Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kentucky governor wants resignations over harassment scandal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kentucky governor wants resignations over harassment scandal

    FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — Kentucky’s Republican governor says a sexual harassment scandal in the statehouse involves “multiple events and multiple people” and has called on everyone involved to resign immediately without naming them publicly.

    Gov. Matt Bevin held a news conference at the state Capitol on Saturday, days after the Courier-Journal reported Republican House Speaker Jeff Hoover settled a sexual harassment claim outside of court with one of his staffers.

    “I am calling ... for the immediate resignation of every individual who has settled a sexual harassment case who is party to trying to hide this type of behavior,” Bevin said. He stressed that the allegations have not been denied and that they “were not isolated to a single person or a single event but involve multiple events and multiple people.”

    “This is not about naming specific names. It is about specific behaviors,” Bevin said. Bevin did not answer questions from reporters. As he was leaving, a reporter asked if Bevin wanted Hoover to resign.

    “You heard me,” he said.
    https://apnews.com/cad2933d56a7461e8...ssment-scandal

  • #2
    So, he does not want to name them publicly, but rather wants them to resign immediately. But if they resign immediately, wouldn't they be naming themselves publicly?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
      So, he does not want to name them publicly, but rather wants them to resign immediately. But if they resign immediately, wouldn't they be naming themselves publicly?
      I wonder if he's just putting on a bold face so later he can say he did all he could.
      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

      Comment


      • #4
        My work place experience is that women initiate, what in those ancient time was called flirting, as often as men. I guess I'm just a kill joy but my main objection to such things is the disruption of work not female sensibilities if you could call their emotions sensible in any case.

        We have gone way to far down the rabbit hole of pandering to feelings. Sexual harassment needs to be legally defined as coercion, unwanted physical contact, and or threats. Unwanted attention that doesn't involve invasion of privacy, intimidation, or is not absurdly distracting should be considered nothing more than rude.

        Political correctness has driven us into accepting the unavoidable infinite regression of victims and offenses. Those that are attracted to emotionally appealing but philosophically empty ideologies such as post modernism are doing considerable harm to enlightenment. That is the cost of "emotional intelligence" and it needs dealt with.

        Emotions are by definition subjective. Worst still they are unstable, subject to reversal, and often inappropriate for the environment having evolved over the course of millions of years. Being in touch with your emotions has little to do with being in touch with objective reality. To think otherwise is proof of narcissism and neuroticism.

        We all are faced with many unpleasant social situations we expect people to deal with them like a man. That means that it the work place both genders need to focus more on their work and less on their primitive predispositions. That doesn't mean that you should not pursue emotional well-being it only addresses how you go about that pursuit. Socializing when you are supposed to be working is theft and that includes most of the networking that has become fashionable to excuse.

        If we continue to judge by intentions instead of outcomes we will end up like Venezuela. Meritocracy is not unjust nor unreasonable.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
          My work place experience is that women initiate, what in those ancient time was called flirting, as often as men. I guess I'm just a kill joy but my main objection to such things is the disruption of work not female sensibilities if you could call their emotions sensible in any case.

          We have gone way to far down the rabbit hole of pandering to feelings. Sexual harassment needs to be legally defined as coercion, unwanted physical contact, and or threats. Unwanted attention that doesn't involve invasion of privacy, intimidation, or is not absurdly distracting should be considered nothing more than rude.

          Political correctness has driven us into accepting the unavoidable infinite regression of victims and offenses. Those that are attracted to emotionally appealing but philosophically empty ideologies such as post modernism are doing considerable harm to enlightenment. That is the cost of "emotional intelligence" and it needs dealt with.

          Emotions are by definition subjective. Worst still they are unstable, subject to reversal, and often inappropriate for the environment having evolved over the course of millions of years. Being in touch with your emotions has little to do with being in touch with objective reality. To think otherwise is proof of narcissism and neuroticism.

          We all are faced with many unpleasant social situations we expect people to deal with them like a man. That means that it the work place both genders need to focus more on their work and less on their primitive predispositions. That doesn't mean that you should not pursue emotional well-being it only addresses how you go about that pursuit. Socializing when you are supposed to be working is theft and that includes most of the networking that has become fashionable to excuse.

          If we continue to judge by intentions instead of outcomes we will end up like Venezuela. Meritocracy is not unjust nor unreasonable.
          I can't rep you again so soon.
          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

          Comment


          • #6
            It's a funny old world! I've always treated women like a gentleman, but one split up with me because she said I wasn't "assertive" enough, whatever that meant!
            And another split because she said I "didn't have enough life" in me, whatever that was supposed to mean!
            I hope they found their neanderthals and lived happily ever after..

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
              I can't rep you again so soon.
              I took care of it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                So, he does not want to name them publicly, but rather wants them to resign immediately. But if they resign immediately, wouldn't they be naming themselves publicly?
                Depends on how they word it. It is entirely possible to resign immediately without admitting any wrongdoing. "Medical problems", "pressing family issues", etc.

                Frankly, we need more officials who feel as this one does. Question is, what will he do if they don't take his advice and resign?
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                  My work place experience is that women initiate, what in those ancient time was called flirting, as often as men. I guess I'm just a kill joy but my main objection to such things is the disruption of work not female sensibilities if you could call their emotions sensible in any case.

                  We have gone way to far down the rabbit hole of pandering to feelings. Sexual harassment needs to be legally defined as coercion, unwanted physical contact, and or threats. Unwanted attention that doesn't involve invasion of privacy, intimidation, or is not absurdly distracting should be considered nothing more than rude.

                  Political correctness has driven us into accepting the unavoidable infinite regression of victims and offenses. Those that are attracted to emotionally appealing but philosophically empty ideologies such as post modernism are doing considerable harm to enlightenment. That is the cost of "emotional intelligence" and it needs dealt with.

                  Emotions are by definition subjective. Worst still they are unstable, subject to reversal, and often inappropriate for the environment having evolved over the course of millions of years. Being in touch with your emotions has little to do with being in touch with objective reality. To think otherwise is proof of narcissism and neuroticism.

                  We all are faced with many unpleasant social situations we expect people to deal with them like a man. That means that it the work place both genders need to focus more on their work and less on their primitive predispositions. That doesn't mean that you should not pursue emotional well-being it only addresses how you go about that pursuit. Socializing when you are supposed to be working is theft and that includes most of the networking that has become fashionable to excuse.

                  If we continue to judge by intentions instead of outcomes we will end up like Venezuela. Meritocracy is not unjust nor unreasonable.
                  If you’d read the article, it explicitly mentions threats and physical coercion. Elected officials aren’t faced with legal challenges from within their own party for complimenting a female coworker’s new hairstyle.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    If you’d read the article, it explicitly mentions threats and physical coercion. Elected officials aren’t faced with legal challenges from within their own party for complimenting a female coworker’s new hairstyle.
                    Coercion can take many forms and both parties may simply be making offers that can later be claimed to be coercive.

                    What I was addressing primarily is that even mutually agreed on sexual flirtation is unacceptable in the work place. If you need to socialize at work you are not only a thief but a fool. That does not mean you should never chit chat or make friends in the work place it simple reflects my experience that sexual friendships in the work place are disruptive 80 percent of the time.

                    How much time it is appropriate to steal from your employer is too complex a topic to lay out in a few sentences. I suspect our elected officials exceed even the most generous of margins.

                    Being a public servant requires ethical standards that most people in our society can't meet. most individuals I know who could meet that standard were male and conservative. It is a question of being conscientious and less inclined towards the openness and neuroticism that characterizes "liberals".

                    That does not mean that there is no place for creative, extroverted individuals in public service it simply means they need to respect conservative values.
                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                      If you’d read the article, it explicitly mentions threats and physical coercion. Elected officials aren’t faced with legal challenges from within their own party for complimenting a female coworker’s new hairstyle.
                      And these claims have been established by a court of law?

                      Or are you just parroting an unsubstantiated media claim?
                      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                        And these claims have been established by a court of law?

                        Or are you just parroting an unsubstantiated media claim?
                        You could always check yourself.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                          You could always check yourself.
                          You started the thread. Must we always have to help you?
                          Last edited by Arnold J Rimmer; 05 Nov 17, 19:55.
                          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            You started the thread. Must we always have to help you?
                            Sometimes.

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X