WTH is wrong with this article?

[sapiens74]

http://www.time.com/time/arts/...0,8599,1689586,00.html


I was reading about office romances, or so I thought then it goes into comparing Isiah Thomas and Clearance Thomas

Here's the quote

What about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill?

HO: That's sexual harassment. First, no means no. And if you can't take no for an answer, you'd better not be dating in an office. That is non-negotiable. But second, sexual harassment is to a greater extent a crime of power. It's not necessarily about dating someone in the office. One of the things we found very intriguing this summer is that Clarence Thomas' autobiography came out in tandem with the Isaiah Thomas mess here in New York. One thing stood out to us. In both cases, the guys tried to defend their position, their indefensible position in my view, by claiming not that Anita Hill or Anucha Browne Saunders was a slut wearing short skirts and behaving provocatively. In both cases, they tried to denigrate the woman's job performance and claim that the women were incompetent, and this was how they were trying to cover up their incompetence.

WTF?

I just wanted to read an article which I thought was lighthearted, about offices romances and it goes into this.... And unlike Isiah, who I will not defend, Clearance Thomas was not found liable or guilty in a court of law.

I hate when they bring politics into a conversation like this

 

[Deathonastick]

"a court of law"

There's your mistake right there.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: sapiens74
WTH is wrong with this article?

The font?

Obviously an article about office romances is going to discuss the negative effects of power and subordination in the workplace versus the bedroom. I mean, shit, even if the article were in Maxim it would cover that. Are you actually surprised that this was brought up when it is a real concern with office relationships (one of the biggest reason people avoid them), and these are two demostrable examples that most people know about?

I guess I just don't understand your complaint. You want a lighthearted piece... did you just want Time magazine to do some jokes about dating your secretary?

 

[sapiens74]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sapiens74
WTH is wrong with this article?

The font?

Obviously an article about office romances is going to discuss the negative effects of power and subordination in the workplace versus the bedroom. I mean, shit, even if the article were in Maxim it would cover that. Are you actually surprised that this was brought up when it is a real concern with office relationships (one of the biggest reason people avoid them), and these are two demostrable examples that most people know about?

I guess I just don't understand your complaint. You want a lighthearted piece... did you just want Time magazine to do some jokes about dating your secretary?

I expected to see protocols of when you date in the office, not political rhetoric.

Lets not mince words. The only reason Thomas, Clearance, was brought up because he's a conservative.

I felt it was a cheap shot in an article that could have provided more recent examples, such as Isiah Thomas only, if it absolutely had to thrown that in.....

 

[compuwiz1]

OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder in a "court of law".
But, we all know the truth. The damn jury just couldn't get it right.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sapiens74
WTH is wrong with this article?

The font?

Obviously an article about office romances is going to discuss the negative effects of power and subordination in the workplace versus the bedroom. I mean, shit, even if the article were in Maxim it would cover that. Are you actually surprised that this was brought up when it is a real concern with office relationships (one of the biggest reason people avoid them), and these are two demostrable examples that most people know about?

I guess I just don't understand your complaint. You want a lighthearted piece... did you just want Time magazine to do some jokes about dating your secretary?

I expected to see protocols of when you date in the office, not political rhetoric.

Lets not mince words. The only reason Thomas, Clearance, was brought up because he's a conservative.

I felt it was a cheap shot in an article that could have provided more recent examples, such as Isiah Thomas only, if it absolutely had to thrown that in.....

Well, I think the inclusion is focusing on how big a problem workplace relationships can be. To almost lose a seat in the US Supreme Court because of an office relationship shows just how detrimental office relationships can be if not handled in an appropriate manner. I think Clinton would be a better example, if only because it is more recent, but then again Clinton was also a study of marital infidelity (which I don't think the article addresses). Clarence Thomas was definitely before the time I became politically aware (I was like 10 at the time), but the older audience of Time magazine will remember it well, and to that end I think it serves as a perfect example for the article. I don't think it was included only because Clarence Thomas is a conservative.

 

[sapiens74]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sapiens74

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: sapiens74
WTH is wrong with this article?

The font?

Obviously an article about office romances is going to discuss the negative effects of power and subordination in the workplace versus the bedroom. I mean, shit, even if the article were in Maxim it would cover that. Are you actually surprised that this was brought up when it is a real concern with office relationships (one of the biggest reason people avoid them), and these are two demostrable examples that most people know about?

I guess I just don't understand your complaint. You want a lighthearted piece... did you just want Time magazine to do some jokes about dating your secretary?

I expected to see protocols of when you date in the office, not political rhetoric.

Lets not mince words. The only reason Thomas, Clearance, was brought up because he's a conservative.



I felt it was a cheap shot in an article that could have provided more recent examples, such as Isiah Thomas only, if it absolutely had to thrown that in.....

Well, I think the inclusion is focusing on how big a problem workplace relationships can be. To almost lose a seat in the US Supreme Court because of an office relationship shows just how detrimental office relationships can be if not handled in an appropriate manner. I think Clinton would be a better example, if only because it is more recent, but then again Clinton was also a study of marital infidelity (which I don't think the article addresses). Clarence Thomas was definitely before the time I became politically aware (I was like 10 at the time), but the older audience of Time magazine will remember it well, and to that end I think it serves as a perfect example for the article. I don't think it was included only because Clarence Thomas is a conservative.

To my knowledge Clearance Thomas didn't date Anita Hill. I believe Isiah did take the young woman out on occasion (not positive about that)

 

[heyheybooboo]

Yah Don't Keep Yer Honey Where Yah Make Yer Money.