediocre, and the bland. As for how this relates to the NBC Universal sexual harassment seminar, I fail to see how anything -- whether true or a fabrication -- reported on it suggests that the individual/company putting on the seminar sexually harassed anyone present (which is what they were "preaching" against). Or maybe that's not what you meant when you said they should "practice what they preach at those seminars." To the extent that you're suggesting the company is simply putting on this presentation with no intention of honoring the policy (and I could be waaay off base on what you're suggesting), that's generally NOT the case with large companies such as NBC Universal. They are terrified of being sued, and tend to have extremely well-defined policies and procedures for dealing with the issue. They take the issue seriously because failure to do so can have serious financial and public relations repercussions.
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Oct 29, 2005 12:50:55 GMT -5
I mentioned the article to a co-worker who's a guy and he laughed his head off that D'onofrio took offence at the assumption porn example had to be a man viewing. D'onofrio's comment proves he's an equality driven kind of guy. Of course it could be either gender. The sexual harrassment lawyer should have known that.
Seminars do make the issue public, the company's stance, hopefully AGAINST it, transparent and, especially in male-dominated workplaces that's something. It means I don't have to personally take a stand every time an asinine comment is made because that is the COMPANY's job. Mine is just to trade. I'll tell you though the worst offenders are the customers - by far.
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Oct 29, 2005 12:54:11 GMT -5
What? It sounds as though you're reacting to a bad personal experience with workplace training seminars. Maybe not. But, either way, you're painting with a mighty broad brush. I've been to many, many such seminars over the course of my career and, as with most things, there are the enlightening, the mediocre, and the bland. I'm reacting to "seminars" about sexual harasment. If you want to be believe they are useful fine, but I don't. I have never been given a reason to believe they are useful as they do not "practice what they preach" at the these "seminars". I am highly critical and dismissive of them for my own reasons just as your own reasons for finding them worth your time. We each paint our brush strokes as we see fit, whether we see the same result or not. As for how this relates to the NBC Universal sexual harassment seminar, I fail to see how anything -- whether true or a fabrication -- reported on it suggests that the individual/company putting on the seminar sexually harassed anyone present (which is what they were "preaching" against). Or maybe that's not what you meant when you said they should "practice what they preach at those seminars." ?? My comments do no relate specifically to the NBC seminar in particular, rather my comments refer to the seminars in general. The individual/company hosting the NBC seminar is irrelevant. To the extent that you're suggesting the company is simply putting on this presentation with no intention of honoring the policy (and I could be waaay off base on what you're suggesting), that's generally NOT the case with large companies such as NBC Universal. They are terrified of being sued, and tend to have extremely well-defined policies and procedures for dealing with the issue. They take the issue seriously because failure to do so can have serious financial and public relations repercussions. You're not at all off base here. These seminars are as useful as "The War On Drugs" babble- lots of talking with no solid solutions. (Why is the movie "Traffic" coming to mind right now?!) I find is laughable that large companies, such as NBC, would be terified of being sued because those companies have the power to sweep everything under the rug. It's the way it usually goes anywhere. Unless the lawsuit catches heavy press coverage, which is rare, it will not affect the companies. Their spouting that they have would "serious financial and public relations repercussions" is just politically correct double talk. We have a long way to go before women are truly protected from sexual harassment in the work force. We haven't even made a dent. I could launch into a double standard/glass ceiling discussion but this isn't the time nor place for it. By the way, I don't mean to sound snipy with you. I just staunchly believe these "seminars" are part of the problem, not the solution.
|
|
|
Post by NicoleMarie on Oct 29, 2005 13:01:53 GMT -5
Seminars do make the issue public, the company's stance, hopefully AGAINST it, transparent and, especially in male-dominated workplaces that's something. It means I don't have to personally take a stand every time an asinine comment is made because that is the COMPANY's job. Mine is just to trade. People should stand up and say something instead of staying quiet. The company needs to now that some of the BS they are spouting is indeed BS. If a man wants to stand up and say "Stop stereotyping us!!", he should be listened to. He shouldn't be expected to sit back and feed the stereotype with his silence. I'll tell you though the worst offenders are the customers - by far. I understand you there. My hyusband and I own our own "mom & pop" store. Oh the stories I could tell! Afterthought: There is nothing worse than being harassed by customers, especially repeat customers. That is a no-win situation.
|
|