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?
Last edited by StyleTime on Jun 24th, 2020 at 11:02 AM
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.
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.
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..
__________________ What CDTM believes;
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
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.
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):
KMC Community Forums
Jun 24th, 2020 10:19 AM
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.
