71–80 of 311 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more than that, powerful/rich people men are going to have more access to (consensual) sex than poor men.
But if it's consensual, then they are behaving themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What did he force onto her?
Well she's stuck raising the son of an emotionally abusive sociopath. Besides that he pressured her into quitting with promises of financial support, then left her with the baby and refused to pay. I can't even comprehend the type of person who doesn't see the cruelty of this man. She trusted the wrong person, that doesn't justify his behavior.
She decided to have a child and she decided to raise them. These are choices she made. He decided he doesn't want to take part in raising his son.
It sounds like you want her to get all the pros and him all the cons in this situation. But their decisions have both pros and cons for both of them. Her decision means she gets to have a family/child (at the cost of the work/money needed to raise a child). His decision means he's a bad father who will his son will likely always hate but it has its financial advantages.
> Besides that he pressured her into quitting with promises of financial support, then left her with the baby and refused to pay. > > I can't even comprehend the type of person who doesn't see the cruelty of this man. She trusted the wrong person, that doesn't justify his behavior.
Yes, he's a cruel liar. Probably most people would be if given the opportunity (yes I'm a cynic and I don't believe in natural/native human kindness) but I'm not trying to make excuses for him. From the article he seems like a terrible person. But so what, that's not illegal. In the end what are we trying to achieve by pointing this out?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This phrasing is a bit misleading. It makes it sound like Sergey had designated a room exclusively for sex with employees and called it the "masseuse room." To be precise, Google's offices include private massage rooms in which employees can get professional massages. Sergey allegedly had sex in one or more of these rooms.
> It makes it sound like Sergey had designated a room exclusively for sex with employees and called it the "masseuse room." Yes, it does sound like that. I'd advise all people in leadership to avoid conduct that could be interpreted this way. Edit: Thank you jacquesm for fixing my freudian slip :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh wow. > David would go for months or even years at a time completely ignoring my pleas to see his son — not even so much as a text to us, despite living about a mile away. I can see not having the desire to be with her and break up the relationship, but abandoning his child and not seeing them for years at a time is downright evil. It's so strange to hear how Google touts itself to be at the forefront of inclusivit…
What is "evil" about not wanting to see a child that you presumably didn't want to begin with? A woman with an unwanted pregnancy can abort. Men don't have that option. But that doesn't obligate them to an emotional bond with the child.
I'll go with "scummy and reprehensible".
And: "deeply at odds with the ethical standards that Google once claimed to stand for (not that we ever took them seriously when they said those things)."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, then maybe you read the story but did not understand it. That's fine with me, but I did read the story and that is not my takeaway at all. For starters, there is a clear abuse of power here with one party being the senior person at the company suggesting that things will be 'ok' when clearly there was a plan all along to create a situation of asymmetry and dependency, followed up with a lot of very mean and man…
I don't get this "abuse of power" angle at all. Having a relationship with a subordinate is not an abuse of power. Insisting that your job rests on a relationship is an abuse of power, but without evidence that happened (and it seems like it didnt), there's no abuse. This idea that a power differential invalidates a relationship is nonsense. The fact is, people spend half or more of their waking hours at work. You sp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What did he force onto her?
Well she's stuck raising the son of an emotionally abusive sociopath. Besides that he pressured her into quitting with promises of financial support, then left her with the baby and refused to pay. I can't even comprehend the type of person who doesn't see the cruelty of this man. She trusted the wrong person, that doesn't justify his behavior.
California doesn't have child support? If he's not in his child's life he's a scumbag but at the very least I'm assuming the child is getting a very generous financial contribution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It makes it sound like Sergey had designated a room exclusively for sex with employees and called it the "masseuse room." Yes, it does sound like that. I'd advise all people in leadership to avoid conduct that could be interpreted this way. Edit: Thank you jacquesm for fixing my freudian slip :)
Interrupted? I think you meant 'interpreted'.
This was after Drummond was called out publicly for abandoning his kid he had with a subordinate: https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/10/25/report-alphabet-c...
I am sure he's made a lot of people money, but it's not like Google couldn't find a great legal chief who also wasn't a terrible person.
Edit: First article I linked to was paywalled, so here is the underlying story: https://medium.com/@jennifer.blakely/my-time-at-google-and-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The right way to implement a policy like that is to say that supervisors are not permitted to have relationships with their subordinates. That way, if such a relationship develops against the rules, it's clear upon whom the consequences should fall: the supervisor. Supervisors get more money and power from the organization than their subordinates, so it's fair for the organization to have higher expectations for the…
Agreed, but a bigger factor is the power differential, IMO: the boss has the higher need to maintain at least an image of impartiality, and it's harder for the subordinate to resist advances knowing that the giver is key in deciding when they can and can't get time off, pay rises, etc.