Peter Martins Sexual Harassment Allegations

[kfw]

32 minutes ago, aurora said:

And if you call a spade a club, is it a club?

You don't get to make up you own definition of what sexual harassment is.

 

Come now. Since when is the EEOC God, or even Merriam-Webster? Just cuz the gov'ment says it, that doesn't make it so, and it doesn't make it what everyone thinks of when the word is used. Anyhow, I don't know why you're citing the EEOC. What "unwelcome sexual"  - sexual now - "advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature" do we know Balanchine sidelined Mejia for Farrell's refusing? Chapter and verse, please. He took action after Farrell got married. This was a one-sided romantic spat, not a sleep-with-me-or-else. Again, that hardly makes it right, but there is no cause for conflation.

[nanushka]

36 minutes ago, kfw said:

I'm sorry Balanchine sunk that low, and I'm sorry both for Farrell and Mejia, but I don't think a spurned would-be husband's taking his emotions out on the actual husband professionally falls into the same category as sexual harassment, which involves demanding sex.

For a supervisor to professionally punish the husband of a woman that supervisor has unsuccessfully attempted to initiate a sexual or romantic relationship with absolutely falls within the most common (and legal) definitions of sexual harassment, as one would learn in any basic workplace training on such matters.

(Note that I'm making a point about the definition, not about Balanchine.)

Edited January 10, 2018 by nanushka

[kfw]

2 minutes ago, nanushka said:

For a supervisor to professionally punish the husband of a woman that supervisor has unsuccessfully attempted to initiate a sexual or romantic relationship with absolutely falls within the most common (and legal) definitions of sexual harassment, as one would learn in any basic workplace training on such matters.

(Note that I'm making a point about the definition, not about Balanchine.)

If I understand your last sentence, you're effectively agreeing with me. You can, naturally, tell the difference between forced sexual contact and Balanchine's vengeful emotional decision. The thing about terms like this, when they're allowed to encompass a wide range of behavior, or a wide range of degree of behavior, is that calling something an X for a 1 on a scale of 10 because it technically fits some description of the X trades on the emotional charge of the 10. (That's why it's a favorite tool of propagandists - not that anyone here is propagandizing.) But sidelining someone out of romantic pique is a far cry for demanding sex. I think there are ways to criticize Balanchine for the first that are clearheaded and don't make what he did sound a lot worse than it was. It was bad enough already.

[nanushka]

27 minutes ago, kfw said:

If I understand your last sentence, you're effectively agreeing with me. 

I'm not sure that I am. My point is simply and exactly what I said:

If a supervisor attempts to initiate a romantic/sexual relationship with an employee and, out vengeance for being denied, that supervisor subsequently professionally punishes that employee's spouse, who is also an employee — that is one example of sexual harassment.

(Keep in mind that not only the employee and the employee's spouse suffer from this offense; so does anyone else who works there and may feel or fear that the same fate could befall them. That's what's meant by a "hostile work environment," which is one of the effects of workplace sexual harassment. And that's why "sidelining someone out of romantic pique" is not in fact "a far cry from demanding sex." It contributes to a workplace environment in which all employees feel that the boss may make the same demands of them and punish them if they don't submit.)

And, fortunately or unfortunately, yes: the term "sexual harassment" is broad enough to encompass a whole range of behaviors, some of which many would feel are more harmful than others. That's how language, and law, sometimes works.

Edited January 10, 2018 by nanushka

[meliodori]

It is gaslighting to say one form of sexual harassment is absolutely more harmful than others. It is impossible to know the full psychological affects of any act of harassment unless you experienced it firsthand. 

[nanushka]

22 minutes ago, meliodori said:

It is gaslighting to say one form of sexual harassment is absolutely more harmful than others. It is impossible to know the full psychological affects of any act of harassment unless you experienced it firsthand. 

I'm not sure if you're responding to what I wrote, but I said "many would feel." I did not include myself in that. I was responding to someone who apparently does feel (rightly or wrongly) that some forms are more harmful than others:

33 minutes ago, kfw said:

The thing about terms like this, when they're allowed to encompass a wide range of behavior, or a wide range of degree of behavior, is that calling something an X for a 1 on a scale of 10 because it technically fits some description of the X trades on the emotional charge of the 10.

And in response to what I've just quoted, I'd say: it only trades on that emotional charge if one assumes anyone who hears "X" is going to think "10" instead of thinking of the real definition of the term. Personally, I don't agree to change my language use just because someone somewhere may have a misconception of what the words actually mean.

Edited January 10, 2018 by nanushka

[abatt]

6 minutes ago, meliodori said:

It is gaslighting to say one form of sexual harassment is absolutely more harmful than others. It is impossible to know the full psychological affects of any act of harassment unless you experienced it firsthand. 

There are gradations of harassment, which is why there are gradations of punishment and penalties under the law. 

[Balletwannabe]

I find Sohpie Flacks comments to be misguided.  Telling other dancers what their social media posts mean?? You can tell them how it makes YOU feel, but that's about it. 

"I'm not here to invalidate your feelings"

followed by...

"by posting on social media your sadness for Peter's downfall, you are siding with an abuser"

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Balletwannabe

[Olga]

As long as we still have the rule of law and the Constitution, being charged with a crime doesn’t mean you are guilty.

[abatt]

I'm not surprised she threw her hat into the Martins-bashing circus.  Based on her history of complaining in the NY Times about her layoff when it happened,  my only question is what took her so long to get this little "Open Letter" out there..

[BalanchineFan]

2 hours ago, Quiggin said:

Sidenote: The Times' reports, towards the end of the article, that Deneuve also made a strong statement last March defending Roman Polanski. “It’s a case that has been dealt with, it’s a case that has been judged. There have been agreements between Roman Polanski and this woman.” 

I was more interested in the fact that France has no age below which a person cannot be deemed to consent. There is no statutory rape.  A 33 year old man (not Polanski) recently had sex with an 11 year old and the French system did NOT, could NOT prosecute. That’s certainly different from the US  

Also, Some of the subtleties of the Deneuve letter have been lost here. She/they support stopping the Harvey Weinsteins and violent assaults, rapes, criminal activity, etc. The letter may simply be a reaction to women accusing men of misconduct online or other developments that are more common in France. 

There is such a cultural aspect to how people relate to each other. I hope that going forward the rules of conduct and the consequences are clear and enforceable in ballet and dance companies, in fact eveeywhere. I hope NYCB develops a system of checks and balances and accountability on each person’s behavior. I’ve read that Anne Bass resigned from the board in 2006 because there was no such accountability. 

[aurora]

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!

[Helene]

1 hour ago, kfw said:

Since when is the EEOC God,

Not G-d, but a definition by the US government to define what can be pursued as a labor matter. So the EEOC definition is more than pertinent, since this entire thread is about a labor matter.

 

37 minutes ago, Balletwannabe said:

I find Sohpie Flacks comments to be misguided.  Telling other dancers what their social media posts mean?? You can tell them how it makes YOU feel, but that's about it. 

"I'm not here to invalidate your feelings"

followed by...

"by posting on social media your sadness for Peter's downfall, you are siding with an abuser"

 

Feelings are one thing.  Actions are another.  That is the distinction she's making.

[Marta]

3 hours ago, Helene said:

Or, particularly in this context, many would remember Susan Falludi's book, "Backlash:  The Undeclared War Against American Women."

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/200883.Backlash

Falludi's book is excellent, highly recommend it.  Since it was published,  there seems to be a backlash to the backlash.  I'm old too, I remember Anita Hill and many many hours spent watching the Watergate hearings.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Marta
I accidentally deleted the last part: that during those hearings, Martha Mitchell was portrayed as a total idiot, a silly goose, a stupid woman. I think such verbal abuse wouldn't be tolerated today in such hearings

[abatt]

16 minutes ago, aurora said:

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!

Happy to have her open her mouth if she can give us facts based on her 8 years of employment, rather than relying on DUI's and the Darci incident.  That has not happened. 

By the way, I do believe Alina Dronova's account in the NYTimes, because she offered specifics based on her experience during her employment.

Edited January 10, 2018 by abatt

[BalanchineFan]

2 hours ago, kfw said:

I'm sorry Balanchine sunk that low, and I'm sorry both for Farrell and Mejia, but I don't think a spurned would-be husband's taking his emotions out on the actual husband professionally falls into the same category as sexual harassment, which involves demanding sex.

The harassment isn't only in the demand for sex, or a "romantic" relationship or marriage, but in the negative consequences of saying no. Farrell said no and Mejia suffered the retaliation. Dancers should be cast on their dancing ability, not their ability to get out of the AD's way with the ladies. There is both a carrot and a stick to harassment.

[Helene]

5 minutes ago, abatt said:

Happy to have her open her mouth if she can give us facts based on her 8 years of employment, rather than relying on DUI's and the Darci incident.  That has not happened. 

By the way, I do believe Alina Dronova's account in the NYTimes, because she offered specifics based on her experience during her employment.

Again, what she wrote is that even if the dancers didn't believe the dancers who came forward -- and Dronova was one of them -- the DUI arrests and arrest for hitting Kistler -- something she never denied: she made excuses for how stressed he was, and declined to file charges to work on their marriage -- would be enough for someone to lose their job in the outside world.

She doesn't have to give her own account to write that she supports what her fellow dancers have claimed, and to ask current dancers not to discount them.

 

[BalanchineFan]

I thought Sophie Flack's open letter was really beautiful and well considered. It's clear she's talking to specific NYCB dancers who have been posting on social media, and she really speaks to their experience as dancers in the company, an experience she shared for many years. In some ways (not all) it reminds me of Robbie Fairchild's instagram post where he said he was sorry that not everyone had had the supportive, professional experience with Peter that he (Fairchild) had.

[On Pointe]

57 minutes ago, nanushka said:

For a supervisor to professionally punish the husband of a woman that supervisor has unsuccessfully attempted to initiate a sexual or romantic relationship with absolutely falls within the most common (and legal) definitions of sexual harassment, as one would learn in any basic workplace training on such matters.

(Note that I'm making a point about the definition, not about Balanchine.)

If you don't get a position,  promotion,  role that you wanted,  is that professional punishment?  Supervisors use their discretion to make business decisions,  especially in the arts.  Married couples working in the same company can be walking a minefield.  There are several prominent media couples who had to split up professionally when they married,  as per their companies' policies.  (That would really be hard on ballet dancers as there are not nearly as many positions for dancers as for news reporters.)

There are at least two sides to every ballet story.  One of my teachers was a soloist at NYCB during the Farrell years,  and I heard first hand how many company members resented Farrell's power and influence over Balanchine.  His favoritism was blatant.   She could have had any role she wanted,  but she overplayed her hand when she made a demand on her husband's behalf.

[Balletwannabe]

40 minutes ago, Helene said:

Not G-d, but a definition by the US government to define what can be pursued as a labor matter. So the EEOC definition is more than pertinent, since this entire thread is about a labor matter.

 

Feelings are one thing.  Actions are another.  That is the distinction she's making.

"You are siding with an abuser" is an opinion, not a fact.  That's all I'm saying.  I'm not trying to discredit her feelings/experiences.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Balletwannabe

[kfw]

1 hour ago, nanushka said:

That's how language, and law, sometimes works.

When it's used badly, yes, Another example would be equating a hostile work environment with sexual harassment, plain and simple.

Quote

I was responding to someone who apparently does feel (rightly or wrongly) that some forms are more harmful than others:

I don't believe that either. It would be far too simplistic a statement.

Quote

 I don't agree to change my language use just because someone somewhere may have a misconception of what the words actually mean.

I think we all know what "lash" means. And I think if we're not willing to change our terms when those terms can be misunderstood and/or connote something untrue, that's part of the problem. 

Helene wrote:

Quote

So the EEOC definition is more than pertinent, since this entire thread is about a labor matter.

I think we've touched on much more than that, and I've made it clear that I'm talking about something else. We certainly have not been talking about whether Balanchine should have been charged under today's laws. 

BalanchineFan wrote

Quote

The harassment isn't only in the demand for sex, or a "romantic" relationship or marriage, but in the negative consequences of saying no.

I've asked for evidence that Balanchine demanded sex per se. What he wanted was marriage. And today's understandable new workplace rules notwithstanding, are we really going to condemn Balanchine for falling in love with Farrell and proposing? A proposal is not a demand anyhow, and there is no evidence he said "marry me, or else." Again, what he did was awful, but we still need clear thinking. 

[Amy Reusch]

Okay, this is addressed generally, not specifically to the Martins situation, but given how widespread the MeToo movement now is:  

If flirtation is equal to harassment, then aren't there many women who have harassed their male co-workers?  Is showing cleavage at work harrassment?  What about the hemline?  How far does this go?  Are women all going to have to don the hajib at work to avoid harassing the men?    Ask the men you know, has a woman ever flirted with them at work?

I feel anyone who has been repeatedly "hit on" at work, after indicating a lack of interest, has a different situation than the casual flirtation or off color joke... but...  we are talking about a slippery slope here... and there are whole generations of men who have been taught persistence is a virtue.  There are magazine articles out there advising women to never accept the first invitation for a date because it's a turn-off, makes them seem "too easy"...   There is a tremendous amount of subtext in flirtation, and it is possible to misread it.  Some flirtation is never intended to go beyond a smile.

I believe anyone who has been forced to have sex to keep their job has been horrendously abused and should be protected.  

On the other hand, I feel Leonard Lopate should have been left in his job at WNYC, and is a victim of the MeToo movement.

Peter Martins?  I don't know.  I was not there.   Clearly there is something.  Was that something everything everyone has ever accused him of?  I have no idea.  I just don't like the mob justice situation, it makes me nervous.   One should be able to face one's accusers.  How are we to judge these situations where most of the time someone coming forward long after all evidence has disappeared is telling the truth.  Until someone can assure me that 100% of the time no one innocent has ever been accused...  I'm not in a rush to jump to any conclusions.  Let's hear what the investigation turns up.  In the meantime, he has lost his job and his reputation.  

 

I have no axe to grind.  I do not think all situations are the exactly the same.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Amy Reusch

[On Pointe]

37 minutes ago, Helene said:

Again, what she wrote is that even if the dancers didn't believe the dancers who came forward -- and Dronova was one of them -- the DUI arrests and arrest for hitting Kistler -- something she never denied: she made excuses for how stressed he was, and declined to file charges to work on their marriage -- would be enough for someone to lose their job in the outside world.

She doesn't have to give her own account to write that she supports what her fellow dancers have claimed, and to ask current dancers not to discount them.

 

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.

[abatt]

38 minutes ago, Balletwannabe said:

"You are siding with an abuser" is an opinion, not a fact.  That's all I'm saying.  I'm not trying to discredit her feelings/experiences.

I don't agree.  If she had written "I believe your are siding with an abuser" or "in my opinion you are siding with an abuser",  it would have been clear that she was stating her opinion.  However, the words that she wrote state as a fact that Martins is an abuser.  The exact words used matter, especially when those words are being published to a wide audience in a magazine.

[aurora]

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.