Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

On Pointe

Senior Member
  • Posts

    730
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by On Pointe

  1. You bring up an interesting point - from the transcript, there is no evidence that Finlay and Catazaro were engaged in a group chat. It appears to be a conversation between just the two of them. Is a private communication between two people treated differently than a group chat by the law? One could argue whether "underage" means under eighteen or under twenty-one. While drinking under the age of twenty-one is against the law, merely being in the presence of a young person at a social gathering where alcohol is served is not. But "partying with underage girls" has a nice salacious ring to it, what my high school English teachers would call "writing to persuade". BTW in that same conversation, they discuss the age of consent (they're wrong - it's seventeen in New York, not eighteen) and agree that "prime time" for women's bodies is "18-22. It's crude and it's tasteless, but it indicates that while young women appeal to them, they aren't considering underage girls. Employers care about tasteless jokes in the workplace. What happens on the employees' own time is literally not their business. If the corps woman found the men irresistible and consented to sex, that is the point I'm making. It's possible to read it just that way. At any rate, Finlay has taken himself out of the picture. If I were Catazaro, I'd argue that any communication between the two should be off-limits regarding his just cause hearing.
  2. I should have put "clearly" in quotes. I hoped to illustrate merely that different people could interpret their words in different ways.
  3. What "they thought" does not matter. They can think whatever they want. A number of women in the company can be described as "underage girls". If there is a party where "the company" is invited, those dancers will likely be there. The complaint makes it seem that there were only underage girls present, which strikes me as highly unlikely. Clearly Finlay and Catazaro were joking about how they are so devastatingly attractive the girl would have "no choice" but to have sex with them. That interpretation is just as likely - more likely - than the conviction that they were plotting rape.
  4. Have Finlay, Catazaro and Ramasar been accused of appalling disrespect towards their partners and other female dancers in their work at NYCB? I don't think so. Ashley Bouder still has photos of herself with all three on her Instagram. If they had been problematic I don't think they'd be there. Evidently their adolescent behavior does not extend to the workplace. This really is a workplace issue, whatever you think about what they did in their private lives. Did Catazaro and Ramasar fulfill the terms of their contracts and treat their work colleagues with respect?
  5. Ms. Waterbury's case is a civil action. It is yet to be determined that a criminal act took place. It likely will never come to that. At any rate, it's the police that do the investigating. It's telling that the first version of the complaint did not include this conversation. If it had been necessary for Merson to make his case, it would have been in there. (If the female dancer's name is included or easily guessed in a new version of the complaint, it will be proof positive that the main motivation is to hurt and embarrass, not seek justice.) At any rate, in my opinion, Catazaro and Finlay were not joking about rape. As there are others here who feel otherwise, one can conclude that we might represent a microcosm of the public - some will find it a hanging offense and some will not. I listened to the podcast and what Barry Kerollis calls toxic masculinity is behavior familiar to anyone who has spent time around adolescent boys, whether they dance or play football. They are not yet fully formed men and they tend to do silly things. But men from every walk of life have done what Chase Finlay is alleged to have done. It's not a ballet problem, it's a human problem. I don't think we should think less of Catazaro because he didn't apologize. He might have been advised to refrain from saying anything until this matter is adjudicated, which would be good advice. Or not.
  6. In a non-sexual context, I've thought and said a lot of things about people I've worked with that would have caused a great deal of awkwardness if they had known about them. Rod Rosenstein is in very hot water over an offhand remark he had no reason to believe would be published in the New York Times. Ms. Waterbury is not the only person with a right of privacy. As the exchange between Catazaro and Finlay had nothing to do with her, they only served to embarrass Catazaro and imperil his career. What the two of them said on their own time is their own business. They didn't post it to Facebook or publish it in any form. This policing of adults' private thoughts smacks of fascism.
  7. Did you read the exchange? Describing it as joking about rape is an enormous stretch.
  8. Catazaro didn't see the photos of Waterbury and he didn't distribute them. As the first time this behavior became known was when Ms. Waterbury brought her suit, how could NYCB "overlook" behavior the company was completely unaware of? NYCB is an employer, not a school. They are limited in their ability to police the lives of their employees, just like any other employer. There is no reason to expect adults to elevate their private thoughts and conversations to conform to somebody else's standard. It may have been street corner language, but they weren't standing on a street corner shouting it during work hours. I looked at the exchanges made between the would-be Harvard freshmen and they are truly vile. (They are easy to find if you're curious but be warned, they're horrible.) In no way, shape or form do they resemble the exchange between Catazaro and Finlay.
  9. Change is both needed and wanted by women, but there is no greater illustration of the imbalance between men and women in our culture than the spectacle of the Senate Judiciary Committee preparing to treat Christine Blasey Ford exactly the way they treated Anita Hill over twenty years ago. Some of the same guys will be doing the probing. Men like lording it over women.
  10. Sex between consenting adults is not against the law. Sexual attraction can not be regulated. If you have any suggestions as to how a ballet school can stop female students from swooning over handsome company stars please put them forth. What do you think NYCB and SAB should be doing that will prevent any more Waterbury situations?
  11. I was a ballet dancer and one time member of AGMA, but I spent most of my career performing on Broadway. I have observed preferential treatment given to male dancers over female dancers in ballet, although that may not be as prevalent now that there are many more men in the profession. There was also preferential treatment for thinner dancers, dancers with the highest extensions, dancers with the best feet, dancers with the prettiest faces. In an aesthetic art form, some will be preferred and valued over others. Company and school directors wield enormous power because it's necessary for the running of the institutions. Bosses are bosses on every job. (During the recent action against sexual harassment at McDonald's, women workers described how male managers had such power over their lives that some routinely demanded sex from them during their shift if they requested so much as a schedule change. And all they're doing is selling hamburgers.) In artistic institutions, like symphony orchestras and ballet companies, where there are many more talented artists than there are jobs, the power of the bosses to make or break a career is overwhelming, but there seems no remedy for that, except to demand that their actions be transparent with some semblance of fairness. Ms. Waterbury is angry at Chase Finlay and she's taken action against him, rightly so.
  12. I remember the Libby Zion case well, as the trial was televised on Court TV. While it brought about welcome changes in the training of new physicians, what was most memorable to me was how it consumed the lives of not just her father but her brothers as well. Their various legal actions, that went on for years, were attempts primarily to punish the doctors and the hospital where Libby was treated. They even tried to get the doctors indicted for murder. Concern for the well being of overworked interns was not the family's motivation. They wanted revenge, which they never got as all of the doctors involved retained the ability to practice medicine. In the Waterbury case, nobody died, no one was battered, and all of the sex was consensual. It doesn't meet the criteria for "revenge porn". Finlay was a cad and a boor, but it's highly unlikely that there will be any criminal charges. This is a private dispute that Merson is trying to make institutional. There is nothing any school or company can do that will stop consenting adults, or minors, from having sex, and sexual relationships always have the potential of going sideways and hurting the participants. A company-wide seminar on sexual harassment, and warning against the making and sharing of intimate images is an excellent idea. But it wasn't the culture of the ballet studio that brought Ms. Waterbury to grief. It was Chase Finlay.
  13. If any school or institution has the ability to change the "atmosphere of demoralizing women", given that it is an intrinsic part of much of male-female relations, they should convey their method to the world. It occurs in the lowest rungs of society all the way to Congress, the White House, the Catholic Church, the military, the Ivy League and the Supreme Court, to name just a few. It's ironic that male ballet dancers, who actually get to handle female bodies as a part of their job, still get aroused by photos of women, like most other men. That's hard wired and not going to change. What can change is the socialization that makes some men, like Finlay, believe they are entitled to use a woman's body as they wish. But that socialization starts in the home, long before boys get to the ballet studio.
  14. Where is there any evidence that NYCB or SAB are in the business of demoralizing women?
  15. I don't disagree with you. Ms. Waterbury was done wrong. But it was by Chase Finlay, not NYCB. She is entitled to seek redress in any manner that she chooses. But huge chunks of her complaint are boiler plate nonsense, cooked up by a lawyer looking to get his hands in the deepest pockets in the vicinity. When the dust settles, which could take years, I don't expect this to have had much effect on her career. People tend to forget this kind of low level scandal quickly. I really think that NYCB overreacted.
  16. The sections of the complaint dealing with Ramasar are written in such a sloppy, ungrammatical fashion that it's difficult to figure out who did what to whom, allegedly. At one point, the complaint seems to allege that Catazaro and Ramasar were actually filming Ms. Waterbury performing sexual acts, which they are not accused of doing. Ramasar definitely does ask Finlay for photos and videos. But the only person who mentions Ms. Waterbury by name (as "Alex") is Craig Hall. Considering all that this Craig Hall is alleged to have texted and done, more than Ramasar, far more than Catazaro, it's curious that he is not named as a defendant. Ramasar seems to have sent photos of only one woman, who is possibly a willing participant. Most of the claims against the defendants are ridiculous and will certainly be thrown out - like but for the existence of NYCB and SAB, Ms. Waterbury would not have met Chase Finlay, therefore the company and school owe her damages. But it's as if the lawsuit itself is an act of revenge, no matter what the outcome.
  17. I left Ramasar out of the discussion because his alleged actions directly involved the photos of Ms. Waterbury . (That doesn't mean I necessarily believe he should be fired because of them.) The complaint continues to include his name after the Catazaro material, indicating Merson thinks his actions are more egregious. Finlay took himself out of it. Considering his actions alone, why did Catazaro deserve to be fired?
  18. It seems that, as far as the mainstream media is concerned, the NYCB story doesn't have legs (pardon the pun). Could be because the Kavanaugh nomination is so critical to the nation, and fraught with drama, that it's driven other sexual misconduct stories off the radar. Meanwhile I've had time to go over the amended complaint and I have to ask those who genuinely believe that firing Zachary Catazaro was justified: why? Catazaro did not take photos of the complainant, apparently did not see them or share them, and he was the previously unnamed male principal who refused to participate in Chase Finlay's sexual harassment schemes. His greatest sin appears to be sharing a photo of a woman's breasts where that woman's face is not visible. That, and a couple of texts using language that, while crude, can be heard on every street corner in the US. None of this was intended to be public. After that descriptive passage, Catazaro is barely mentioned. For that he loses his career? It doesn't seem fair or proportionate punishment to me. If Catazaro had been a problematic employee in the past, it would have been known to NYCB management long before the Waterbury case. So unless he's got a body in a fridge somewhere, why was he fired when, as alleged in the complaint, dancers who were involved in domestic violence and rape were not? I could be wrong of course, but I predict that AGMA will recommend he be reinstated, with back pay. I'm interested in hearing other views.
  19. Farrell's return certainly disrupted the careers of other dancers, who had been performing her former roles in her absence, and now found themselves second cast. Peter Martins became her partner instead of Kay Mazzo's. Balanchine resumed favoring her over others. Not everyone was happy about her return.
  20. My point is that he could ask, but NYCB and SAB could refuse to comply. He would have to persuade a judge that he had a right to this data. Even if they did so voluntarily (highly unlikely), discovery can be expensive and time-consuming. The cost would not be covered by contingency fees. Ms. Waterbury could find herself on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars and still lose the case.
  21. That was an investigation of a hostile workplace environment case, where the behavior of some male employees toward female employees was flagrant and outrageous. Why and how could Merson launch a similar investigation at NYCB when Ms. Waterbury never worked there? NYCB might have an obligation to disclose this information to AGMA, but not to all comers. It is notable that even though Mavericks owner Mark Cuban worked in the same offices and should have been aware of what was going on, (he admitted as much and made a $10,000,000 donation to women's organizations - a nuisance amount given his vast wealth) he was exonerated by the investigation.
  22. "Many dancers at NYCB have been students at Columbia - my apologies for the past tense evidently not being clear. If an adult former Columbia student dated a Columbia professor and it ended badly, it does not follow that Columbia University is at fault.
  23. Ms. Waterbury doesn't cite a single example at SAB to bolster her assertion, even anonymously, and it would take more than one to establish a pattern. Employers are limited in their ability to discipline the private behavior of their employees.
  24. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...