Sure, I'm not saying power dynamics in relationships is never an issue. Clergy and congregation, Dr. and patient and Teacher/student (while taking classes from said teacher) are all off limits to me as issues of professional ethics. Now, for employer/employee I think there are gradations though I agree its all fraught and would persona…
Sure, I'm not saying power dynamics in relationships is never an issue. Clergy and congregation, Dr. and patient and Teacher/student (while taking classes from said teacher) are all off limits to me as issues of professional ethics. Now, for employer/employee I think there are gradations though I agree its all fraught and would personally choose to avoid it entirely. I think that if the person is not their immediate supervisor its less of an issue as was the case with Clinton but that he was married complicates that whole discussion.
I agree that work place relationships are a quagmire but forbidding them is just setting ourselves up to criminalize sexuality, as we're doing now and given that the burden of making the advance is generally male, we're criminalizing male sexuality. For example in the military fraternization is forbidden between officer and enlisted and in the Navy sex at sea is a punishable offence. Now, I understand the reasoning but it was never very realistic because it just goes on quietly. Its like abstinence may be the best contraception in theory but certainly not in practice, given its total detachment from human nature. Or outlawing abortion doesn't stop it, just makes it more dangerous, etc.
"Clergy and congregation, Dr. and patient and Teacher/student," I would suggest that employer and intern should be treated the same way, especially when it's President of the United States and Intern.
I agree with you that these are difficult questions, especially when both parties are adults. My problem is more with the double standards that are applied.
As I recall, Pres. Clinton's administration had a very active (and activist) EEOC. This time period was sort of a high point of awareness of sexual harassment on the job. It was relatively uniform on the left (again, per my very imperfect memory) that bosses should not sleep with their underlings, as the power imbalance made these relationships per se unfair and actionable.
Yet, President Clinton was caught with an intern, and suddenly it was no big deal, two consenting adults, and all that. I remember handling a sexual harassment case in the 90's that really fit the mold--power imbalance and when the relationship became known, the underling lost the job and felt the repercussions. The only difference? The underling was a man and the employer was a woman (back when we knew what those terms meant). The claim was dismissed right away.
It's a tough issue. But it cannot work out that 'my team' wins and 'your team' loses.
(By the way, at the time I thought the relationship between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky should not have been actionable. You will recall, though, that they tried to claim executive privilege, such that the president could not be examined about the matter until after he was out of office. That question was, as I recall, taken all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled he could be deposed. At that point, I don't care what you think: You have to tell the truth. He didn't.)
Yeah, you make a good point but I have a couple concerns:
1. Were never gonna stop coworkers from having sex and this just seems to criminalize it. Maybe the thing to punish is retaliation and harrassment. Forbidding office relationships even between boss and underling seems a lost cause especially when hypergamy is such a prominent part of human sexuality.
2. You could eliminate boss & underling sex and still not stop the power imbalance problem (by the standard being set) in a town like DC because the whole place is so incestuous there’d be no relationship that couldn’t be considered a power imbalance.
3. I too am an old dog who remembers the scandal in real time. My favorite part is that the guy driving the whole warlock hunt was Speaker Gingrich, a hypocrite so bent he was icing his own mistress at the time with a 500K line of credit at Tiffany’s.
You won't ever stop it but that doesn't mean you shouldn't strongly discourage it when the age and/or power imbalances are eyebrow raising. Two wrongs, or more specifically in this case, two lying cheating dogs, don't make such actions more acceptable just because they're predictable. Bill Clinton had an established pattern of predatory behavior and it's infuriating that his cheating ways were used as weapons against Hillary in 2008 and 2016. GRR.
Sure, I'm not saying power dynamics in relationships is never an issue. Clergy and congregation, Dr. and patient and Teacher/student (while taking classes from said teacher) are all off limits to me as issues of professional ethics. Now, for employer/employee I think there are gradations though I agree its all fraught and would personally choose to avoid it entirely. I think that if the person is not their immediate supervisor its less of an issue as was the case with Clinton but that he was married complicates that whole discussion.
I agree that work place relationships are a quagmire but forbidding them is just setting ourselves up to criminalize sexuality, as we're doing now and given that the burden of making the advance is generally male, we're criminalizing male sexuality. For example in the military fraternization is forbidden between officer and enlisted and in the Navy sex at sea is a punishable offence. Now, I understand the reasoning but it was never very realistic because it just goes on quietly. Its like abstinence may be the best contraception in theory but certainly not in practice, given its total detachment from human nature. Or outlawing abortion doesn't stop it, just makes it more dangerous, etc.
"Clergy and congregation, Dr. and patient and Teacher/student," I would suggest that employer and intern should be treated the same way, especially when it's President of the United States and Intern.
I agree with you that these are difficult questions, especially when both parties are adults. My problem is more with the double standards that are applied.
As I recall, Pres. Clinton's administration had a very active (and activist) EEOC. This time period was sort of a high point of awareness of sexual harassment on the job. It was relatively uniform on the left (again, per my very imperfect memory) that bosses should not sleep with their underlings, as the power imbalance made these relationships per se unfair and actionable.
Yet, President Clinton was caught with an intern, and suddenly it was no big deal, two consenting adults, and all that. I remember handling a sexual harassment case in the 90's that really fit the mold--power imbalance and when the relationship became known, the underling lost the job and felt the repercussions. The only difference? The underling was a man and the employer was a woman (back when we knew what those terms meant). The claim was dismissed right away.
It's a tough issue. But it cannot work out that 'my team' wins and 'your team' loses.
(By the way, at the time I thought the relationship between President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky should not have been actionable. You will recall, though, that they tried to claim executive privilege, such that the president could not be examined about the matter until after he was out of office. That question was, as I recall, taken all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled he could be deposed. At that point, I don't care what you think: You have to tell the truth. He didn't.)
Yeah, you make a good point but I have a couple concerns:
1. Were never gonna stop coworkers from having sex and this just seems to criminalize it. Maybe the thing to punish is retaliation and harrassment. Forbidding office relationships even between boss and underling seems a lost cause especially when hypergamy is such a prominent part of human sexuality.
2. You could eliminate boss & underling sex and still not stop the power imbalance problem (by the standard being set) in a town like DC because the whole place is so incestuous there’d be no relationship that couldn’t be considered a power imbalance.
3. I too am an old dog who remembers the scandal in real time. My favorite part is that the guy driving the whole warlock hunt was Speaker Gingrich, a hypocrite so bent he was icing his own mistress at the time with a 500K line of credit at Tiffany’s.
You won't ever stop it but that doesn't mean you shouldn't strongly discourage it when the age and/or power imbalances are eyebrow raising. Two wrongs, or more specifically in this case, two lying cheating dogs, don't make such actions more acceptable just because they're predictable. Bill Clinton had an established pattern of predatory behavior and it's infuriating that his cheating ways were used as weapons against Hillary in 2008 and 2016. GRR.