Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/06/warren-ellis-and-charles-brownstein-face-public-reckonings-for-alleged-sexually-predatory-behaviour/

I'm still unsure what he did wrong, but he apologised for it. I'm a big fan and I did meet him briefly a few times. What do others think of this?

This might get a bigger response in the comic forums. That said, I would actually like to use this thread to show people it's okay to be nuanced or even confused about a matter, without polarizing or demonizing an ideology. This aspect of male/female sexual power dynamics is something I'm also trying to digest.

So, as I understand it, the argument goes somewhat like this: As your power in a particular industry goes, you have a responsibility not to manipulate those under you for things like sex. Despite giving their consent, someone with less power than you could feel like they need to do things they normally wouldn't, in fear of what happens to them if they decline. Cool. I get that.

Where I start getting confused is the extent to which this applies. Any interaction between humans includes power disparities. Can people only bang someone who makes within 500$ of them? Do they need equivalent job titles? Do we even control for height? Attractivenes? Fighting skill? All these things cause power imbalances too.

Sure, serial emotional coercion is a thing. And it appears Ellis may have done this to underage girls as well. That's not good. We're still learning about what happened in most of this, so I can't speak absolutely. That said, I don't know if banging your artist hire is automatically immoral. It's possible to desire someone under you and still respect them. Maybe we should also devote some energy towards learning how to properly navigate these situations sexually too?

Originally posted by StyleTime
This might get a bigger response in the comic forums. That said, I would actually like to use this thread to show people it's okay to be nuanced or even confused about a matter, without polarizing or demonizing an ideology. This aspect of male/female sexual power dynamics is something I'm also trying to digest.

So, as I understand it, the argument goes somewhat like this: As your power in a particular industry goes, you have a responsibility not to manipulate those under you for things like sex. Despite giving their consent, someone with less power than you could feel like they need to do things they normally wouldn't, in fear of what happens to them if they decline. Cool. I get that.

Where I start getting confused is the extent to which this applies. Any interaction between humans includes power disparities. Can people only bang someone who makes within 500$ of them? Do they need equivalent job titles? Do we even control for height? Attractivenes? Fighting skill? All these things cause power imbalances too.

Sure, serial emotional coercion is a thing. And it appears Ellis may have done this to underage girls as well. That's not good. We're still learning about what happened in most of this, so I can't speak absolutely. That said, I don't know if banging your artist is immoral. It's possible to desire someone under you and still respect them. Maybe we should also devote some energy towards learning how to properly navigate these situations sexually too? So it's a power imbalance thing ST, but women usually marry upwards. I wasn't aware of the underage aspect I must have missed that. Did he meet any or was it all online. Anybody know? And as usually I'm on the same page as you pretty much in all points.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Where I start getting confused is the extent to which this applies. Any interaction between humans includes power disparities.



This.

Exactly this.

As for Ellis, can't really comment, since I was always interested only in his work, not his private life.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW


This.

Exactly this.

As for Ellis, can't really comment, since I was always interested only in his work, not his private life. I mean his work is superb. Second only to Moore for consistent quality and innovation. I know someone will say Morrison is better, but not in my honest opinion Stilt.

I have a feeling this is another pathetic #metoo attempt at starting shit for no reason.

Trying to make every male seem as guilty as Harvey Weinstein, if not more.

Soon, it will be illegal to have an erection in public and I won't be able to leave my house biscuits

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
I have a feeling this is another pathetic #metoo attempt at starting shit for no reason.

Trying to make every male seem as guilty as Harvey Weinstein, if not more.

Soon, it will be illegal to have an erection in public and I won't be able to leave my house biscuits haha erection in public... newsflash Stilt, it is already mate if you don't have your pants on.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/06/warren-ellis-and-charles-brownstein-face-public-reckonings-for-alleged-sexually-predatory-behaviour/

I'm still unsure what he did wrong, but he apologised for it. I'm a big fan and I did meet him briefly a few times. What do others think of this?


Do you think any of the long long list of allegations covers any grey areas?


As in, there actually was some mutual attraction at first, but they were really using each other, and want to hurt each other from the fallout as bitter breakups do?


I'm not questioning that predatory behavior did happen, or even that it was common. Just thinking about how I've seen relationships play out over the years, and how low people will sink to hurt someone they thought they loved..

Originally posted by cdtm
Do you think any of the long long list of allegations covers any grey areas?


As in, there actually was some mutual attraction at first, but they were really using each other, and want to hurt each other from the fallout as bitter breakups do?


I'm not questioning that predatory behavior did happen, or even that it was common. Just thinking about how I've seen relationships play out over the years, and how low people will sink to hurt someone they thought they loved.. I'm going to disagree and say love and hate are very close. I dont think people hurt people they thought they loved. I think more often they hurt people that they did love and that love has become hate, usually temporarily because they did and in some way still do love them and still want to be part of their lives. It is possible that is a motivation.

Or one can simply avoid all of this conflict by not shitting where he eats. Do not fraternize with people over which you have decision-making authority. Problem solved.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Or one can simply avoid all of this conflict by not shitting where he eats. Do not fraternize with people over which you have decision-making authority. Problem solved. that's a fair point and always sensible tbh.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Or one can simply avoid all of this conflict by not shitting where he eats. Do not fraternize with people over which you have decision-making authority. Problem solved.

The 1950s just tweeted that they want their dictatorial management style back from you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The 1950s just tweeted that they want their dictatorial management style back from you.

Flirt with disaster if you like. I hope it works out for you.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Flirt with disaster if you like. I hope it works out for you. Originally posted by dadudemon
The 1950s just tweeted that they want their dictatorial management style back from you. Actually both fair stances. If everyone was incorruptible and driven by moral purpose, I'd be with DDM as it is in the real world Adam makes sense.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Flirt with disaster if you like. I hope it works out for you.

18+ years, thousands of employees over those 18 years, and multiple workplace awards...

I'm doing okay.

If you keep holding on to archaic beliefs about the work place, it's the best way to ensure you experience turn-over which is a very expensive part of HRM.



A good people managers leverages multiple avenues for how to engage their employees. That includes 1 on 1s, group discussion, anonymous surveys, "no work allowed" sponsored lunches, etc. etc. etc.

Maintaining the rigid hierarchical dictatorial structures of yesteryear are surefire ways of having atrocious attrition. This is the basis of much of Human Capital research in the 2010s and this type of research continues. Why? Because, often, organizations largest costs are 'People.' Even in organizations which have extreme amounts of capital expansion projects people are still in the top 3 for costs.

But what are these managerial skills that retain employees, make them feel valued, and welcome? They are called People Management Skills.

And there is extensive research on this.

This particular study did a very good job of exploring this as it specifically applies to attrition and they even controlled for causally confounding variables (the bane of this kind of research):



https://www.nber.org/papers/w24360.pdf

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Actually both fair stances. If everyone was incorruptible and driven by moral purpose, I'd be with DDM as it is in the real world Adam makes sense.

Very fair of you and I appreciate you objectively approaching this topic.

You have quite a bit of experience in the people management area, over your career, so you'd see what works and what doesn't.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Very fair of you and I appreciate you objectively approaching this topic.

You have quite a bit of experience in the people management area, over your career, so you'd see what works and what doesn't. I'll be honest DDM careers are one conversation at a time going up. I'm careful to keep distance, I suspect you are too.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I'll be honest DDM careers are one conversation at a time going up. I'm careful to keep distance, I suspect you are too.

I don't understand your response to me as I don't know what it is you're actually trying to tell me.


It would probably all make sense if I knew what this meant:




What does this mean?

To be fair, Whirly rarely makes sense.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't understand your response to me as I don't know what it is you're actually trying to tell me.


It would probably all make sense if I knew what this meant:




What does this mean? o.k. it the workplace your career is one conversation at a time usually with your direct line manager. It's O.K. to be friends with your boss, but rarely with your subordinates.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I mean his work is superb. Second only to Moore for consistent quality and innovation. I know someone will say Morrison is better, but not in my honest opinion Stilt.
The fact that Warren Ellis's brief run on Generation X turned a garbage series into something totally fantastic is a testament to his abilities. I love that he can inject social commentary into his work without sounding super cheesy.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
So it's a power imbalance thing ST, but women usually marry upwards. I wasn't aware of the underage aspect I must have missed that. Did he meet any or was it all online. Anybody know? And as usually I'm on the same page as you pretty much in all points.
The "women marry upwards" thing is hyper complicated though, and might be a function of society. Some even argue men actively seek less powerful women as a function of power dynamics drilled into our heads from birth. I'm curious how the future of this goes, as more women have college degrees than men starting with the Millenials and onwards.

As for Ellis specifically, I still am getting a lot of vague references and not many detailed accusations. It doesn't appear he's in legal trouble, so much as people are raising awareness I guess. He stated he didn't consider himself famous enough to have that sway over women he's engaged with, but has apologized for not recognizing his power.

The underage girls were apparently groomed? Again, nothing illegal, but I think he's accused of texting or talking with young female fans/aspiring artists and then bangs them once they reach adulthood. Still lack details on that though.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Soon, it will be illegal to have an erection in public and I won't be able to leave my house biscuits
They want to police our boners!
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Or one can simply avoid all of this conflict by not shitting where he eats. Do not fraternize with people over which you have decision-making authority. Problem solved.
Possibly. I shit you not though, I've heard the argument that banging someone you don't have that authority over is still misconduct. Essentially, don't bang groupies if you're famous. Apparently, consent in these cases may not really be consent? It's what made me wonder how far this logic extends.

From what I hear, Lena Dunham had this as a subplot in GIRLS too? I never watched the show, so I don't know.

Originally posted by dadudemon
18+ years, thousands of employees over those 18 years, and multiple workplace awards...

I'm doing okay.

If you keep holding on to archaic beliefs about the work place, it's the best way to ensure you experience turn-over which is a very expensive part of HRM.



A good people managers leverages multiple avenues for how to engage their employees. That includes 1 on 1s, group discussion, anonymous surveys, "no work allowed" sponsored lunches, etc. etc. etc.

Maintaining the rigid hierarchical dictatorial structures of yesteryear are surefire ways of having atrocious attrition. This is the basis of much of Human Capital research in the 2010s and this type of research continues. Why? Because, often, organizations largest costs are 'People.' Even in organizations which have extreme amounts of capital expansion projects people are still in the top 3 for costs.

But what are these managerial skills that retain employees, make them feel valued, and welcome? They are called People Management Skills.

And there is extensive research on this.

This particular study did a very good job of exploring this as it specifically applies to attrition and they even controlled for causally confounding variables (the bane of this kind of research):



https://www.nber.org/papers/w24360.pdf

TLDR.

As someone who has worked in Fortune 250 companies for 20 years, every single one of them has a non-fraternization policy. And as someone with his own side-business, who manages 300 people, I have the same policy.

I am not at my place of business to meet friends and lovers. I already have friends and lovers. As a person in a position of decision-making authority, it is not enough for there to be no impropriety, there cannot even be the appearance of impropriety.

The moment you fraternize with the people for whom you make decisions, your presumed objectivity becomes questionable. Did he get a promotion or raise based on his performance, or because of his personal relationship with the person making performance and compensation decisions outside of work?

Never mind the potential criminal or civil jeopardy you put yourself in when you make sexual advances towards a co-worker. You do not need to help someone build a case against you by lending their claims plausibility.

It clearly did not work out for Ellis, and it has pretty much never worked out for any man ever, but I am sure you will be different, because it will never happen to you.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/06/warren-ellis-and-charles-brownstein-face-public-reckonings-for-alleged-sexually-predatory-behaviour/

I'm still unsure what he did wrong, but he apologised for it. I'm a big fan and I did meet him briefly a few times. What do others think of this?

Let me translate:

hoes be mad

Originally posted by Surtur
Let me translate:

hoes be mad certainly sometimes.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
o.k. it the workplace your career is one conversation at a time usually with your direct line manager. It's O.K. to be friends with your boss, but rarely with your subordinates. Originally posted by Adam_PoE
TLDR.

As someone who has worked in Fortune 250 companies for 20 years, every single one of them has a non-fraternization policy. And as someone with his own side-business, who manages 300 people, I have the same policy.

I am not at my place of business to meet friends and lovers. I already have friends and lovers. As a person in a position of decision-making authority, it is not enough for there to be no impropriety, there cannot even be the appearance of impropriety.

The moment you fraternize with the people for whom you make decisions, your presumed objectivity becomes questionable. Did he get a promotion or raise based on his performance, or because of his personal relationship with the person making performance and compensation decisions outside of work?

Never mind the potential criminal or civil jeopardy you put yourself in when you make sexual advances towards a co-worker. You do not need to help someone build a case against you by lending their claims plausibility.

It clearly did not work out for Ellis, and it has pretty much never worked out for any man ever, but I am sure you will be different, because it will never happen to you. yeah, no fraternisation is relatively standard when you reach Senior Middle management, in leadership it has to be a no no.

Originally posted by StyleTime
The fact that Warren Ellis's brief run on Generation X turned a garbage series into something totally fantastic is a testament to his abilities. I love that he can inject social commentary into his work without sounding super cheesy.

The "women marry upwards" thing is hyper complicated though, and might be a function of society. Some even argue men actively seek less powerful women as a function of power dynamics drilled into our heads from birth. I'm curious how the future of this goes, as more women have college degrees than men starting with the Millenials and onwards.

As for Ellis specifically, I still am getting a lot of vague references and not many detailed accusations. It doesn't appear he's in legal trouble, so much as people are raising awareness I guess. He stated he didn't consider himself famous enough to have that sway over women he's engaged with, but has apologized for not recognizing his power.

The underage girls were apparently groomed? Again, nothing illegal, but I think he's accused of texting or talking with young female fans/aspiring artists and then bangs them once they reach adulthood. Still lack details on that though.

They want to police our boners!

Possibly. I shit you not though, I've heard the argument that banging someone you don't have that authority over is still misconduct. Essentially, don't bang groupies if you're famous. Apparently, consent in these cases may not really be consent? It's what made me wonder how far this logic extends.

From what I hear, Lena Dunham had this as a subplot in GIRLS too? I never watched the show, so I don't know. I read they pretty much were groupies... still not saying any of it is right.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Possibly. I shit you not though, I've heard the argument that banging someone you don't have that authority over is still misconduct. Essentially, don't bang groupies if you're famous. Apparently, consent in these cases may not really be consent? It's what made me wonder how far this logic extends.

From what I hear, Lena Dunham had this as a subplot in GIRLS too? I never watched the show, so I don't know.

The notion that any power imbalance negates consent is reductive, infantilizing nonsense.

What is more, a woman's greatest strength is her facade of weakness, and a man's greatest weakness is his facade of strength.

So what would constitute power for this purpose, and how would it even be quantified?

It is just an argument from certain people who want to abdicate responsibility for their choices, so they can blame their buyer's remorse on someone else.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
haha erection in public... newsflash Stilt, it is already mate if you don't have your pants on.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/22e32eae11bf34c250c716dc88c4ca6a/tenor.gif

Now you're telling me...?

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
https://media1.tenor.com/images/22e32eae11bf34c250c716dc88c4ca6a/tenor.gif

Now you're telling me...?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I mean his work is superb. Second only to Moore for consistent quality and innovation. I know someone will say Morrison is better, but not in my honest opinion Stilt.

I agree with this. Morrison is a fan of Dadaism and likes crazy for crazy's sake. Ellis makes his crazy more coherent and grounded.