Sure: the difference is the latter is only consent by one. But in order to “have an affair” one side have to make a move. Simplyfying: If you are ugly and you make move the other party can sack you in HR department as sexual harraser. HOWEVER if you hot and they like you, it may endup as an affair. so no harrasment filed ;)
I doubt anyone ever got sacked for asking a coworker out on a date and getting rejected, if that is what you mean by "making a move" (and not something more sinister, of course).
Obviously I'm not trying to imply that having affairs is good or desirable... but there's a clear distinction between an affair, which is consensual, and sexual harassment, which is non consensual.
The personal drama resulting from an affair is exactly that: personal, and it shouldn't be grounds for termination. On the other hand, sexual harassment is a threat to workspace safety and should obviously be dealt with swiftly.
OK, I agree with the personal/professional split point you touched. Though there is a significant power imbalance, often people are attracted to power/their powerful superiors, and that is a direct threat to workplace stability, maybe even safety, though not as directly as unwanted advances. Still, even if you categorize this as "wanted advances" due to the aforementioned attraction to superior for whatever complex reason, it could be viewed as both a hack in progress from the superior to the person they find attractive and also as a way for the subordinate to improve their standing within the company without any merit. That might be even more demoralizing to a large group of employees than a single instance of a sexual harassment to a single person and termination would be absolutely justified.
I think you're being way too cynical. No doubt there exists "gold diggers" who will try to seduce their way up the dominance hierarchy, but that is a different topic. And even then, I fail to see how the unfair promotion of a "gold digger" would be more dangerous than having a manager sexually abusing his subordinates.
I mean heck, Bill Gates met Melinda when she was a Microsoft employee and they've now been married 20+ years.
Vanilla person here. Do women actually find it "hot" to be "loaned" like a sex slave? Given the circumstances I don't think it's absurd to assume that this was his fantasy and his only.
In my experience at a college in the northeast, it was about 10% that had actually thought a lot about it already and really wanted to do it. Around 50%, however, were more than happy to try it after learning about it.
This is definitely pretty far on the spectrum (the loaning part more so than the slave part), but I've said the 'loaning' part to people many times in a certain context and never actually meant it. I'd bet it just stayed as a fantasy between them.
Since the comments here seem to be mostly like "well at least some of them do", I'll just go ahead confirm your suspicion as a woman who has talked to other women about their relationships. Liking to be denigrated is not the norm at all, it's kinda gross and demeaning. However, much like many other sexual practices that many women find distasteful, some women will play along or pretend that they're into it to make their partners happy. Most of the time the partners aren't trying to be controlling or whatever, they're just imitating porn which normalizes that kind of thing. So yeah, there's a high chance this was a one-sided fantasy like you suspect.
> woman who has talked to other women about their relationships
That's less relevant as actually having sexual encounters with a woman. People often don't know their close friend's fetishes, but they do (or should) know what their lovers enjoy.
For a counterpoint: open a book of women's fantasies written by and marketed to women.
My personal view (as an asian american) is that the United States owes african americans a debt that overrides the goal of perfect fairness to everyone else. Almost all asians came here (or their parents came here) voluntarily. The ancestors of african americans, by contrast, were brought here in slavery and then legally discriminated against until very recently (if that discrimination is even over). The United States has an obligation to fix the damage it caused by that.
I view it not as "discrimination against asians" but a tax to pay for debts long ago incurred. My family came here long after the decision to go to World War II, but I'm obligated to pay taxes to pay off the debt we still carry from that war. Likewise, the United States and the state governments enslaved and discriminated against african americans long before I got here. But those governments still exist as going concerns, are obligated to fix the damage they did, and as someone coming along after the fact benefiting from living in the U.S., I have to pay my fair share of the "tax" needed to fix that damage.
How about the damage caused by the colonial oppression, the Opium Wars, Vietnam, and all the knock-on effects from those actions? Maybe we call it quits and start level again?
No. India was a colony, and the British exploited India’s resources, but they also built infrastructure and institutions and preserved most of the social structure. Indians were never property of British people. Families weren’t separate with children being bought and sold to other plantations. Indians’ social structure wasn’t completely broken down in order to turn them into a slave class.
More important: what the British did to India isn’t America’s problem. Blacks in America continue to suffer huge disparities compared to whites. They live like second class citizens in their own country. That’s our burden to fix. We can’t absolve ourselves of the responsibility by saying “it was before my time.” Our Congress is the same Congress that passed the Fugitive Slave Act. Our Supreme Court is the same Supreme Court that upheld Plessy and Dredd Scott. Especially asians, most of whom came here voluntarily, and who knew the obligations that had been incurred by the society they were trying to be a part of. We can’t avail ourselves of the benefits of being American but then say we are unwilling to help pay down our societal debt because it’s not our problem.
Blacks in the U.S. have a higher median income then blacks anywhere else in the world. They are literally at the top, you cant get a higher ranking then number 1. If the us government is oppressing this group then they are doing a pretty poor job at it.
Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. But what about discriminating against asians to help hispanic numbers? Hispanics are also recent arrivals to the USA and were not historically enslaved.
And perhaps even more biting: what about discriminating against asians to help white numbers?
The last would definitely be a slam dunk case of discrimination. I guess they are not admitting to discriminating against asians (in favor of whites). How true is that? I dunno.
Hi, I'm Asian and never got into an elite institution like Harvard, but did get into UNC Chapel Hill. I'm thoroughly mediocre overall and was when I applied.
I oppose this lawsuit because I see no evidence that this is anything but sour grapes on the part of the aggrieved parties, all of whom seem to have gone to other elite institutions that I could have never gotten into (like Duke). I am fundamentally opposed to the implication of this suit - the acknowledgement that literally any outcome outside of getting into Harvard is a net detriment to life outcomes significant enough to warrant a lawsuit. I believe this to be un-American and incredibly elitist. In addition, the DOJ's tacit support for it appears to be nothing more than a cynical ploy to drive a wedge between Asian-Americans and other people of color. I've seen some analysts claim that this could convince Asian-Americans to start voting Republican again - something I find amusing, because this country and community have significantly larger problems than pearl-clutching about whether one gets into elite school A or elite school B.
So because these candidates were more competitive college applicants than you, there's no clear and blatant systematic bias? Harvard and Duke are both more selective/prestigious than UNC, therefore they are equally selective/prestigious? The reason Harvard is at the center of this is, any discrimination at the most selective institution will filter down because the overqualified rejects from the top tier will fill up the second tier, and the overqualified rejects from the second tier will start filling up the third tier, and so on...Also, as lawsuits go, if they get a decision against Harvard, you can be sure Yale and Princeton and Stanford will take a long hard look at their admission policies. Or more suits will be filed until there is a systemic change.
> Harvard and Duke are both more selective/prestigious than UNC, therefore they are equally selective/prestigious?
No, but some 86% of applicants can't get into Duke and 95% can't get into Harvard so I'm not sure if that extra 9% is really worth complaining over. It reeks of incredible elitism.
For the record, Yale and Stanford are in the same tier. Most of the ordinary folks in this country don't go to competitive schools at all, if they go.
I hate saying things like this because it's very meaningless, but this time it's a bit too much. UNC Chapel Hill is absolutely an elite institution. It's one of the most prestigious public schools in the world (recall recent Nobels) and has a very low acceptance rate. Beliefs like this mostly come from the absurd favoritism of the society to private schools. Most people I met would consider a private school roughly as prestigious as UNC "elite" and not consider UNC "elite".
I didn't actually end up going there, I went to a school even less prestigious and less notable (our only Nobel is Rajendra Pauchauri) because I initially intended on majoring in something not available there (I later changed my mind). That was probably a mistake, but whatever.
In addition, I'm in-state. For the year before me I believe in-state acceptance was in the 40-50% range, which isn't very competitive IMO.
Again this conversation is absurd but for what it's worth, acceptance rates are very bad way to compare selectivity (which is essentially what I meant but phrased wrong). Berkeley and UCLA have around ~8% - ~13% acceptance rate but Berkeley receives almost half what UCLA receives because Berkeley is much more selective than UCLA so some people don't even apply to Berkeley and apply to other UCs (we can see this if we compare student profile). If you look at sheer numbers Berkeley's 10% acceptance rate seems noob compared to a tiny liberal arts college with 5% acceptance rate but Berkeley is absolutely one of the most prestigious universities in the world, it just accepts hoards of students all over the world. So, it's not that easy.
> I am fundamentally opposed to the implication of this suit - the acknowledgement that literally any outcome outside of getting into Harvard is a net detriment to life outcomes significant enough to warrant a lawsuit.
I don't think that's the implication. I think the point of the plaintiffs is that the admissions process is racist against asians of equal capability to other races. Now no doubt some of them might be motivated by a personal vendetta against Harvard for being rejected, but I don't think they're asking to be personally admitted to Harvard if their case succeeds.
I'm not american but this is literally institutional racism, and it's bizarre to me how people, and especially asians, seem okay with it.
