If the statement said 'groped' instead of 'unwanted touching' - then we might infer maybe someone grabbed a woman's rear end or breasts - which is something entirely different from a 'rude dance move and sloppy kiss on the cheek', and also 100% out of bounds, no ambiguity.
If someone at a bar grabbed a woman's breast - well - I doubt the police would be involved, because it's just not something that rises to that level in most contexts, but it should not diminish the fact it's totally not right. There's no grey area there (if that's what happened).
If this was between two employees, especially if someone has power over the other (i.e. CEO / employee) then it's much tricker because of the nature of that power.
I think it's also different if 'some guy got drunk and seriously embarrassed himself' vs. 'a predatory CEO who gets girls drunk and gropes them'. It really could be either: people do stupid things sometimes. And some people are utter creep-shows.
The company can 'become a target' if there's consistent 'out of bounds behaviour' that's reported, and nobody is doing anything about it and/or covering it.
To be clear: I have no idea what happened, I'm not going to speculate, other than to articulate a range of possible issues.
I generally believe the victim/accuser, though details and context are always important.
Yes, it's definitely possible for there to be outrage when either police weren't called, even if there was not something illegal. I'm not saying there should be - because we don't know exactly the situation - I'm saying it's surely possible.
There's a whole range of behaviours that are totally unwarranted and unprofessional, and yet at the same time legal.
A manager who likes to get drunk get 'get a little grabby' or who likes to sleep with all of this staff, or who hands out his number to a lot of female staffers, or who trades sexual favours for promotions, who arbitrarily hires women based on their perceived attraction/datability, or who makes crude statements - this is toxic - this person needs to go.
FYI I'm not talking about 'someone who did something embarrassing once'. Obviously, there are also a range of inappropriate things which don't reach the threshold of outrage.
In this specific context it's hard to say, because there's a lot of grey. We'd have to have a lot of information which we are not privy to (maybe thankfully). It could be a small thing or a consistently toxic thing. Maybe the mob is legit angry, or maybe there's just an inflation/misinterpretation of the situation. We don't know.
What is everything you wrote if not rank speculation?
I don’t think it’s appropriate to articulate a range of possible issues at all — it reads like dark fiction, and IMO just perpetuates the story.
If there’s a larger story that is motivating these letter signers, I think it’s incumbent on them to articulate it... Yet even in failing spectacularly to do so, they can manage to drag the company through the mud.
>>> "There is no victim statement that I’m aware of"
+ Yes there are victim statements. There are two references to statements in the article.
>>> "and what is everything you wrote if not rank speculation?"
+ I'm barely 'speculating' - and then totally within the boundaries of the victim statement i.e. an incident employer/employee at a semi-work engagement with alcohol wherein someone's personal space was invaded on the dance floor. While that is not specific enough to understand exactly what happens, it's a fairly narrow range of possibilities.
>>> "I don’t think it’s appropriate to articulate a range of possible issues at all — it reads like dark fiction, and IMO just perpetuates the story."
+ I object to this. We know at last 'something happened' within a narrow range. This is not 'dark fiction' it's actually very specific reality.
>>> "If there’s a larger story that is motivating these letter signers, I think it’s incumbent on them to articulate it... Yet even in failing spectacularly to do so, they can manage to drag the company through the mud.""
+ Now this I think is 'speculative dark fiction'. There's no reason to assume that people are creating some false narrative when it seems clear that materially, 'something happened' and that there seems to be at least some kind of minor 'cover up'.
FYI - it's very easy to understand why some people would want to 'drag a company into the mud' - there's no crazy speculation required: they believe (rightly or wrongly) that some bad stuff is happening. Now - I don't know if there is bad stuff happening, or if there are cover ups, or what happened at 'the incident' in question, or other things. But it's very easy to see how groups of people just take one side or the other and get upset about it.
If someone at a bar grabbed a woman's breast - well - I doubt the police would be involved, because it's just not something that rises to that level in most contexts, but it should not diminish the fact it's totally not right. There's no grey area there (if that's what happened).
If this was between two employees, especially if someone has power over the other (i.e. CEO / employee) then it's much tricker because of the nature of that power.
I think it's also different if 'some guy got drunk and seriously embarrassed himself' vs. 'a predatory CEO who gets girls drunk and gropes them'. It really could be either: people do stupid things sometimes. And some people are utter creep-shows.
The company can 'become a target' if there's consistent 'out of bounds behaviour' that's reported, and nobody is doing anything about it and/or covering it.
To be clear: I have no idea what happened, I'm not going to speculate, other than to articulate a range of possible issues.
I generally believe the victim/accuser, though details and context are always important.