Lasseter Taking Leave of Absence

[englanddg]

My replies will be sequential, similar to your format.

Ok. Great.

There was a point in history when this behavior was acceptable. Think 500, even 300 years ago.

Wow. Really? You have to go that far back?

Patriarchy in which inappropriate behavior was accepted was the dominant social system and, in fact, accepted.

First, lets chalk one mark up for the term-drop with "patriarchy". That's some tasty, tasty intersectional kool-aid.

300 years ago? 500 years ago? Coverture (which is what I assume you refer to) hasn't been legal practice for a very long time, and is far from relevant. And, even then, English Common Law allowed pretty much unlimited participation in the legal system, including tort and contract law, to unmarried or widowed women. There were restrictions for licensed and educational positions, this is very true. But, again, this hasn't been the case for a very long time.

The necessaties doctrine and coverture, however, is carried through into modern law through alimony and child support. Would you suggest that these be amended, considering their legal assumption that the marriage is a contractual endeavour between both parties, with one party agreeing to the care and comfort of the other? Because, that is the precedent.

Women were literally property, this is irrefutable.

It is very much refutable, unless you have a very poor grasp of history.

Tell me why, then, all of these allegations are suddenly coming to surface if the social climate prior to recent was so against sexual harassment?

You think this is the first time a morality sweep has hit Hollywood, politics or business? I can list a dozen cases off the top of my head spanning decades. This comes and this goes... And, never, in recent times (not 300 or 500 years ago, as you alluded) has it been acceptable. But, allegation is not proof, and defamation is not justice.

This is blatantly wrong and you are extremely ignorant to your surroundings. This is isn't coincide. This isn't the new fad, so to say. The climate has shifted from victim blaming to prosecuting the offender.

Persecuting the offender, not prosecuting. I wish it was prosecuting. You know...pursuing Justice through the Justice System and not Twitter.

Sure, it may have been illegal. BUT, and this is huge so pay close attention, legal status doesn't necessarily indicate something is socially acceptable. If sexual harassment was such a socially unaccepted thing, it wouldn't happen. It's as simple as that.

This is huge, so pay close attention. What you just said is nonsense.

And, you'll have to explain your point about accusing those not guilty of potential crimes. I have literally no idea what you're alluding to. John Lasseter, and everyone else in Hollywood who has faced allegations, are guilty of sexual harassment.

Are they? Can you show me a conviction? Or, given the emotional state of the general public, are they PR liabilities, and rich enough, and well connected enough, not to fight or to care?

They used their power to take advantage of women in a sexual manner. Notice take advantage of people sexually, this is the exact definition of sexual harassment. And all of these people have done this. If you're saying they're not guilty, then YOU are advancing the culture that accepts sexual harassment.

No. What I am saying is that there is shared culpability. Let's assume all the allegations are true (I have no reason to believe they are not, and no where did I say they were not). There are legal pathways for this to be pursued. Posting on twitter thirty years later...is not one of them. I find it very amusing, frankly, that many of the allegations are being carefully levied outside of the statute of limitations in California. You are aware, I assume, that there is one. EEOC has something like 180 - 300 days to report, depending on various factors...but, they didn't report. Civil law in CA has 2 years for sexual assault. Criminal is 10 years, though I think they are trying to change that. Anyhow, funny they didn't bring these to bear when they actually had legal recourse (read...power) to do so.

Your next paragraph is disgraceful and disrespectful on so many levels. You don't have any sympathy for these women?

"all that much sympathy" != "any sympathy"

Comprehension issue?

And, I explained my position with the previous paragraph, so refer to that as my response to this statement.

Quite frankly, you are a sickening person based on this statement. The culture around them wasn't conducive or accepting to coming forward with allegations at the time. Times are changing (see first paragraph) and this is becoming more acceptable. If your true sentiments are that the women are at fault for waiting so long to come forward, then YOU and people like YOU, are the problem. This is absolutely pitiful and you should be ashamed.

If I witness someone physically assaulting someone else, it is my responsibility to, at minimum, report it to authorities, and at maximum, intervene. If I, myself, am physically assaulted, and I do not report it, I leave the assaulter to go free to victimize someone else. I am culpable, not only in overlooking my own victimhood, but through decided inaction, those who may be victimized by this person beyond me.

Your statement carries some weight, perhaps, before 1964 Title VII protections were enacted, or at least through 1995, when the accuser's case was not allowed to be diminished based on evidence of past sexual proclivity.

But, 1995...those people have grown up and are having their own kids now. These protections have existed for decades, as I said...

Next, please don't comment on my profession with no experience of it. The ignorance in this paragraph is almost vomit-inducing. There are literally hundreds of studies that show people of different race, religion, gender, etc all receive different treatments for the SAME CONDITIONS. Your comments on a topic you are so ignorant on are almost insulting. Do a little research before trying to tell me how my cultural values will affect my future practice.

Race? Sure. Biological science.
Gender? Sure. Biological science.
Religion? Um...have you lost the plot?

If you are not going to recommend the best course of treatment because someone worships a Flying Spaghetti Monster and his Holy Bolognese, and is therefore against any sort of pill encapsulated in gelatin made from cattle, even though it would save their life...I'm not sure I'd want you as my physician.

Consideration? Sure. That's bedside manner. Overriding treatment? Meh.

You described how to do research, congratulations.

What is sad is that I felt as if I needed to describe it, because you seem to do very little of it.

This is irrelevant to anything I said before.

It is not. You make broad statements and assertions, with vague appeals to authority (without providing sources), then attack others and accuse them of doing that same thing in general discussion. Projection much? Would you like me to quote mine you to point this out? Or, are you capable of recognizing it for yourself?

I was criticizing someone for making conjectures not based in research. Again, this is irrefutable.

It is very much refutable. Especially with context and nuance.

You're description of the research technique, while accurate, adds nothing to this discussion. One cannot make any sound argument without solid statistics to support.

One can say "in my experience", and it is just as valid as the unnamed statistics you allude.

You are literally speaking to conspiracy theories here.

No. I'm not. Manipulation and misrepresentation of statistics is so old that it is cliche. "Lies, damned lies and statistics"

Again, irrelevant information. Yes, we need to be critical of research. Should we be skeptical of all research? NO.

Yes. That is the whole point of scientific inquiry. If you are to treat it as a science, the very FIRST assumption you should make is skepticism.

If this were the case, then there would be no use for research or statistics. Research and statistics are the reason our cure rates for cancer and other historically debilitating diseases have risen steadily.

Yes. But cancer research doesn't rely solely on asking the patient subjective questions. Social sciences...do.

Scratch what I implied earlier, this paragraph is the worst you've written. You are questioning how threatened these women felt? How dare you.

I dare, I dare. See my earlier responses in this post for context.

Again, this type of thinking is the reason our society has turned its shoulder to sexual harassment for so long. I'm appalled that you have actually used your brain to think up an argument and this is what was thrown out. This is pathetic. You are wrong on so many levels, and if you fail to see this, then your mindset has been seriously twisted by something that I cannot identify.

Can't debate the topic, so debate the person. Ad hom is glorious.

Women can speak up, and they are, FINALLY! This is because society is starting to care about what they are saying! Society is FINALLY standing with women and saying enough is enough. This is an amazing thing and I'm so proud to live in era where the attitude towards such a vile act is changing.

The temperance movement agrees.

You know what, THIS last paragraph with the picture, is the absolutely revolting and the worst. You are implying that when women wear clothing like this they are inviting others to look at them in an effort to prosecute them on sexual harassment. THIS is quintessential victim blaming. You are insinuating that the woman doesn't care what people look at, but they are guilty no matter what. This is disgraceful not just to me, but to women. You're portraying this as the women's problem, not the sexual harasser. Boy oh boy, if this is the attitude shared by the general public, then maybe our societal problems aren't improving.

See that plane that flew overhead? My point was on it. You missed it entirely.

Read what I wrote directly before the picture, again. But, I'll try and explain it slightly differently.

Squishy and subjective definitions of harassment serve absolutely no purpose. People get offended over the strangest things, and offense is highly personal and subjective, for this reason.

It is not upon me to tell someone they should or shouldn't be offended, they are free to feel so, and free to voice their offense.

They should not, however, be free to assign intent or guilt upon others free from scrutiny, and in my opinion, liability. But, we don't have strong defamation laws in the US (UK does...we don't)...so...

As a mature society, when allegations surface, we should err on the side of caution. Otherwise we are no better than a gang of emotional teens gaggling and giggling around the school lunch table, and communally taking offense in a prescribed manner so as to signal our morality and self-worth. It is an immature philosophy that reveals a gross lack of understanding of the human state.

There is a reason why lynch mobs are not considered justice, in a legal sense. And, they never should be.

 

[DisneyDoctor]

I appreciate that you appear to be fond of the word “ignorant”.

Just an FYI- the harassment of a rich white woman and a poor woman of color would still be - harassment. The subject we’re speaking about is gender, and it does not matter what color you are or what tax bracket you are in. It is something that women have dealt with for decades...and longer.

You still need statistics to show you that.. spend some time and try to find them, I’m sure they exist.

We aren’t and most likely, won’t get anywhere with this conversation between us. If you can’t acknowledge that it is something that the majority of women have dealt with- on some scale, at some time in their life, then you truly are ignorant to the realities of women.
I’m not even using that term in a snarky way, just the appropriate meaning.

If the shoe fits. I haven't said anything to suggest that this isn't a problem. In all of my posts I have vehemently defended women. This is just a simple fact. You need evidence to back up your statements. This is how bad knowledge is propagated in society. You have a nice day.

 

[21stamps]

We don't know what he did, but whatever it was, it was bad enough for Fox News to see him as a liability and terminate his employment. It's that simple.

Do you believe that if advertisers would not have pulled out of their spots, that Bill O’Reilly would have lost his job? I don’t.

It’s not as simple as your statement.. there were other factors, and not one of us can claim to be correct one way or the other.

 

[DisneyDoctor]

Ok. Great.



Wow. Really? You have to go that far back?



First, lets chalk one mark up for the term-drop with "patriarchy". That's some tasty, tasty intersectional kool-aid.

300 years ago? 500 years ago? Coverture (which is what I assume you refer to) hasn't been legal practice for a very long time, and is far from relevant. And, even then, English Common Law allowed pretty much unlimited participation in the legal system, including tort and contract law, to unmarried or widowed women. There were restrictions for licensed and educational positions, this is very true. But, again, this hasn't been the case for a very long time.

The necessaties doctrine and coverture, however, is carried through into modern law through alimony and child support. Would you suggest that these be amended, considering their legal assumption that the marriage is a contractual endeavour between both parties, with one party agreeing to the care and comfort of the other? Because, that is the precedent.



It is very much refutable, unless you have a very poor grasp of history.



You think this is the first time a morality sweep has hit Hollywood, politics or business? I can list a dozen cases off the top of my head spanning decades. This comes and this goes... And, never, in recent times (not 300 or 500 years ago, as you alluded) has it been acceptable. But, allegation is not proof, and defamation is not justice.



Persecuting the offender, not prosecuting. I wish it was prosecuting. You know...pursuing Justice through the Justice System and not Twitter.



This is huge, so pay close attention. What you just said is nonsense.



Are they? Can you show me a conviction? Or, given the emotional state of the general public, are they PR liabilities, and rich enough, and well connected enough, not to fight or to care?



No. What I am saying is that there is shared culpability. Let's assume all the allegations are true (I have no reason to believe they are not, and no where did I say they were not). There are legal pathways for this to be pursued. Posting on twitter thirty years later...is not one of them. I find it very amusing, frankly, that many of the allegations are being carefully levied outside of the statute of limitations in California. You are aware, I assume, that there is one. EEOC has something like 180 - 300 days to report, depending on various factors...but, they didn't report. Civil law in CA has 2 years for sexual assault. Criminal is 10 years, though I think they are trying to change that. Anyhow, funny they didn't bring these to bear when they actually had legal recourse (read...power) to do so.



"all that much sympathy" != "any sympathy"

Comprehension issue?

And, I explained my position with the previous paragraph, so refer to that as my response to this statement.



If I witness someone physically assaulting someone else, it is my responsibility to, at minimum, report it to authorities, and at maximum, intervene. If I, myself, am physically assaulted, and I do not report it, I leave the assaulter to go free to victimize someone else. I am culpable, not only in overlooking my own victimhood, but through decided inaction, those who may be victimized by this person beyond me.

Your statement carries some weight, perhaps, before 1964 Title VII protections were enacted, or at least through 1995, when the accuser's case was not allowed to be diminished based on evidence of past sexual proclivity.

But, 1995...those people have grown up and are having their own kids now. These protections have existed for decades, as I said...



Race? Sure. Biological science.
Gender? Sure. Biological science.
Religion? Um...have you lost the plot?

If you are not going to recommend the best course of treatment because someone worships a Flying Spaghetti Monster and his Holy Bolognese, and is therefore against any sort of pill encapsulated in gelatin made from cattle, even though it would save their life...I'm not sure I'd want you as my physician.

Consideration? Sure. That's bedside manner. Overriding treatment? Meh.



What is sad is that I felt as if I needed to describe it, because you seem to do very little of it.



It is not. You make broad statements and assertions, with vague appeals to authority (without providing sources), then attack others and accuse them of doing that same thing in general discussion. Projection much? Would you like me to quote mine you to point this out? Or, are you capable of recognizing it for yourself?



It is very much refutable. Especially with context and nuance.



One can say "in my experience", and it is just as valid as the unnamed statistics you allude.



No. I'm not. Manipulation and misrepresentation of statistics is so old that it is cliche. "Lies, damned lies and statistics"



Yes. That is the whole point of scientific inquiry. If you are to treat it as a science, the very FIRST assumption you should make is skepticism.



Yes. But cancer research doesn't rely solely on asking the patient subjective questions. Social sciences...do.



I dare, I dare. See my earlier responses in this post for context.



Can't debate the topic, so debate the person. Ad hom is glorious.



The temperance movement agrees.



See that plane that flew overhead? My point was on it. You missed it entirely.

Read what I wrote directly before the picture, again. But, I'll try and explain it slightly differently.

Squishy and subjective definitions of harassment serve absolutely no purpose. People get offended over the strangest things, and offense is highly personal and subjective, for this reason.

It is not upon me to tell someone they should or shouldn't be offended, they are free to feel so, and free to voice their offense.

They should not, however, be free to assign intent or guilt upon others free from scrutiny, and in my opinion, liability. But, we don't have strong defamation laws in the US (UK does...we don't)...so...

As a mature society, when allegations surface, we should err on the side of caution. Otherwise we are no better than a gang of emotional teens gaggling and giggling around the school lunch table, and communally taking offense in a prescribed manner so as to signal our morality and self-worth. It is an immature philosophy that reveals a gross lack of understanding of the human state.

There is a reason why lynch mobs are not considered justice, in a legal sense. And, they never should be.

Really well articulated response. I read the last part and I understand what you're saying better. No time to respond though, big exam tomorrow. Have a nice day!

 

[Curious Constance]

I am in a place to say that women aren’t some delicate helpless beings that need a single man to protect an entire group of them because of their helplessness.

Women aren’t that weak. According to the article- They were in a group, not one on one with him. Viewing women as helpless doesn’t do anything to end this kind of behavior.
I don’t think it was intentional, but some of the comments here are exactly the reason why women are not viewed as complete equals...even when those comments aren’t coming from a place of malice.

Who says women have to be helpless to defend themselves against this creep?
How about the fact that no women should HAVE to defend themselves against him?
This is not about capability. I could grab someone's groping hand and remove it, (provided the male's intent wasn't violent) but why should I be put in that position by my employer?

 

[21stamps]

Who says women have to be helpless to defend themselves against this creep?
How about the fact that no women should HAVE to defend themselves against him?
This is not about capability. I could grab someone's groping hand and remove it, (provided the male's intent wasn't violent) but why should I be put in that position by my employer?

A handler would make the behavior less likely, because of the babysitting/being watched aspect.. but no, I don’t believe his job was assigned as protection for the women, at least not out of concern for them as the main factor.

 

[Curious Constance]

A handler would make the behavior less likely, because of the babysitting/being watched aspect.. but no, I don’t believe his job was assigned as protection for the women, at least not out of concern for them as the main factor.

Because women could physically defend themselves from John Lassater, the company would have no need or interest TO protect them from a groping, drunk?

 

[21stamps]

Because women could physically defend themselves from John Lassater, the company would have no need or interest TO protect them from a groping, drunk?

If a company cared about that kind of behavior then they wouldn’t need to protect people from it.. because they wouldn’t employ such a person once they knew of said behavior.

I think the protection was in more of the company’s interest than the women’s.

 

[englanddg]

Really well articulated response. I read the last part and I understand what you're saying better. No time to respond though, big exam tomorrow. Have a nice day!

You too!

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

I think the protection was in more of the company’s interest than the women’s.

This is key. Big companies care about one thing - money. Lasseter made them an incalculable amount of money. Instead of firing him or forcing him to change his ways, they sent handlers to try to protect the company's liability. It had nothing to do with protecting female cast members, but protecting the company.

It should be pretty obvious by now that Disney, as a whole, doesn't care one tiny bit about their cast members.

 

[Antaundra]

Do you believe that if advertisers would not have pulled out of their spots, that Bill O’Reilly would have lost his job? I don’t.

It’s not as simple as your statement.. there were other factors, and not one of us can claim to be correct one way or the other.

He should have been fired back in 2004 when the young producer on his show recorded a phone call from him in which he described in lurid detail what he was doing to himself and what he wished he was doing to her.

 

[21stamps]

This is key. Big companies care about one thing - money. Lasseter made them an incalculable amount of money. Instead of firing him or forcing him to change his ways, they sent handlers to try to protect the company's liability. It had nothing to do with protecting female cast members, but protecting the company.

It should be pretty obvious by now that Disney, as a whole, doesn't care one tiny bit about their cast members.

I don’t agree with your second paragraph.. but I whole heartedly agree with your first. I’m surprised that so many people here think otherwise.

 

[TwilightZone]

no fighting in the fourms folks, we can all agree on one thing and that is that john is a sicko.

 

[Curious Constance]

I don’t agree with your second paragraph.. but I whole heartedly agree with your first. I’m surprised that so many people here think otherwise.

I agree with that point. I misunderstood the point you where getting at at first, but I'm sure pretty much everyone was aware of his issues. They let it continue and it sounds like they only tried to keep him at bay when he was at public events. I hope this blows up in all of their faces.

 

[DisneyDoctor]

This is key. Big companies care about one thing - money. Lasseter made them an incalculable amount of money. Instead of firing him or forcing him to change his ways, they sent handlers to try to protect the company's liability. It had nothing to do with protecting female cast members, but protecting the company.

It should be pretty obvious by now that Disney, as a whole, doesn't care one tiny bit about their cast members.

I'd like to think they still care about the cast members. In fact, I'm sure they do. But, maintaining public image and, obviously, making money definitely do seem to be more important. I'm sure many shareholders have a similar mindset.

 

[BrianLo]

I'm very aware of stereotypes, in fact, my future patients rely very heavily on my cultural awareness.

Oh goodness. I literally was attracted back into this thread due to your username.

Be careful not to flaunt the career as a point of entitlement.

 

[DisneyDoctor]

Oh goodness. I literally was attracted back into this thread due to your username.

Be careful not to flaunt the career as a point of entitlement.

Was meant to further my argument, not flaunt my career. I'm sorry if it came off that way. Medicine isn't as attractive as you may think, though. Long, stress filled hours that are essentially never ending. We don't go into it for the money or the entitlement. Again, I'm sorry if it came off like I was bragging, even if in the slightest. Definitely not my intentions.

 

[DisneyDoctor]

Was meant to further my argument, not flaunt my career. I'm sorry if it came off that way. Medicine isn't as attractive as you may think, though. Long, stress filled hours that are essentially never ending. We don't go into it for the money or the entitlement. Again, I'm sorry if it came off like I was bragging, even if in the slightest. Definitely not my intentions.

You know, you can disregard most of that little tantrum. It was disrespectful and not very true to who I am. It doesn't change how I feel about the situation, but I definitely was taking shots rather than engaging in meaningful discussion. Very childish and quite frankly pointless. My apologies to everyone who read that and will read it.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Anyone who honestly believes Disney truly and sincerely cares about their employees has most likely never worked for the company. Disney is well known in the industry for being quite unpleasant to work for.

They don’t care.

 

[DisneyDoctor]

Anyone who honestly believes Disney truly and sincerely cares about their employees has most likely never worked for the company. Disney is well known in the industry for being quite unpleasant to work for.

They don’t care.

This is genuine and not sarcastic, I'm curious. What experiences do you have with Disney to suggest that they don't care about the employees?