“Those who said they would hire a woman said they would not travel with one, and they, more importantly they would not engage in activities after business hours,” Taylor added.

“And you know oftentimes, that’s when the relationships are built,” he continued, “after hours dinners with clients, et cetera, trips, I’m a lawyer for example, and you know, you’re the associate, and the partner won’t travel with you for fear that it could be perceived, or he could be subject to a sexual harassment claim.”

Sounds rational to me. I don’t really see the problem with it, nor do I think that the left themselves are in any position to disapprove.

Cold-eyed, self-interested, unrelenting formality may be found unappealing by some, but as long as mentally disturbed people are running loose like insane suicide bomber tar-babies, it is best to effect certain disciplines and procedures.

I don’t support the “believe all women” ideology. I support believe those who tell the truth.

http://www.watcherofweasels.org/donald-trump-false-accusations/
September 6, 2018 Bookworm

“Within the past few days, Bob Woodward dropped a book claiming to have first, or second, or third hand information from anonymous people who are, like, totally in the know, and thereby backing up Omarosa’s claim that Donald Trump is a crazy meanie. With perfect timing, an anonymous, but nevertheless really important person, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in which s/he announced that Trump is a crazy meanie, so that the person has been forced to mount a seditious movement . . . er, sorry, a Deep State movement . . . er, sorry, a resistance . . . er, sorry, a “steady state” movement (yes, really — “steady state”) to undermine the will of those American people who just happened to elect Donald Trump.
…
Decades ago, I also worked on a case in which a man disagreed with a minority woman who held a position superior to his. She could simply have reported him for insubordination. Instead, she falsely accused him of major acts of sexual harassment. She backed it up with an affidavit from an even more junior women in the organization who claimed to have witness the sexually-based verbal abuse and intimidation. When I spoke to the young woman, she admitted that she had lied because her job was threatened.

It ought to have been a no-brainer to get rid of the matter, but as is the case today with so many young men false accused of rape at America’s colleges and universities, it was a nightmare to deal with the institution. Its employees lied; its attorneys lied; it withheld documents; it threatened other employees to suborn perjury; etc. In other words, it was a microcosm of what goes on today, whether on campus or in dealing with the FBI and the DOJ if you’re unlucky enough to be Mike Flynn, Carter Page, or anyone else caught up in the Mueller abattoir. Mike Flynn, almost certainly afraid that Mueller would destroy the life of Flynn’s son, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, even though the FBI agents working the case acknowledged that he hadn’t lied.

In the case of my client, wee ended up settling for a purged record. We did so because my client lacked the company’s deep pockets and couldn’t afford the attorneys fees. He also could not handle the professional threat constantly hanging over his head.

I also know people here in Marin with sons’ whose lives have been destroyed by the man-hating Title IX offices at college campuses throughout America. There, aided in part by the Obama administration’s “Dear Colleague” letter, men are dragged without notice before tribunals that accuse them of horrible, but often unspecific sexual crimes; deny them the right to talk to parents or other counsel; refuse them the right to question accusers or witnesses; and then summarily kick them out of college with the phrase “sex offender” scrawled across their records. Often, these accusations come from young women with mental problems, women who got as drunk as the men but nevertheless are not responsible for their actions while the men are responsible for theirs, and women seeking vengeance for bad break-ups. Thank goodness, as I mentioned above, the Betsy DeVos is trying to bring some sanity back and, even more importantly, young men are suing and winning instead of running away in shame from these Kafka-esque, kangaroo courts.
…
The other person to whom I spoke was also on the receiving end of an overzealous prosecutor and ended up pleading out to a lesser charge, not because he was guilty but for the same reason as my client: he couldn’t afford either the legal fees or the risk to his professional reputation. Moreover, because he was dealing with a government agency, it did what those agencies do (see, the FBI and DOJ, above): Its people lied and it refused to turn over relevant documents that would instantly have proven his innocence.
…
All these stories are a reminder that big organizations, whether federal, state, municipal, or corporate, as well as frenzied mobs, have unbelievable power. When people who glory in power, are malicious, and/or dishonest get in the driver’s seat, they can pervert justice in ways that are truly Kafka-esque.

Worse, it’s not just individuals who suffer terrible harm. These events make justice such a travesty that they lead to vigilantism. If the law is manifestly corrupt, people will take power into their own hands, often with results more violent, although in many ways no more cruel, than what flows from corrupt governments or deep-pocketed entities.”

mlmontagne • 13 hours ago
(quoting Dave)
” A sitting federal judge was accused of sexual assault and gang rape and there was no corroborating evidence. Any fair analysis showed it was all lies. CNN last night asserted that President Trump’s statement that Justice Kavanaugh was proven innocent was false. Only a deranged partisan would not think Brett Kavanaugh was proven innocent.”

There are, unfortunately, a lot of deranged people in this country, or outright liars, I’m not sure which. I have asked a number of people why they find Christine Ford more credible than Crystal Mangum or Jackie Coakly. I have also asked, if they find Ford to be credible, to describe an accusation that would be non credible. No one has ever responded to these questions. I sure hope this translates into votes in a few weeks.”

Share ›
Avatar
Thresherman mlmontagne • 12 hours ago
“To the left, Ford is credible solely on the grounds that she was “sincere” when she told her story. But “sincere” and “credible” are not synonymous terms. Scammers and con artists all sound sincere, it’s their stock in trade, but no one would ever describe them as credible. But as the con artists say, you can only con those who want to be conned and the people who say they find Ford credible, do so, not because her story is credible, but because they want it to be. In short, they want to be conned and the Democrats are all too willing to do so.”

OCTOBER 10, 2018
I’M SURE THIS WILL BE A BIG DEAL IN THE NEWS STARTING NEVER: Ariz. Dem Donor Charged with Felony Sexual Abuse. “There has been no documentation that any of the money has been returned by the Garcia campaign, which did not respond to a Free Beacon inquiry on what it planned to do with the money.”

Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 8:00 am

From the linked story:
“The Garcia campaign is not listed in the police report, but the address and time of the event Rivera attended that are listed in the report match the listed address and time of the campaign’s event. The name of Rivera’s victim and witnesses who were able to corroborate her account are also left out of the report.

The report indicates, however, that Rivera was asked to leave the party because he was too drunk and became “verbally aggressive.”

“[Rivera] became intoxicated while at a social gathering and [the victim] accepted the task of driving him home,” the report states.”

* * *
Women need to be a bit more pro-active about staying away from potential trouble; this task should have been given to a man.
FWIW, there are: an actual date and time, police charges, and witnesses.

https://www.city-journal.org/campus-diversity-bureaucracies-16223.html

“The sheer size of the diversity landscape is staggering. The University of Michigan’s diversity bureaucracy employs nearly 100 full-time employees, one earning more than $300,000 per year, at an annual cost of more than $11 million. More than a quarter of UM’s diversocrats make more than $100,000 a year, far more than the average salary of assistant professors with doctorates. UM is not exceptional. The University of Texas at Austin employs a similar number of bureaucrats in its Division of Diversity and Community Engagement (boasting eight vice presidents), at an annual cost of $9.5 million. The head of UT’s diversity bureaucracy makes over $265,000 a year, more than most tenured faculty.
The Economist reports that UC Berkeley has 175 diversity bureaucrats, and nationwide, the trend is toward increased spending in this area. According to The Economist, “Bureaucrats outnumber faculty 2:1 at public universities and 2.5:1 at private colleges, double the ratio in the 1970s.” Over the same period, tuition has soared. Ohio State’s Richard Vedder estimates that more than 900,000 nonteaching administrators—most of them unnecessary—bloat university payrolls.
…
Diversity bureaucrats exist to service the grievances of an evolving—and potentially unlimited—number of supposedly oppressed groups recognized by postmodern identity politics. Thus, by promoting “social justice” and encouraging “marginalized” students to embrace victimhood, diversocrats ensure their own job security. The mission of campus diversity officers is self-perpetuating. Affirmative action (i.e., racial and ethnic preferences in admissions) leads to grievance studies. Increased recognition of LGBT rights requires ever-greater accommodation by the rest of the student body. Protecting “vulnerable” groups from “hate speech” and “microaggressions” requires speech codes and bias-response teams (staffed by diversocrats). Complaints must be investigated and adjudicated (by diversocrats). Fighting “toxic masculinity” and combating an imaginary epidemic of campus sexual assault necessitate consent protocols, training, and hearing procedures—more work for an always-growing diversocrat cadre. Each newly recognized problem leads to a call for more programs and staffing.

Unless the cycle of promoting and nursing imaginary grievances is ended, diversity bureaucracies will take over our colleges and universities, supplanting altogether the goal of higher education.”

And I bet a lot of those diversity officials moon-light by as sex-harassment case workers. (In financial circles, they would be investment brokers churning transactions to increase their fees.)