There's a distinction between power (formal, like a workplace hierarchy) and influence (informal). Both can apply pressure to people and cause negative consequences for people who cross them. Louis C.K.'s victims were comedians and Louis was a highly influential figure in comedy. So yes, his comments could harm their careers if he chose to lash out at them. That fear, among other reasons, is likely what kept them quiet.

The left is just infatuated with this idea that we're going to win over the hearts and minds of deplorables who are acting in bad faith. gl trying to have a dialogue about whether it's okay to jack yourself off in front of your co-workers.

Again, I'm not too familiar with the charges against O'Reilly, but from what I gather quickly from wikipedia they involve lewd remarks / suggestions to an employee of his, or at least a subordinate working for the same company. If that is correct, I would say the actions were worse than those of Louis but not as bad as those of Weinstein.

Do you see all sexual harassment and abuse charges as equivalent? I don't those who think they should all be treated the same. Even all homicide isn't treated the same by society; there is first-degree, second-degree, manslaughter, etc.

article doesn't specify her role in production, presumably for privacy reasons. but Louis CK - writer, producer, and personal friend of Chris Rock - OBVIOUSLY had power over this woman in her early 20s while asking her to watch him masturbate at his desk, in his and her workplace.

so once again

lol you

Yes, there is a distinction, which is what I am saying. Neither are good, but one is worse than the other. Of course he could have possibly applied pressure and caused negative consequences for them, and that would have been wrong, but it appears that he did not do so.

And I don't think anything kept them quiet, at least a few of them did speak up about it at the time. I heard rumors of this years ago myself, and I am in no way connected to the industry, I believe I just read them online.

Guess bill should of just took it out.

How successful The Civil Rights Movement or the fight for women's suffrage would have been if that mentality was prevalent?

Either we try to do it or allow the intolerance to continue to grow unabated.

We're complicit in its growth if we have the ability to curb the spread of bigotry and dangerous misinformation but choose not to act. We don't have to talk to each person one by one like Davis. But some action needs to be taken whether it's protesting, attending town hall meetings or calling representatives.

I'm sure Davis has been rebuked by far many than he has saved. But that doesn't deter him from trying.

No, but you implied that sexual harassment cases that don't involve touching are all equally bad.

The implied threat of career destruction is enough to keep victims quiet. I don't know if you are incapable of seeing this or arguing in bad faith.

How is that an argument for reverse discrimination?

I can't really understand this paragraph, but I don't see why this is really a problem.

Like, with racial discrimination you can make an argument that even if everyone became color-blind tomorrow racial disparities would persist due to problems of poverty and self-perpetuation.

That argument breaks down pretty terribly for gender discrimination.

This point is reasonable.

It doesn't seem like Louis CK thought they were unwilling. I don't see how he had power over them.

If no one "gets through" to the people who behave in ways that you consider bad, then how will the bad behavior stop? Especially non-illegal bad behavior?

Yeah if he shoved someone in a bathroom that is obviously far worse but it would be nice to hear from someone who claims this happened rather than making those assumptions from that weird email.

Well I would like to thank you for sharing something new to me here; I was not familiar with this charge, and it does seem much different / worse than the other charges, in that it involves activities done at a workplace with someone in a subordinate position to him. If true, this behavior was definitely wrong.

With a caveat below:

I don't think becoming a super successful comedian should preclude him from pursuing women who are also comedians unless there is some more specific power relationship there.

I wasn't familiar with this. I had read quickly through the NYT article in order to participate in this conversation.

That is much more inappropriate, and much different than the hotel room story IMO.

I certainly didn't mean to do that. But they are all less bad than actual rape.

(They're also less bad than what the president of the USA has admitted to doing.)

Good to see people still rushing in to defend guys jerking off in front of people before getting all the facts, wouldn't want white men to be oppressed of their right to expose their genitals.

Oh, go **** yourself.

There are a couple of different conversations going on. The issue with men, like me and all others, swooping in to offer our pov on the specifics of these cases is there still has not been a wholesale acknowledgement of the breadth of this issue. To use a poisoned term, it's male privilege. We can be academic about it all, point out the negative affect on men, solve little branches of the problem with policy, and ignore it the rest of the time. It is not an insult to say we have a luxury women don't. It is an insult to not take a minute to contemplate that before we make a statement on it.

Simple mind exercise. Imagine you are a comedian invited to Louis CKs room, but he is about 50% bigger than you and obviously twice as strong. Asks if he can pull it out. You don't know if he is serious because it's so bizarre. He does. If you report him people are not going to believe you. His agent is the most powerful agent in Hollywood. He asks you not to. You are now faced with explaining this humiliation to the world, being disbelieved by millions, given altering motives, and probably lose work if not your entire career, or accepting it and trying to live your life the way you had ****ing planned. Apparently it is your fault if you don't take the responsibility to stop this guy also, btw.

It's hard for us to understand what it's like for women every single day. Men are an actual threat to them all the ****ing time. Brushing it off as oversensitive or wondering at this early stage in this movement about over reaction by someone who literally never ever ever has to worry about the issue unless they feel like it is the complaint.

Seriously, where was the last time you as a man were legitimately concerned about being careful of rapists? Walk out of a casino with a lot of cash and you feel nervous in the parking lot, but a woman has to have that feeling every parking lot every day. A dude pulling out his dick, even if he "asks" is not what you are pretending it is if you are equating it to consensual sexual activity.

Because that discrimination (along with other problems) is supported/caused by women being under-represented. Positive discrimination attacks that support/cause of discrimination.

It doesn't break down. Suppose it's an 80/20 male/female split, 5% retire a year and all all appointees are 50:50? How long before it becomes 50:50 overall?

Don't do the adding up as it's a very simplified model and the numbers are made up. The straightforward point is that positive discrimination redressed the imbalance faster.

Exercise ends here for me. I decline the invitation unless I am interested in seeing Louis' penis.

Also makes no sense to say the women would be disbelieved. Anyone who had seen Louis' stage act would easily believe them. I certainly never disbelieved them for a second.

I call bull****. If you are a comedian who gets asked to hang out with by an idol you are saying you don't in case he pulls out his dick? I Have been in a hotel room with lots of people lots of times that didn't involve naked dicks.

But you just pointed out how he is bigger and stronger than me, and as a woman I have to live in fear of being raped at all times. So of course I wouldn't deliberately put myself in a risky situation like that.

I guess you have different experiences than me though, as I have never been in a hotel room with a member of the opposite sex I didn't want to have sex with, and I really have no desire to be in that situation. I have always assumed that inviting someone to one's hotel room was an invitation to some sort of intimacy.

Yeah the whole point is you refuse to make any effort to see things through a lens other than your own.

Am I reading your position correctly that you think if a woman, or even two women together, think a man has any use for them other than a sexual exploitation outside of a public space they are foolish and responsible for the outcome?

Also, instead of laughing at the idea that women are always believed when they make accusations if they are denied, I'll just point out the recent...okay I am not going to bother.

No, I'm saying that women shouldn't go to a hotel room with a man they aren't sexually interested in. Thought that was common knowledge and implied by the constant fear of men all women suffer from which you mentioned.

And I said nothing about charges in general being disbelieved, I said no one who specifically accused Louis of masturbating would be disbelieved. I would disbelieve any woman who said she was alone with him and he didn't try to masturbate.

I'm just gonna assume everyone posting in here with me wants to see my dick pics. pms sent.

Assuming we are talking about the hotel room thing and not the at work one. I would do nothing. This guy made an awkward sexual advance on me. Move on. I don't understand why it's a big deal at all?

Like, just leave the room?

What? Pulling out your dick is a part of lots of consensual sexual activity. Would you have a problem if Louis had asked them if they wanted to have a threesome? If he had tried to kiss one of them?

Again, referring to hotel incident only.

Ah, okay, I think you're missing my point.

What you call positive discrimination is, in and of itself, an evil. Obviously it would get you to equal representation faster, but unless it is actually necessary to achieve fair representation it should not be done.

The argument for discriminating against John in favor of Jane because Jane's mother was discriminated against in favor of John's father is extremely tenuous IMO.

No, I'm saying that if he invited me to his hotel room, and then asked if he could pull out his dick, I would say "no thanks, I'm not interested".

If I laughed instead of saying that, because I thought he was joking, and then he pulled it out I would either say "uh bro can you not do that plz?" or leave. It wouldn't be traumatizing.

See above. It's not clear that they are "accusing" him of anything except being part of an awkward sexual encounter.