aurora

3 minutes ago, Quiggin said:

Did Balanchine really destroy Farrell's career as Steichen seems to imply? Didn't she afterwards dance with Bejart for several years, then come back to City Ballet where she originated roles in Mozartiana and Davidsbundlertanze?

Destroyed overall, perhaps no.

But it doesn't negate the fact he tried to, simply because she married someone who wasn't him.

The fact she was able to find other, lesser, work, doesn't change the fact his behavior towards her was wrong.

6 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Those cases have not been decided in the plaintiffs' favor.  Even if they were,  the George Washington  University  case involved two people who were students together,  and the NYU case involved a harassment case between a grad student and the head of his department.  Neither case is relevant to the Waterbury suit.

It is relevant to the hypothetical :

"Many dancers at NYCB have been students at Columbia.   If one of those dancers dated a Columbia professor who mistreated her in the same manner as Finlay allegedly mistreated Waterbury,  that dancer would have a case against him,  but she wouldn't have standing to sue Columbia,  and try to bolster her claim by citing alleged defects in their policy on student-instructor relations."

You didn't say have won a case.

You said she would have no standing to sue Columbia. And considering there are similar cases (no not identical, but no two cases will ever be precisely the same) in the courts at this moment, it is incorrect to say she "wouldn't have standing to sue Columbia." Which were your exact words.

5 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Columbia University,  where she is a current student,  has had its share of sexual misconduct and campus rape allegations.  Many dancers at NYCB have been students at Columbia.   If one of those dancers dated a Columbia professor who mistreated her in the same manner as Finlay allegedly mistreated Waterbury,  that dancer would have a case against him,  but she wouldn't have standing to sue Columbia,  and try to bolster her claim by citing alleged defects in their policy on student-instructor relations.

Are you sure about that?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/04/27/former-george-washington-student-sues-school-alleging-botched-sexual-assault-case/?utm_term=.cc4d93b9ed8e

https://www.nyunews.com/2018/08/26/news-ronell-reitman-sexual-assault-lawsuit/

8 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I think we are reacting as if Merson's assertions are true.  But as the saying goes,  if it ain't broke,  don't  fix it.  While there have been unequal relationships between dancers and students in the past,  there isn't  any evidence presented that it is either rampant or much of a problem.  It would be difficult to craft a policy forbidding,  for example,  an eighteen year old NYCB dancer from dating an eighteen year old SAB student.  They could even be legally married in New York.

why would it be difficult?  Why not fix it? Dating has gone on between company members and SAB students for ages it is true, one of my relatives dated a company member when they were 18 and at SAB and the company member was 28 in the 1990s.

That doesn't mean it is a good idea.

2 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Right but they aren't students are they. They're former students.

No one is disputing that. Including the text of the complaint.

10 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

The defendants did not communicate any sexual material through social media.

How can it be proven what the dancers "felt" they could do?  Evidently every male dancer didn't  get the message,  because only a handful have been accused.

Or not every male dancer lacked all sense of morality as these 3 did.

That doesn't mean others didn't get the sense they could get away with bad behavior--it just indicates they weren't inclined to treat women in such a disgusting way.

1 minute ago, Helene said:

This is not generally speaking.  If a Company gets a complaint against a donor, I think they need to follow up.  (This can include financial issues, like they are made aware that someone is not likely to follow through on his pledge, so that they don't make a dependent financial commitment if it goes sour.)  If they get a heads up that one of their donors has questionable, public interactions with its dancers, I think they'd be wise to watch carefully, because the money isn't worth the trouble.

Helene, I was responding to a very specific suggestion--that is, that ABT, or YAGP for that matter, might also be responsible for Longhitano. Given the circumstances I don't see how they would be. That said it would certainly behoove them them cut ties with him given what they know now, if they haven't already.

I agree with what you wrote here 100%.

8 minutes ago, Longtimelurker said:

So if that is the case then is there also a systemic issue at the employer of the Craig Hall named in the complaint? And then if we consider Longhitano as he is also a donor at ABT?

Some of the most vile actions and comments in the complaint are attributed to Hall. I truly feel for the soloist whose pictures he circulated. Based on the additional details disclosed in the revised legal complaint, it is not difficult to deduce who she and she must feel violated and betrayed.

 

NYCB and ABT are not responsible for the actions of their donors, generally speaking. That is preposterous. NYCB is potentially culpable because of Longhitano's interactions with the company members and employees. He was taking part in, and encouraging illicit acts. There is no sign he did the same with ABT/ABT dancers.

11 hours ago, fordhambae said:

 I will point out that the masses engage in picture sharing of all natures on a round the clock basis (ie: Snapchat). Whether it is appropriate is one thing but normal it most certainly is.

No. It is not normal to share illicit videos of you and your gf **** (as Finlay did) or illicitly taken nude photos of your workmates with other ppl you work with.

20 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

ETA some here are conflating photos taken of Ms. Waterbury in a sexual situation with photos taken of a dancer changing costume.  No way am I suggesting that the two situations are the same.  There has been no allegation that there were photos shot or circulated of any NYCB dancers in intimate situations.

 

No we are not. Photos snuck on the sly of dancers changing can also be used for masturbatory purposes. I didn't think that was necessary to explain but I suppose it is.

36 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

It may not be unbelievably painful for the female dancers to have photos of themselves in states of undress passed around to a few male colleagues.  Not that I think they liked it,  but dancers tend to be far more comfortable than the general public with exposing their bodies.  Case in point,  Ashley Bouder proudly displaying her bare behind on her Instagram.  (For that matter,  so are professional models.  In many of the shots on Ms. Waterbury's  Instagram,  she is very scantily clad.)

There is a huge difference in deciding to put an image of yourself out there (owning an image), and having illicit photos of you passed around by your male colleagues, without your knowledge, specifically for the purpose of jerking off.  

2 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Al Franken resigned.  Although there is a mechanism to expel a Senator,  it was not utilized,  and likely would have failed if it had been.  Even if the firings had been subject to a vote,  who would get that vote?  Every employee of NYCB,  just the dancers,  just those who had ten years seniority,  just the principals?  Would the women who had had consensual  affairs with Ramasar have to recuse themselves?  Messy.  Luckily contracts are not subject to popularity.

My point was simply that saying the women and the company never objected to these men before any facts were known about them is a ridiculous complaint. I was not saying the case was PRECISELY the same as Franken.

In just one significant difference, Franken actually appeared remorseful about his actions.

1 minute ago, abatt said:

Firing of a dancer should not be based on feedback from other dancers.  Ramasar and Catazaro were working at NYCB for many years, and up until Saturday the company apparently never got negative feedback about them and continually renewed their contracts. 

Since the company members at large didn't know about the alleged behavior until recently, I'm not sure how this is relevant. That is like saying but no one in the Senate ever objected to Al Franken being in the senate before, so why should they once they knew the allegations about him

1 hour ago, Helene said:

The article says it's after a five-month investigation, which means theirs started at least two-three months before Waterbury/her lawyer contacted NYCB.

My apologies if it appeared I was saying there was a causal or direct relationship between the two events.

I just was calling attention to a seemingly similar situation (albeit with much less information available) going on concurrently across the plaza.

It seems this is the time of year for clearing house of bad actors over at Lincoln Center:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/16/arts/music/new-york-philharmonic-liang-wang-matthew-muckey.html

1 minute ago, On Pointe said:

  There are at least two dancers named in the complaint - for no good reason - who are exposed to the public because of the complaint itself,  not because of anything Finlay,  Ramasar or Catazaro did.

Not because of anything they did? Finlay filmed his girlfriend performing sex acts and sent them to other people.

13 minutes ago, bcash said:

Because they are artists whose work audiences shared in, and whose careers and lives people have watched for long. To be concerned with their feelings and their embarrassment is a natural reaction, and by extension that concern also touches somewhat on our own mixed feelings. 

People don't know Waterbury. As of now nothing is proved in a court of law, nothing that suggests the firing is fully justified. 

As an analogy, if someone you admired as an artist murdered someone, you'd have sympathy for them, not their victim. This is why people don't come forward when powerful men sexually abuse them. People care more about the abusers than the victims.

Additionally, while anonymous, the female dancers whose nudes were illicitly shared should also count as artists that the audience has watched and cared about.

11 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I was referring to a specific hypothetical situation.  If you are about to rehearse or perform a lift with someone who is so inebriated that you doubt their ability to handle you safely,  you must speak up.  I am not talking about interactions where there is any ambiguity about what is going on.  (In those cases I would keep a journal and inform at least two other people as to what was happening.)  When air passengers spotted pilots drinking right before a flight,  they didn't stop to consider if the pilots might lose their jobs.  (They did.)  That's an extreme example but I hope it helps to make my intent more clear.

This is a hypothetical you yourself brought up and which has literally no bearing on the issue at hand.

2 hours ago, On Pointe said:

A convent is a community;   a ballet company is a professional  work place.  If my physical well-being was being compromised because another cast member was too drunk to do his or her job (it has happened),  I would report that person to the stage manager and not give a damn about what other people thought about it.  I'd rather be ostracized than end up with a broken nose.

A ballet company is both a workplace and a very close knit community. They are not mutually exclusive.

As for the rest, good for you that you would report the person.

However many people do not report people in workplaces for violations of professional norms because they are ostracized and punished for doing so. This is why so many people (men usually) get away with sexual harassment in the workplace. I'm glad you do not share their concerns, but people do have them and they are clearly valid, based on empirical evidence.

6 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

The comedian Louis CK barred the exit door and forced female comedians to watch him masturbate.  Charlie Rose used to parade naked around his assistants.  Les Moonves allegedly forced a producer to perform oral sex and when she refused a second time,  he called her the "c" word and threw her against a wall.   That is "rampant sexual misconduct".  Looking at pictures of naked girls is not.

That is debatable--if it happened at work (which we don't know) you could argue that looking at nude photos creates a hostile work environment.

But in any case these "girls" were their coworkers. And at least Alexandra (who was not) was unaware of the photos. That IS "rampant sexual misconduct". If my coworkers were passing around nude photos of me i'd feel really violated. As, I would imagine, would most people.

Julie Kent posted wedding photos of Marcelo and Nick today! Congratulations to them!

41 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

When  attacked,  people  tend  to  fight back.  Validating the feelings of the attacker is not their foremost concern.  Ms. Waterbury's complaint arbitrarily disclosed the names of at least two people who were not principals in this case,  likely causing them great embarrassment  and possible damage to their careers.  It's  still not clear why Zachary Catazaro was fired,  as he maintains he had nothing to do with the Finlay-Waterbury  material,  and that his off-duty activities were lawful.  But that hasn't stopped many from condemning him,  evidence unknown.  Catazaro has feelings,  too.

A decent human being would acknowledge the harm done to the victim in this case, that is Alexandra Waterbury, whose images and video we know from the case were received by Ramasar. It would behoove anyone who at least wanted to create a pretense that they are a decent human, to acknowledge (and apologize) for the part they played in her humiliation and betrayal.

(I do not speak to Catazaro's situation because as you say, it is less clear from the publicly available material, precisely what role he played in all this).

Given the activities they are accused of, I'm not sure why anyone should, at this moment, be more concerned with their feelings and their embarrassment, than those of the girlfriends and coworkers they traded images of for sexual gratification, and treated like garbage.

5 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I wouldn't characterize expressing trepidation at being partnered by an impaired person or an accused domestic abuser as "whistleblowing".   If a dancer is afraid of being dropped by a drunk,  what other people think about it is not a likely consideration.  I don't get why fear of being ostracized is a concern.  This isn't high school.

No it is a community. And Ramasar, in particular, seems to be quite popular. See how people here and on instagram are fawning over him. You really can't understand why someone might be leery of speaking out publicly and being ostracized?

23 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

"A tsunami of sexts just up and engulfed me!"

😂😂😂

Just now, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Ah, the old "I don't know if I can hug my colleagues anymore" plaint. I spent I don't know how many years as a professional woman dodging kisses from male peers who couldn't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that a handshake would do just fine. 

Right? Or, if they aren't sure if a hug is acceptable, they could try asking. But I generally don't feel the need to hug even my female coworkers with whom I am friends in a work context