aurora

6 minutes ago, Mashinka said:

Off topic I know but has this Weinstein bloke actually been convicted of something in a court of law?

He is being currently charged with various crimes. https://www.vogue.com/article/harvey-weinstein-criminal-charges-investigations

You honestly think all these women made it up...70+ women and you still don't believe any of them?

12 minutes ago, Mashinka said:

  According to Sarah Connolly he had a poor grasp of English  anyway, which does make the incident even stranger. 

She also refers to him as a "snitch." She wasn't there and is hardly unbiased.

2 minutes ago, Mashinka said:

We all know a great deal about Copley, as the years pass and opera productions become more bizarre and ugly, John Copley stands as a beacon of reliability and artistic integrity, never disregarding the text or imposing silly interpretations onto works.  However we are told next to nothing about the complainant.  According to Sarah Connolly he had a poor grasp of English  anyway, which does make the incident even stranger.  Is he still working at the Met?  Has he been sent to Coventry? Has he been blacklisted yet?  I agree with the poster who suggested there might be more to this than meets the eye.  There can be no other explanation.

 

J

I'm not sure why you bring up his English ability unless it is to suggest he misunderstood Copley--except no one has denied that this is indeed what Copley said.

Are you honestly obliquely suggesting that the alleged victim should be ostracized and blacklisted?

Also it is irrelevant if he is a beacon of artistic integrity. That makes his art good, it doesn't mean he is a good person. Weinstein produced a lot of good movies. It doesn't mean he didn't behave despicably (You could insert a lot of other examples here if you wanted--Gauguin, Wagner, Woody Allen, etc.)

25 minutes ago, kfw said:

Whether the chorister was a victim is what’s been under discussion, but in any case he’s victimized Copely, or he and Gelb together have. One tasteless joke and the guy loses the job. 

Aurora, talk of what the law says is beside the point. No one thinks all laws are just, even when, as in this case, they are clearly designed to address a very serious problem. We all judge the laws. And despite thinking the chorister overreacted, I wrote that if he was truly traumatized (which we don't know), "I feel for him."

Consequences for your actions do not make you a victim. If Copley is a victim it is of his own bad judgment.

And your conditional slight attempt at empathy is noted, however the fact you consider the man who said such an inappropriate thing in a work situation the true victim rather negates it.

Copley has other jobs. Unlike the chorister, who I would imagine depends on his work at the Met. I'm sure he will be just fine. Someone earlier noted another job he's already been given.

Just now, Mashinka said:

Victim?  How does someone who can't take a joke become a victim?  Complainant, obviously, but he is not a victim.

When the organization states that the complaint has merit and fires the director.

You really do not understand what constitutes sexual harassment. https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/crc/2011-workplace-harassment.htm

There are good grounds (under hostile work environment) to call Copley's actions harassment, even if it was a joke.

4 minutes ago, kfw said:

Aurora, I not only have empathy, I’ve expressed it in this conversation.        

 Context can make an enormous difference. Copely may have been the director, but the atmosphere of a good rehearsal is collegial.

You can’t possibly know he was trying to “get away” with it. That's possible, but not knowable, and people's reputations do precede them. Copley has known to be flamboyant but not unpleasant to work with. Age may have played a role in that he was in the habit of saying that kind of thing and having it understood and not objected to.

You expressed sympathy for me. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. You have shown little evidence of that.

Relationships between professors and students should be collegial as well. Nevertheless there is still an imbalance of power, as there is between a director and a member of the choir. They aren't pals hanging out.

Just now, Mashinka said:

That is disgraceful and ageist, he made a throwaway remark, he wasn't trying to 'get away with' anything.  There was malice in that room but it clearly wasn't Copley's.

What?

Other people said age played a role in Copley's thinking what he said was appropriate.

I was clearly speaking of the man who kissed me on the head at work, who was older and had ideas of workplace appropriateness which dated to the age of Mad Men.

1 minute ago, Mashinka said:

I don't need to take any to recognize what sexual harassment means, I've experienced it and it's bloody awful but without witnesses impossible to prove.  Sexual harassment is deeds generally not words and no sexual threat could possibly exist in a room full of people.

As has been discussed at length, that is not accurate. Words definitely can constitute harassment.

I'll note that in my list, the kiss on my head at work, the inappropriate sexual jokes, all the gropings, and the masturbation instances all happened in rooms full of people (or train cars as the case may be). Was I in danger of being raped? No, but they certainly were harassment.

9 minutes ago, kfw said:

Aurora, I am very sorry those things happened to you. But I think they are clearly far, far worse - so far worse as to practically be in another category - than what Copely did. We're all sick of putting up with other people's harmful mistakes. It's the human condition. We all also make harmful mistakes. 

 

nanushka, in regards to whether the remark was absolutely and without question inappropriate I go back to what Mashinka said. I myself would never in a million years make a remark like that, but I have known people who would and wouldn't mean anything by it and would therefore be understood. Would I have advised Copely against making it? Most definitely. Would I have winced if I had been there when he said it? Yes. 

You misunderstand. I didn't list them because they are particularly horrible. And certainly I didn't do it to elicit sympathy for me.

I wanted to illustrate, for those who seem to not get it, that these are the kind of sexual harassment incidents people just "put up with" all the time. And by and large are told to put up with ("catcalling? It is a compliment!"). I wanted to suggest some empathy with what people go through all the time and which Copley's comments are of a piece with.

And again, having supervisors at school make sexually suggestive jokes is literally no different than what Copley did (I wasn't a minor).

Nor would I particularly say the kiss on my head was any worse. And for those of you happy to excuse people because of age and lack of malice. I'm quite sure his age played a role in him thinking that he could get away with that, and also that no malice was intended. That said, it was still not in any way okay.

3 minutes ago, Mashinka said:

Copley did none of the things you list, he made a harmless joke.

See the last item on the list.

Harmless is your characterization of it. If someone makes such a comment about you at work, you can write it off and laugh. But they would still have opened themselves up to charges of sexual harassment.

Perhaps you need to take a course on what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace. These are required at my place of employment.

1 minute ago, Mashinka said:

So you completely ignore those people that actually know Copley and can testify that there's no malice in the man whatsoever.  No such thing as a character witness anymore?

Inappropriately treating people as sexual objects in the work place doesn't require "malice."

I know plenty of people who I'm sure would say nice things about people I know to have been abusive and inappropriate. That just wasn't their experience with them, lucky for them.

3 minutes ago, kfw said:

nanushka, I'm not inventing the details, I'm thinking of possible scenarios. You've imagined a plausible but worst-case scenario in which the chorister was truly traumatized. While yours may be accurate, I've imagined a scenario that I think fits with what we know of Copley, namely that he was only joking. Both can be true of course, because we're talking about two different people.

Aurora, I'm a firm believer that everyone does wrong and everyone does harm, and that therefore it's best to show as much mercy as possible whenever possible. Whether that harm involves a sexual joke or not is to my mind beside the point. In this case, it seems as if an apology would have solved the problem the chorister said he had going forward, that of a hostile environment. It's not like Copley could have been expected to make a similar remark again. 

 

Helene and Aurora, I have also repeatedly agreed that the remark was probably inappropriate. However, a racist remark is a put-down. An admiring one by itself is not. Also, Copley's silence on this matter may simply indicate embarrassment and a wish that the matter be dropped

A lot of people are sick of putting up with other people's harmful mistakes.

I'm gathering from the way you insist on reading Copley's comments (fairly innocent, clearly joking), that you have never been aggressively cat called on the street (any woman in a major city's frequent experience), been groped on the street and public transportation, masturbated in front of on public transportation (once when I objected, the perp tried to hit me in the face, no one did anything to help me), followed home, had your boss kiss you on the head, had your supervisors in school make lewd "joking" comments, etc.

It doesn't feel innocuous. And people are sick of turning the other cheek for men to slap over and over again.

If you have and you like all these things, fine, that is your prerogative. But it sounds like you are speaking from a place of lack of understanding.

And it is not unreasonable to object to being treated like a sexual object in the workplace, which is precisely what Copley did.

2 minutes ago, kfw said:

The union could have been expected to defend Gelb’s handling of the situation if it felt his action was warranted. Instead it implicitly criticized both Copely and Gelb, taking Copely's side in regards to whether he should have been fired - in other words, in regards to the seriousness of the offense.

 

 

Clearly the union didn’t feel the chorister was too traumatized to continue working with Copely or even to meet with him to ask for an apology. The chorister both said that he’d accept a written apology and that he “felt unable to continue working with Mr. Copley because of the hostile, sexually charged environment that had been created.” One passing remark that has been formally apologized for creates a lasting hostile environment? C’mon.  As Helene said earlier, this is about power. I hope the next time you or I screw up we're met with mercy and understanding, not an unfeeling, I-got-my-rights application of the law.

I can guarantee I'd never "screw up" by saying I want to see a subordinate at work naked in my bed.

If I did, I'd be fired, full stop.

Also I would never imagine thinking this was an appropriate thing to say at work to anyone.

6 minutes ago, kfw said:

A couple of questions come to mind. Why would not using "they" to refer to a singular individual be an arbitrary or spurious rule grammatically? And are people asking to be referred to as "they," or is the term being prescribed by others when the person's gender is in flux? 

It is one of the options chosen by gender fluid individuals themselves.

1 minute ago, cubanmiamiboy said:

I respect your opinion, although I don't share it. And no....I won't called a guy with an implanted horn a unicorn just because he feels like one.

 

This analogy is like people saying gay marriage will lead to people being able to marry their pets.

And like that analogy it is deeply offensive and trivializing.

3 minutes ago, cubanmiamiboy said:

Humm...sorry to differ, Aurora. You can call Chase-(or whoever)- a "she" if you want to.  It is only up to myself the decision to call him a "he" however "indecent" that might sound to you. I don't know how he calls himself right now, but if at some point the issue of my election comes up as offensive I am sure I will be called upon by the mods, just like I just was-( fair deal). 

And to the issue as surgery irrelevance, the original post states the word "transition", and in th world of transition, surgery is a key element, for which there is a pivotal before and after. 

We just don't know details here.

Transition could simply mean to living full time as a woman, it could mean hormonal treatment or it could mean surgery. You are simply wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender

Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from their assigned sex.

Transgender people are sometimes called transsexual if they desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another.

Many transgender people experience gender dysphoria, and some seek medical treatments such as hormone replacement therapy, sex reassignment surgery, or psychotherapy.^[12] Not all transgender people desire these treatments, and some cannot undergo them for financial or medical reasons.

7 minutes ago, cubanmiamiboy said:

Sorry about that. It is certainly used in the medical field for pre-op trans patients, although I understand it might had gone out there to become slang. I guess  we can then still use the regular "he" or "she", according to our own beliefs and perceptions. He or she are definitely NOT slur, nor offensive. I still can't get used to use the modern "their" for sure.

No. You don't get to decide what to call people according to your own beliefs. If you are a decent human being you call people by the term for the gender THEY identify as.

And I really wish you'd stop bringing up pre- or post-op. That has nothing to do with gender orientation.

19 hours ago, LadyBubbles said:

It could be due to Lendorf's injury. I don't see why Whiteside couldn't partner Teuscher since he regularly partnered Part (and they're around the same height), but it could be related to that. Good for Abrera, however.

I'd imagine it is less a height issue (due to the reasons you state) and more about rehearsal time. Some ballets are easier to match up partners last minute if necessary, but due to the nature of the partnering and lifts in R&J I'd imagine that is not an ideal situation.

7 hours ago, ABT Fan said:

I don't think Bell is too tall as he's seen in clips partnering Lane and Brandt (who are both very short) and he's a good fit for both (not hovering over them when they're on pointe, but just enough of a height difference). I'd say he's no more than 5'9 ish. He'd be great as Bluebird and I'd like to see him to take on a peasant pas or the equivalent. He's not ready for a princely role yet (his first "big" role is coming up in Thirteen Diversions in D.C.).

I'd say closer to 6' He is a lot taller than Bocca:

27 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

 She makes a couple of mistakes,  like calling Balanchine the "greatest living choreographer",  and referring to AGMA as a musicians' union.  To me her general affect was a bit odd,  but maybe she's like that all the time.  

AGMA is fundamentally a musicians union (opera really) which expanded over the years to handle dancers. That is not an error.

5 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

It took several months after McCallum's bail was set at $350,000 for him to leave Twitter.  He had multiple issues,  including alcohol abuse,  that could have impacted his leaving.  Considering the nature of the charges,  one would think that dismissal would have been swift,  but it wasn't,  if it ever took place at all.  He may have quit on his own.

I was writing in response to Helene's post,  where she suggested that she believed that Martins' supporters should not speak up.  If I have mischaracterized her post,  I'm sure she can speak for herself.

McCallum is a rapist but that is no excuse for mis-gendering her 4x in one short passage. That is a move straight from anti-trans right wing playbooks.

2 minutes ago, dirac said:

“You are siding with an abuser” is a pretty strong hint that if you don’t have anything bad to say about Martins, keep it to yourself.  You may choose to exempt Fairchild, but I notice Flack did not.

She didn't single anyone out on either side.

2 hours ago, On Pointe said:

At no time have the dancers who support Martins discounted or disparaged anyone else's account of their experiences with him.  They have simply espressed that their experiences were good.  Are you suggesting,  as Flack is,  that they don't have the same right to "speak their truth" as the accusers?

Silicon Valley is the "outside world" and a staggering number of executives there charged with sexual abuse have kept their jobs,  including a transgender engineer who beat and raped his estranged wife while claiming to be a feminist and advocate for womens' rights.  This,  along with the rampant sexual harassment  the STEM field is notorious for,  doesn't excuse Martins' actions one bit.  But he isn't the first exec to get a pass for his actions and he's hardly the worst.

You must be speaking of Dana McCallum in 2014. She was no longer employed at Twitter following her case. Dropping in obliquely referenced (and incorrect) evidence of other people's horrible behavior doesn't invalidate the fact that most employers would have acted on the allegations against Martins long ago (if not by firing, then at least in some way).

Flack did not say they don't have the same right to speak their truth as the accusers.  Robbie Fairchild managed to both speak his and express compassion. Something that is sorely lacking in this thread.

6 minutes ago, abatt said:

I  wonder whether Flack initially sought to get this "open letter" published in a legit publication with some standards like the NYTimes and was rejected.  I'm not surprised she threw her hat into the Martins-bashing circus. 

Nope. No backlash.

Flack says to support victims of sexual harassment and in this thread she has been called "complaining," to "go back to therapy!"  and the fact she was let go has been repeatedly raised in the thread (mostly by you).

I'm sure she will learn to keep her mouth shut like a good girl now.

Martins-bashing circus is hilarious!

1 minute ago, abatt said:

No, Flack is stating as a fact that Martins is an "abuser".  She presents it as fact, not opinion.  

Yes, because he was charged with beating his wife. That is a fact and I didn't think anyone seriously doubted that was true.  Op-eds do not have to be devoid of facts. It is hard to have opinions without them (although clearly not impossible!). The letter is clearly indicated as an opinion piece by the publisher.