Actual Ex-Mo Predators

[Kishkumen]

I’ll just wade in that I support Kiskumen and what he has posted. I think there is a point to distinguish and not cheapen actual predators.

And this is the main point of the thread. Thank you, Dwight.

[IWMP]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hrexch ... omance/amp

Work place relationship article.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

While I appreciate your quoting my comment, please note that my irritation over rosebud's overgeneralizations is about her overgeneralizations.

My opinion on the other matter, which I have stated repeatedly, is that Dehlin had a subordinate fired as a result of a sexual interaction with her, and that I consider that to be sexual harassment.

How badly the victim behaved, which seems to be kishkumen's approach, does not mean they cannot be a victim. Personally, I find K's support of Dehlin through victim blaming to be pretty sickening. I thought we were past that but apparently not.

The fact is that Open Stories Foundation fired both Dehlin and Rosebud and was going to rehire both of them as contract workers. Rosebud did not like that, so she proposed to Dehlin the coup plan. He refused to go along with R’s coup plan.

I do not agree that Rosebud is a victim. Ergo, there is no victim blaming. I find your loose treatment of the facts appalling, but it is clear that you are determined to get mileage out of supporting Rosebud’s false claim that she is a victim.

When did JD become an Open Stories Foundation board member again? Because, you know, that’s a pretty solid power move by someone who was only going to be a “contractor.” Anyway, he’s an Open Stories Foundation board member. And his wife is, lemme see here, a paid Open Stories Foundation podcaster, too! Sweet.

The bottom line is JD was never going to suffer commensurate consequences as Rosebud, because JD was and is the talent. That’s power. To have an affair with a married woman, it goes public, and as a result he’s a board member and nicely compensated podcaster is power.

He was protected, and she was not. That’s power.

To fail upwards is power.

Rosebud had no ability to survive getting involved with JD, other than manipulating him and the threat of causing him social harm. That’s not power.

She was not protected by the board. They made her vulnerable with the “contractor” position. That’s not power.

She failed downward. That’s not power.

So, there’s the difference between predator and prey. The predator walks away, albeit sometimes with wounds, but the prey does not. Rosebud was the clear loser from getting involved with him. Because of his position, he always had the obligation, both morally to his family and professionally to the board and himself, to not make the choices he did. He had to be the bigger man, so to speak, and he was not.

He had power. She did not.

- Doc

[IWMP]

I’ll just wade in that I support Kiskumen and what he has posted. I think there is a point to distinguish and not cheapen actual predators.

And this is the main point of the thread. Thank you, Dwight.

To cheapen actual predators sounds like a really strange sentence. Like an oxymoron. To cheapen evil. Just seems strange.

I think the confusion in the earlier posts in this thread is that it sounded like Kish was saying that actual predators that we know to be predators abuse is real and all the rest isn't and so someone shouldn't feel trauma unless they were abused by a real predator. But over time that resolved.

Rosebud may well be traumatised by everything that happened to her even though some would not visualise dehlin as being a predator. It sounded like he was saying she shouldn't be affected. I believe one can be equally traumatised by a situation like rosebuds even though one might not easily be considered a victim of sexual harassment (not marcus' definition, actual unwanted sexual abuse). One can be traumatised without their needing to be a punishable predator involved.

Rosebud may not be a "victim" of abuse but she may be affected adversely and even traumatised by another's actions and even by her own involvement. We can easily regret choices later in life that we thought were a good idea at the time. I perceived rosebuds main problem as that it looks like she put her heart and soul into a company that she ultimately lost and perhaps in her mind she deserved more than just being dismissed and brushed off like her work didn't matter.

I may be wrong. I am only speculating.

[IWMP]

The fact is that Open Stories Foundation fired both Dehlin and Rosebud and was going to rehire both of them as contract workers. Rosebud did not like that, so she proposed to Dehlin the coup plan. He refused to go along with R’s coup plan.

I do not agree that Rosebud is a victim. Ergo, there is no victim blaming. I find your loose treatment of the facts appalling, but it is clear that you are determined to get mileage out of supporting Rosebud’s false claim that she is a victim.

When did John Dehlin become an Open Stories Foundation board member again? Because, you know, that’s a pretty solid power move by someone who was only going to be a “contractor.” Anyway, he’s an Open Stories Foundation board member. And his wife is, lemme see here, a paid Open Stories Foundation podcaster, too! Sweet.

The bottom line is John Dehlin was never going to suffer commensurate consequences as Rosebud, because John Dehlin was and is the talent. That’s power. To have an affair with a married woman, it goes public, and as a result he’s a board member and nicely compensated podcaster is power.

He was protected, and she was not. That’s power.

To fail upwards is power.

Rosebud had no ability to survive getting involved with John Dehlin, other than manipulating him and the threat of causing him social harm. That’s not power.

She was not protected by the board. They made her vulnerable with the “contractor” position. That’s not power.

She failed downward. That’s not power.

So, there’s the difference between predator and prey. The predator walks away, albeit sometimes with wounds, but the prey does not. Rosebud was the clear loser from getting involved with him. Because of his position, he always had the obligation, both morally to his family and professionally to the board and himself, to not make the choices he did. He had to be the bigger man, so to speak, and he was not.

He had power. She did not.

- Doc

You make very good points doc. I didn't visualise it this way. It certainly does shed light. Does that make him a predator though? To me I see a predator as someone who knowingly harresses and abuses another. You are correct that he had power and he got involved and didn't consider consequences. The problem arises in that she lost her career and he didn't. But would we define that as a predator/prey dynamic. Or just that he had the upper hand in the outcome. Which is pretty crappy. But I don't think that constitutes the image that is being portrayed, that he made unwelcome sexual advances and used his power to enforce an intimate relationship with another. The relationship appears consensual. It is suggested on rosebuds website that he was abusive. She defines gaslighting and other forms of abuse. Perhaps abuse of power in that ultimately she was left jobless and he wasn't. He didn't suffer the same way she did. But "predator"?

[Kishkumen]

When did John Dehlin become an Open Stories Foundation board member again? Because, you know, that’s a pretty solid power move by someone who was only going to be a “contractor.” Anyway, he’s an Open Stories Foundation board member. And his wife is, lemme see here, a paid Open Stories Foundation podcaster, too! Sweet.

The bottom line is John Dehlin was never going to suffer commensurate consequences as Rosebud, because John Dehlin was and is the talent. That’s power. To have an affair with a married woman, it goes public, and as a result he’s a board member and nicely compensated podcaster is power.

He was protected, and she was not. That’s power.

To fail upwards is power.

Rosebud had no ability to survive getting involved with John Dehlin, other than manipulating him and the threat of causing him social harm. That’s not power.

She was not protected by the board. They made her vulnerable with the “contractor” position. That’s not power.

She failed downward. That’s not power.

So, there’s the difference between predator and prey. The predator walks away, albeit sometimes with wounds, but the prey does not. Rosebud was the clear loser from getting involved with him. Because of his position, he always had the obligation, both morally to his family and professionally to the board and himself, to not make the choices he did. He had to be the bigger man, so to speak, and he was not.

He had power. She did not.

Yeah, you see, John Dehin definitely is the reason Open Stories Foundation exists.

I don't think your "predator/prey" analogy--because, remember, that's what it is, not a zoological or anthropological description--really works. I would definitely grant that she bore more risk in the relationship than he did, at least at the point that she voluntarily decided to take a job at Open Stories Foundation. But, you see, she is not stupid. Rosebud is highly intelligent. That's one of the ways she has been able to milk this situation with her willing dupes for this long.

Rosebud knew she was taking a risk, but she also wanted the payoff of being an important person in the Ex-Mo-sphere. So, she thought it was worth the risk to enter into the romantic relationship she was seeking before she took the job at Open Stories Foundation. I just don't believe she was so dumb as not to see the ethical issue there. So, it looks to me like a calculated risk. And one of the guarantees here is that they were both in on it. Both knew the ethical problems with the relationship they were conducting as co-workers. To use another metaphor--each was holding a gun at the other's head.

Dehlin knew that Rosebud could turn on him and cause him all kinds of trouble, and this is the power she held over him. She knew that Dehlin was more powerful in the organization and therefore had different tools to cause her trouble. On the surface, both were mutually enjoying their illicit relationship, and it is most likely the case that its illicitness was part of the thrill. Dehlin found a way out, but not without Rosebud pulling the trigger. The bullet left a big scar that he has to wear for the rest of his life.

Rosebud keeps pulling the trigger because she is angry she only grazed him and left a scar. Rosebud lives to fight another day, but it seems to me that she is the one harming herself by continually outing herself as the kind of person who will enter into a consensual affair in the workplace and then go nuclear when it falls apart. The problem is what it signals about the possibility she will do other dumb things that could be costly to an employer.

[Kishkumen]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hrexch ... omance/amp

Work place relationship article.

For example, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a jury could not reasonably rule in favor of the terminated subordinate employee plaintiff, where the plaintiff and her supervisor had a five-year consensual on-again-off-again sexual relationship. The employee was fired one month after the supervisor ended their relationship, but the court found that the plaintiff’s case lacked merit because she did not claim the romantic conduct was unwelcome and she admitted the supervisor did not seek sex in exchange for employment.

[Kishkumen]

You make very good points doc. I didn't visualise it this way. It certainly does shed light. Does that make him a predator though? To me I see a predator as someone who knowingly harresses and abuses another. You are correct that he had power and he got involved and didn't consider consequences. The problem arises in that she lost her career and he didn't. But would we define that as a predator/prey dynamic. Or just that he had the upper hand in the outcome. Which is pretty crappy. But I don't think that constitutes the image that is being portrayed, that he made unwelcome sexual advances and used his power to enforce an intimate relationship with another. The relationship appears consensual. It is suggested on rosebuds website that he was abusive. She defines gaslighting and other forms of abuse. Perhaps abuse of power in that ultimately she was left jobless and he wasn't. He didn't suffer the same way she did. But "predator"?

One of the legacies of Leftist politics (I would describe my self as a Center-Left voter) is an unfortunate idea borne of radical feminism: male sexuality is rape by definition. Although most people on the Left do not go that far, the lingering influence of this idea tends to warp the assessment of consent and culpability in exactly these kinds of situations. Men are often assumed to be predators because male sexuality is assumed to be predatory to some extent. So, if someone like John Dehlin sends flirty messages to a Rosebud, he is seen by those who buy into this line of thought as a predator who is "grooming" his prey. Her failure to tell him to knock it off or report him is excused after the fact as part of her victim profile. She was too scared, you see, to tell him to knock it off. If you start with the assumption that male sexuality is predatory, then it is very easy to conclude that someone like John is a predator, even if the person he is carrying on an affair with reciprocated and even asked for sex. To this day, certain people on this board see John as a predator and Rosebud as a victim.

Holly Welker recommends the following book, which I think is shaped by the legacy of radical feminism:

In The Tragedy of Heterosexuality, Jane Ward smartly explores what, exactly, is wrong with heterosexuality in the twenty-first century, and what straight people can do to fix it for good. She shows how straight women, and to a lesser extent straight men, have tried to mend a fraught patriarchal system in which intimacy, sexual fulfillment, and mutual respect are expected to coexist alongside enduring forms of inequality, alienation, and violence in straight relationships.

I would bet that what is "wrong with heterosexuality" is not just a problem of the twenty-first century, or even just a problem with heterosexuality. I would guess that the root problem is human relationships, which are usually a complicated combination of dominant and subordinate personality types and behaviors that can vary, relationship-by-relationship, in their strange stew of dominant and subordinate ingredients. I admit I have not read this book, and I understand that I should. I don't want to portray this book in an unfair manner. What I am pointing out here, however, is how ideology has shaped an entire discourse, within which this book comfortably falls.

[Marcus]

The fact is that Open Stories Foundation fired both Dehlin and Rosebud and was going to rehire both of them as contract workers. Rosebud did not like that, so she proposed to Dehlin the coup plan. He refused to go along with R’s coup plan.

I do not agree that Rosebud is a victim. Ergo, there is no victim blaming. I find your loose treatment of the facts appalling, but it is clear that you are determined to get mileage out of supporting Rosebud’s false claim that she is a victim.

When did JD become an Open Stories Foundation board member again? Because, you know, that’s a pretty solid power move by someone who was only going to be a “contractor.” Anyway, he’s an Open Stories Foundation board member. And his wife is, lemme see here, a paid Open Stories Foundation podcaster, too! Sweet.

The bottom line is JD was never going to suffer commensurate consequences as Rosebud, because JD was and is the talent. That’s power. To have an affair with a married woman, it goes public, and as a result he’s a board member and nicely compensated podcaster is power.

He was protected, and she was not. That’s power.

To fail upwards is power.

Rosebud had no ability to survive getting involved with JD, other than manipulating him and the threat of causing him social harm. That’s not power.

She was not protected by the board. They made her vulnerable with the “contractor” position. That’s not power.

She failed downward. That’s not power.

So, there’s the difference between predator and prey. The predator walks away, albeit sometimes with wounds, but the prey does not. Rosebud was the clear loser from getting involved with him. Because of his position, he always had the obligation, both morally to his family and professionally to the board and himself, to not make the choices he did. He had to be the bigger man, so to speak, and he was not.

He had power. She did not.

- Doc

Agreed. And he manipulated that power as a predator would.

[IWMP]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hrexch ... omance/amp

Work place relationship article.

For example, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a jury could not reasonably rule in favor of the terminated subordinate employee plaintiff, where the plaintiff and her supervisor had a five-year consensual on-again-off-again sexual relationship. The employee was fired one month after the supervisor ended their relationship, but the court found that the plaintiff’s case lacked merit because she did not claim the romantic conduct was unwelcome and she admitted the supervisor did not seek sex in exchange for employment.

This is what I read but I was too lazy to pull it out.