Michael Gilbert Resigns

[Sabres Fan in NS]

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

I think where nfreeman gets upset is when people seem to indicate that being born into something is our fault. Stereotyping every old white guy as some executive pinching a secretaries as$ is still just that, stereotyping

Stereotyping is always based on something.  It is never just made up.

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

Stereotyping is always based on something.  It is never just made up.

You sure you wanna open that door?

It's not okay to stereotype any individual based on what similarly looking people behave like. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by WildCard

[shrader]

3 minutes ago, WildCard said:

You sure you wanna open that door?

It's not okay to stereotype any individual based on what similarly looking people behave like. 

Give him a break, he's Canadian, so obviously he's a bit slow.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

You sure you wanna open that door?

It already has been and not by me.

@shrader I agree that discussion is good, but anytime this kind of thing comes to light there is not really much discussion, IMO.  People are in their 'camps' and points are repeated.

What I was thinking of adding, but didn't would have just been more gas on the fire and would have not been a benefit to any possible discussion.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

6 minutes ago, WildCard said:

You sure you wanna open that door?

It's not okay to stereotype any individual based on what similarly looking people behave like. 

I never said it was OK.

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

I never said it was OK.

Stereotyping isn't always based on something either. There are a lot of times it's simply made up to push an agenda, or because people are just as$holes

[Sabres Fan in NS]

2 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Stereotyping isn't always based on something either. There are a lot of times it's simply made up to push an agenda, or because people are just as$holes

I am nothing if not polite.  So, I will politely disagree with you and leave it at that.

[sabills]

I don't think anyone is saying that they did it because they were white and white people are inherently awful. The commentary is that white men are 1) more likely to be in a power position then women or other minorities 2) more likely to be able to get away with things like this in the past because there is an inherent prejudice in the system where crimes like this by a minority are less likely to get glossed over.

It comes down to the old boys club thing. White guys in power are more likely to give other white guys in power a break. Therefore, the white guys in power are more brash and empowered to do crappy things because they know they can get away with it(edit: OR don't even think its wrong to begin with because hey, its just what us guys do, right?).

Edited January 17, 2019 by sabills

[Swedesessed]

On 1/9/2019 at 6:05 PM, Hoss said:

Gilbert is a good man as far as my dealings with him have went. Can’t speak for anything beyond that. His son is a prospect in the Blackhawks system.

 

I agree. Had the pleasure of working with Mike when I interned with the NJ Devils way back in 1996 before he went to Buffalo, had great talks in his office with him, gave me good sound advice that I still apply today. Great guy I wish Mike nothing but the best.

 

EDIT: Whoops just read the reason why. Hope it isn't true but if it is, only did it to himself.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Swedesessed

[darksabre]

5 minutes ago, sabills said:

I don't think anyone is saying that they did it because they were white and white people are inherently awful. The commentary is that white men are 1) more likely to be in a power position then women or other minorities 2) more likely to be able to get away with things like this in the past because there is an inherent prejudice in the system where crimes like this by a minority are less likely to get glossed over.

It comes down to the old boys club thing. White guys in power are more likely to give other white guys in power a break. Therefore, the white guys in power are more brash and empowered to do crappy things because they know they can get away with it(edit: OR don't even think its wrong to begin with because hey, its just what us guys do, right?).

Bingo.

[North Buffalo]

2 hours ago, LTS said:

Whiteness has to do with the conversation centering on corporate executives and other people in positions of power abusing their positions.

Do you see a lot of articles being posted about non-white corporate executives being accused of sexual harassment?  I don't.  

I hope that answers your question.

It doesnt though I agree the stereotype exists, just like under priviledged hispanic males are dangerous predators... and Mideastern decedendant males are terrorists.  All BS.  

Are there significant cases where those things have happened... sure... but as a group its BS.  

Do women harrass, you betcha... have seen it myself... power or lack of it can corrupt or better yet justify folks taking short cuts to their own gratification at the expense of others... 

 

[LTS]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.  I don't think it really addresses my core point, which is that it is for some reason a substantial portion of the population thinks it's OK to slur white people (especially white men), without appreciating the destructive effects of these slurs and the worldview behind them, but I appreciate the respectful conversation in any event.

As to the bolded question -- I agree that most corp executive sexual harassers are probably white men -- but that is because most corp executives are white men.

I'm not really trying to say they are doing it because they are white.  Race is perhaps nothing more than an adjective in this conversation. It's really centered more on the lack of sensibility that seems to reside within a class of individuals that have spent a lifetime working in a closed circle with no diversity. An environment where the kind of jokes that are told only serve to reinforce their behaviors.  They then walk out into the world feeling as though they are capable of acting in certain ways.  It's probably also fair to say that regardless of race, any group that shared a similar history would also develop the same way.  I say this based on the factors that cause this behavior are a lack of understanding and appreciation for those who are different, culturally, socio-economically, and more.  In this case, they happen to be white.

 

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

You hate it, but you did it.

 

You are 100% correct.  I could have phrased that better.  I did say it seems that there is, which is a suggestion that it may exist but I am not 100% committing to it.  It's open to discussion, which is happening.

1 hour ago, shrader said:

That's different than saying it's a white thing though.  Now maybe it was freeman's questions that sent it down that path, but I don't think he's the only one out there who does follow it down that route.

A great point as I touched on above. 

24 minutes ago, WildCard said:

I think where nfreeman gets upset is when people seem to indicate that being born into something is our fault. Stereotyping every old white guy as some executive pinching a secretaries as$ is still just that, stereotyping

It is 100%.  And clearly not every older white corporate male is a sexual harasser.

21 minutes ago, WildCard said:

You sure you wanna open that door?

It's not okay to stereotype any individual based on what similarly looking people behave like. 

Stereotypes are not inherently wrong.  They protect us.  We stereotype things that are dangerous to us even if something that looks similar is not we are bound to avoid it at first as a means of self-preservation.  Stereotyping is a form of classification and it's something that intelligent species do unconsciously.  Even with our "heightened" sense of being we still love to classify.

I think it's the level at which the stereotype is formed that really matters.  Looking at the color of one's skin and passing judgment is clearly superficial and ignorant.  However, the more factors that are brought into play the more likely it is that someone fits into that classification.  There are always exceptions, but it doesn't make the stereotype without merit.

To address your comment on made-up stereo-types to further and agenda. It might be philosophical to say that those are lies and have no merit.  It doesn't change that people may choose to believe them, but they are inherently different than stereotypes that are founded in evidence.

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Don't you care when non-executive vice presidents of something or other do it? Oh yeah, those privileged and powerful middle aged white coal miners from Kentucky.

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Really? A man over a woman? A college boy over a waitress? Maybe he's hot and she's so-so and she feels a pressure to play along, cuz, like, why should he even be talking to me?

I'm genuinely uncertain as to what your point is.

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

Maybe the "cohort" doesn't need to improve its behavior.  Maybe it's just certain individuals who behave badly that need to do so.

Maybe the idea that "the cohort needs to act better" is nonsense, as is the concept of "middle-aged white dudes" having "positions of privilege and power."

Sure as shinola it does. I say that as someone who firmly believes that it starts with me. #CuetheMichaelJacksonSong

More seriously, I think about this spoken-word song a lot. The whole yarn is terrific. The relevant part of the homily starts at around 3:50.

1 hour ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Being a white male is oh so hard in this world. ???

The struggle is real.

1 hour ago, shrader said:

It's not always just privilege or power, often it's ignorance.

Ignorance of one's privilege and/or power, maybe.

[North Buffalo]

Wow powerful song...prose

[shrader]

35 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Ignorance of one's privilege and/or power, maybe.

This is fun.  Let's make up a term that can be defined as anything we want it to be.  That way we can never be wrong!  This whole thing is the equivalent of the "because I said so" response.  Sure does accomplish a lot.

[Eleven]

18 minutes ago, shrader said:

This is fun.  Let's make up a term that can be defined as anything we want it to be.  That way we can never be wrong!  This whole thing is the equivalent of the "because I said so" response.  Sure does accomplish a lot.

Are we politicians now?

[Stoner]

2 hours ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

Stereotyping is always based on something.  It is never just made up.

Asians are bad drivers. Is that based on anything? Maybe an Asian driver hit the gas instead of the brake one time and plowed into nuns and orphans. Is that enough to form a stereotype? Does it have to be more than that? Are there studies that show Asian drivers have more accidents?

I'm surprised you've said this.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

16 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Asians are bad drivers. Is that based on anything? Maybe an Asian driver hit the gas instead of the brake one time and plowed into nuns and orphans. Is that enough to form a stereotype? Does it have to be more than that? Are there studies that show Asian drivers have more accidents?

I'm surprised you've said this.

Why are you surprised?

Is it based on the fact that the thing you sighted about Asians being bad drivers is not a stereotype?

If you have not done so, I suggest you read LTS's post on the matter (slightly above).  Don't worry, it's not full of *fancy stat mumbo-jumbo* ... I would not lead you to that place ... (insert winkie-winkie thing here).

Edited January 17, 2019 by New Scotland (NS)
I'm done in this thread ...

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, shrader said:

This is fun.  Let's make up a term that can be defined as anything we want it to be.  That way we can never be wrong!  This whole thing is the equivalent of the "because I said so" response.  Sure does accomplish a lot.

I don't think that's a fair reading of my rejoinder. And I meant it sincerely.

Let's consider the situation as it may reasonably be understood (inferentially): Gibby is a 50-something mid-career executive who wasn't abusing his privilege or his power. He's just a galoot who's recently divorced (that is a total guess on my part, btw (but a reasoned one)), he was feeling frisky, he's decades separated from the dating scene, and he came on too strong with a foxy young lady after he'd had a lot to drink. Ignorant behaviour, that's all.

But what precisely was he ignorant of? Current social mores? Sure, maybe.

But might he also have been operating in ignorance of how his position and status (which, I submit, bestow on him certain privileges and power) inevitably made his encounter with that young woman inappropriate and upsetting? I think maybe so.

Edited January 17, 2019 by That Aud Smell

[nfreeman]

20 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I don't think that's a fair reading of my rejoinder. And I meant it sincerely.

Let's consider the situation as it may reasonably be understood (inferentially): Gibby is a 50-something mid-career executive who wasn't abusing his privilege or his power. He's just a galoot who's recently divorced (that is a total guess on my part, btw (but a reasoned one)), he was feeling frisky, he's decades separated from the dating scene, and he came on too strong with a foxy young lady after he'd had a lot to drink. Ignorant behaviour, that's all.

But what precisely was he ignorant of? Current social mores? Sure, maybe.

But might he also have been operating in ignorance of how his position and status (which, I submit, bestow on him certain privileges and power) inevitably made his encounter with that young woman inappropriate and upsetting? I think maybe so.

All of this is fair -- and again, it has zero to do with whiteness.  It has 100% to do with the fact that he was her boss.

If he were black or Latino, would you or LTS have thrown "black" or "Latino" into your earlier posts? 

Again, the question answers itself.

[That Aud Smell]

1 minute ago, nfreeman said:

All of this is fair -- and again, it has zero to do with whiteness.  It has 100% to do with the fact that he was her boss.

If he were black or Latino, would you or LTS have thrown "black" or "Latino" into your earlier posts? 

Again, the question answers itself.

I don't want to descend into the weeds on this.

You and I have very different viewpoints on whether and to what extent being white and being male give rise, singly and jointly, to certain inherent and certain acquired privileges and powers in modern America.

A black or Latino boss would not, like his white counterpart, hail from an historically advantaged, privileged race in America. So his race probably would not factor into my perspective in the same way a white boss's race would. White men in America have a specific and unique place in our society -- they (we) are, as a cohort, ensconced atop the social pecking order. I trust and expect that you would disagree with, dissent from that perspective. 

[nfreeman]

13 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I don't want to descend into the weeds on this.

You and I have very different viewpoints on whether and to what extent being white and being male give rise, singly and jointly, to certain inherent and certain acquired privileges and powers in modern America.

A black or Latino boss would not, like his white counterpart, hail from an historically advantaged, privileged race in America. So his race probably would not factor into my perspective in the same way a white boss's race would. White men in America have a specific and unique place in our society -- they (we) are, as a cohort, ensconced atop the social pecking order. I trust and expect that you would disagree with, dissent from that perspective. 

If Gilbert were black or Latino, would his conduct have been equally deserving of opprobrium?

[shrader]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

I don't think that's a fair reading of my rejoinder. And I meant it sincerely.

Let's consider the situation as it may reasonably be understood (inferentially): Gibby is a 50-something mid-career executive who wasn't abusing his privilege or his power. He's just a galoot who's recently divorced (that is a total guess on my part, btw (but a reasoned one)), he was feeling frisky, he's decades separated from the dating scene, and he came on too strong with a foxy young lady after he'd had a lot to drink. Ignorant behaviour, that's all.

But what precisely was he ignorant of? Current social mores? Sure, maybe.

But might he also have been operating in ignorance of how his position and status (which, I submit, bestow on him certain privileges and power) inevitably made his encounter with that young woman inappropriate and upsetting? I think maybe so.

I'm speaking far more generally than you are.  If we are talking specifically about Gilbert, fine.  It sounds like he took things too far.  I'm fine with that assessment, although I'm always a bit hesitant to put too much weight into stories like this one until we've had time to hear enough.  Us the thread readers haven't had that opportunity, but obvious PSE has been looking into it longer than we have.

But more generally, this idea that it's always about power and privilege is way too broad for me.   But now I'm kind of scratching my head a bit.  Can I try to look more generally but then say we're being too general?  My head might just blow up now.

7 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

If Gilbert were black or Latino, would his conduct have been equally deserving of opprobrium?

This is another thing that people do way too much.  Let's stop changing the situation and deal with what actually happened.  What if Gilbert was black or hispanic, what if he was a woman...  Well guess what, he's not.

[That Aud Smell]

14 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

If Gilbert were black or Latino, would his conduct have been equally deserving of opprobrium?

Sir! Sir!

Please do not burden me with such metaphysics. I am still working on @X. Benedict's demand to know how many hockey-pirouettes a young Phil Housley could have fit on Bill Hajt's head.

It's an interesting question, on a lot of levels. I'll venture this: It would present a different analysis. A different set of solutions for a path forward. From the young lady's point of view, I don't know that it would matter all that much what her harasser's race was/is.

6 minutes ago, shrader said:

Can I try to look more generally but then say we're being too general?  My head might just blow up now.

I'm getting there.

[TrueBlueGED]

5 hours ago, nfreeman said:

 

Of course being a white male in the US is easier on average than being a desperately poor POC in Africa or Venezuela or wherever.  But that has literally zero to do with the gibberish that is being spouted in this thread about sexual harassment in US workplaces. 

No, it doesn't. But your post escalated things by an order of magnitude talking about the grand wake of destruction that these things leave behind. Just like Brett Kavanaugh's life was going to be ruined by a "baseless" accusation...as just a month later he's sworn into a lifetime position as one of the most powerful people in the country and welcomed as a conquering hero to a Federalist Society gala. Meanwhile, his accuser's life has actually been upended as she's had to relocate multiple times due to security and still can't return to work. But yes, things like power and privilege are merely academic constructs by the liberals to wreck the lives of people they disagree with.