A Progressive Writer Was a Bad Boyfriend. And Then He Was Fired for It.

Comments

1

Thanks for covering this story, Katie. The personal is political was the rallying cry of late-20th century feminism, and while I agree that the strict separation of spheres, the insistence that the public sphere remain “polite” and the private sphere remain hidden, was used for centuries (if not millennia) to oppress women and other minorities, what we’re seeing now is the subtle erosion of private life. I fear for the future of intimacy, and like you I question whether this is the price we must pay for justice.

2

This is an awful precedent. Being a shitty person - even being a hypocrite - shouldn’t be enough to get someone fired.

Now all the trolls who have been jousting at strawmen have a legitimate beef. Great work, Jezebel. In one fell stroke, you’ve turned the warmth of light into a blinding glare.

Fuck.

3

I’d love for Katie to do a story on what causes a woman to be so pathetically servile that she allows a man to tell her what kind of eye makeup she needs to wear to get laid.

6

This is the realization of all of the made up fears of the idiots who love to hate on #METOO. This guy shouldn't be able to get laid because he's a douche but it doesn't sound like he's done anything to remotely justified being fired.

7

Yea, at least one of his accusers sounds like a bloody loon who if, had she written to Dan with her actions, would likely have been told to not be a douche herself like that couple that was stood up from last week.

Also, if the only precedence for her having sex with him was that, "the dick was good", (dudebro much?) what's keeping her from fucking a Republican for the very same reason. The woman is obviously not all mentally there.

8

@6: So the made up fears turn out to be real fears? These are the blue islands of America consuming themselves because we can't effect change nationally. Shades of the politically correct culture wars of 1984-1992

9

@8 spot on, the left is eating itself trying to get everyone to be "woke" and fall in line while the right is going to saunter right along to 4 more years of Trump. This whole story makes my head hurt on so many levels.

11

This dude should be dick-whipped and shit on just for affecting that pose / jacket / look. If he has actually done anything let's punish that as well, but first is first.

12

Bwahhhahahhaaa!!! That Kay person sounds like a winner.

13

“Mic’s own internal investigation found that there was no evidence he’d acted improperly on the job.“

So, he’s going to sue for wrongful dismissal, and settle for plenty cash, yes?

“...the company—which, according to a report published last week in the Wall Street Journal, is currently considering an offer to sell.”

Yes.

14

@10 gotta love how we treat other in the bedroom while breaking no laws is now grounds for dismissal because some people are shitty at breaking up.

15

I do wonder how it is that the shittiest guys reliably have their choice of dates.

16

Choice of shitty dates, maybe. Kay sounds like a fucking lunatic who is an even better candidate for "worst person ever", admits to stalking him, and actually typed this and didn't set off her own "I'm an asshole" alarm:

"He had me blocked since we broke up and I’m like, whatever. Still going to fuck you. Dick too bomb. I didn't give a shit about this man as a human being."

She's not just toxic, she's radioactive.

18

@2 (and others) -- I get your point. That was my thinking as well. But here is the thing. Every person in an organization that has a public role in that organization has to adhere to a certain, if unspecified code of conduct. Of course there are grey areas in both instances. Was this guy a public figure? It sure seems like it. Is he an asshole? Again, it appears he is.

It is similar to when Rosanne was fired (from her own show). Sure, what she said was worse -- but it is hard for me to see how that really hurt someone -- it just made clear that she is an asshole (or has some problems, at the very least). But ABC didn't want anything to do with her. It hurt their brand.

That is just the price that public figures have to pay. Don't be an asshole, or you might lose your job.

19

@2:

Shitty people get fired from their jobs every day - for doing shitty things - although I grant it's usually in the context of something work related. That said, there have been plenty of recent examples of this, such as White Supremacists and Racists getting fired for, well, being White Supremacists and Racists. Doesn't have anything to do with their ability to perform their work tasks, but their employers simply decided their public shittiness wasn't something they wanted their businesses to be associated with.

20

@13:

Depends. New York, where Mic is headquartered, is an "at-will employment" state. So, technically they could have let him go for any reason - or no reason at all. The question then becomes: was his employment terminated "for cause" or "without cause"? If the latter, then he would have no grounds to sue, since his termination wasn't necessarily based on his at-work performance. Of course, the company would have to then agree to give him any back-pay, accumulated vacation, severance pay (if applicable), etc. But, that's the deal employees agree to in advance for not being able to challenge the dismissal.

21

Look at all the shitty boyfriends pissing their pants over the slight possibility that their actions might actually have consequences for once

22

@20: My point was if he sues, they’ll pay him to remove a potential liability ahead of the sale. Given he was fired because of accusers who are themselves not particularly credible, on a matter which had nothing to do with his job, he may find it worthwhile to lawyer up.

24

Ahh the Left is eating itself!!

Haha. Nice try, but no.

25

Lesbians are never like this.

28

26: It could be that the women described in Katie's piece are complete idiots AND Kavanaugh committed sexual assault. See, the world is this interesting gray place and not an eternal war between the forces of good and evil. The problem with people like you on the right and left is you fundamentally don't understand that.

29

The man in question is a virtue-signaling piece of garbage who would have attacked another man for being accused of the same things he stands accused of.

I don't agree with him being fired, but neither do I agree that he is deserving of sympathy.

Let him rot in the world he helped create.

32

The best scenario is that woke people will destroy each other before they take everyone else down. Alas, there are plenty of precedents for the left wrecking entire countries.

33

And people wonder why I have incredible anxiety when dealing with women, especially when I'm attracted to them.

At this point I can see the progression that was predicted when this whole thing started last year.

First we had the really bad guys, the Weinsteins, the Lauers, etc.
Then we had the not that bad but still bad, the Ansari's, etc.
Now we are moving into the merely obnoxious.
At this rate the next stop really is "anybody flawed".

Also, quick sidebar, I put Kavanaugh in the "really bad" category and think he shouldn't be seated at a pie contest, must less the Supreme Court.

34

Katie, you forgot to submit your text to Erica C. Barnett for vetting before posting. Now she's got something to tweet about for a couple days. Which Stranger writer will offend her next? She needs a regular stream of outrage against you, you know. Like the ex who can't ever let go...

35

@33 Weinsteins, Laurrs and Cosby's of the world aren't 'really bad guys' - they are criminals. violent felons and/or sex criminals.

i think we lose something when simplistic language is used to sugarcoat 'really bad' behavior.

36

It wasn't long ago (2007) that Washington State's liberals got sexual identity and orientation added to our anti-discrimination laws. We actually argued that an employer should not care who the employee might be having sex with on his or her spare time. Quaint, were we not?

@33: Nobody could have predicted, eh? Who knew where a "system" with no burden of proof, no evidentiary standards, and no punishment for false accusations would lead?

Actually, we readers of The Stranger did, when Litsa Dremousis attacked Sherman Alexie allegedly for his harassment of women, but really for his having ended their consensual, extra-marital affair. She initially claimed her public attack upon him was to help these other women, but after her affair was revealed (not by her, although she then falsely claimed to have been forthcoming about it) her motive became transparently obvious.

Americans have always loved us our with hunts, after all.

37

@35

Ok, I'll accept that feedback. However, that only strengthens the point that we are going from criminal to very problematic to obnoxious and are well on our way to mildly irritating.

Feel free to chime in when I say weed is awesome to say, "actually, it's amazing".

38

@37: "...we are going from criminal to very problematic to obnoxious and are well on our way to mildly irritating."

We're already at score-settling revenge-attacks by jilted lovers. Next is rejected requests for dates?

39

Okay, so a lot of issues with so many things in this article, but "He wouldn't have sex with me unless I wore a particular eye shadow. That is literally rape!" is about as confusing as it gets. Did I misread or jumble not directly related things together, or is saying you will NOT have sex with someone except under specific conditions rape in this person's mind? And if that's the case, why is anybody who isn't a licensed psychiatrist even listening to this woman?

40

34 - Erica will never give you a date. Give up already.

41

@5- I imagine the only way you get laid is through non-consensual choking.

42

@41: “‘‘Non-consensual choking’ = ‘getting laid.’”

Good chat, good chat.

43

@18, @19: I hope you enjoyed picking through the wreckage that metoo leaves, retroactively and arbitrarily declaring justice to nebulous standards you yourselves cannot even fully define.

@18: Roseanne Barr has been a public figure for thirty years. She knew the rules, she knowingly violated them, she was fired for damage (real or perceived) her nasty public statements did to ABC’s image. She wasn’t fired for private, consensual behaviors.

@19: Again, White Supremacists make obnoxious public statements. Publicly associating with an intentionally offensive group can get you fired, for right and good reasons. How can an employer credibly claim to operate a safe, diverse, and fair business whilst employing anyone who has publicly dedicated himself to hatred and bigotry?

None of that applies here. As already noted, the accusers here understood what Litsa Dremousis demonstrated. Having consensual sexual activity with a man, and regretting it later, can now be used to hurt him, without any fear of her being held accountable at all for her own, freely-chosen actions.

As @1 notes, this means the end of privacy; the only error is in claiming there is anything subtle about it.