So let me get this straight about Alicia Machado...

[mjr]

She (and many Hillary supporters) are complaining about people commenting on her appearance, when she appears in beauty pageants, where appearances are literally one of the criteria used to judge the contestants?

Do I have that right?

[NecCat]

No, you don't have it right.

There was no complaint that 'people were commenting on her appearance.' There was a complaint that Donald Trump publicly humiliated her, using words like piggy, and miss housekeeping, ambushing her during a physical workout with press where he ensured maximum publicity of his humiliating remarks, and threatening publicly to take her crown away if she didn't stop being an eating machine.

There is a very clear difference.

If you don't see it try to think of it this way. You are (if I remember correctly) a computer programmer. You are in competition with your co-workers for lead on a particular project, and you are chosen. Shortly after starting your work begins to fall apart, every testing you are submitting is failing specs. How would you feel if your boss took you aside, described the problem to you, advised you on improvements you were going to have to make, and threatened to replace you if your next tests didn't pass specs? How would you feel if your boss stood up at company meetings to call you stupid, joked with your co-workers that you were an idiot, and talked about how bad you were doing when he interviewed with a national trade magazine?

Maybe that will help explain why Trumps behaviour towards her is unacceptable.

[mjr]

No, you don't have it right.

There was no complaint that 'people were commenting on her appearance.' There was a complaint that Donald Trump publicly humiliated her, using words like piggy, and miss housekeeping, ambushing her during a physical workout with press where he ensured maximum publicity of his humiliating remarks, and threatening publicly to take her crown away if she didn't stop being an eating machine.

There is a very clear difference.

If you don't see it try to think of it this way. You are (if I remember correctly) a computer programmer. You are in competition with your co-workers for lead on a particular project, and you are chosen. Shortly after starting your work begins to fall apart, every testing you are submitting is failing specs. How would you feel if your boss took you aside, described the problem to you, advised you on improvements you were going to have to make, and threatened to replace you if your next tests didn't pass specs? How would you feel if your boss stood up at company meetings to call you stupid, joked with your co-workers that you were an idiot, and talked about how bad you were doing when he interviewed with a national trade magazine?

Maybe that will help explain why Trumps behaviour towards her is unacceptable.

I understand where you are coming from, but I see a few differences.

First, Alicia Machado is/was contractually obligated, IIRC, to maintain a certain appearance. Was she not?

By not maintaining that appearance, she actually did risk losing her crown, and part of her earnings (i.e. breach of contract).

One can feel humiliated by a private dressing-down as well. Would you agree?

Secondly, to your point about programming, that's why we have unit testing.

Unit testing is, in effect, "maintaining appearance". If I write my tests correctly, and they pass, there's a high probability that there will be minimal bugs in my code. Part of that "maintaining appearance" is also refactoring.

If I unit test and refactor, I'll have far fewer issues when it comes to development and maintenance. My code will also have a low number of bugs.

Does getting called out in public feel good? No. Neither does getting called out in private. You can feel humiliated either way. And do you really think that this wouldn't have come out if he would have said it in private?

Third, she's in competitions where appearance is, again, literally one of the needed criteria to win. And there are obligations to maintain that appearance.

[NecCat]

I understand where you are coming from, but I see a few differences.

First, Alicia Machado is/was contractually obligated, IIRC, to maintain a certain appearance. Was she not?

By not maintaining that appearance, she actually did risk losing her crown, and part of her earnings (i.e. breach of contract).

That's not actually a difference in the scenario I presented. She was contractually obligated to maintain certain standards, just as any employee is obligated to maintain certain productivity or results. That's one of the things that make the two scenarios (Alicia's and the hypothetical one I presented you) the same.

One can feel humiliated by a private dressing-down as well. Would you agree?

Not at all. One can feel shame from a private dressing-down, if one agrees with the assessment of one's character or behaviour. Humiliation is, by definition, a publicly witnessed event.

http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/humiliation.htm

Does getting called out in public feel good? No. Neither does getting called out in private. You can feel humiliated either way. And do you really think that this wouldn't have come out if he would have said it in private?

Getting called out in public feels orders of magnitude worse than getting called out in private. It's never appropriate to use belittling words on a subordinate (like an employee), they have no way to fight back. But to use them in public and encourage others to do so, or at least witness the attack, is nothing but bullying. It is designed to instill shame or fear in the recipient.

Do I think she would have come forward if he had addressed her in private. No, I think she probably wouldn't have. Trump has proven again and again that he will lie, deny and decry anything he feels like. I think it is very possible that if he hadn't made these incidents so very public she would fear not being believed or the attack he would have made in denying her statements, and would not have said anything.

[Gravekeeper]

Do I have that right?

No. Next question.

[mjr]

No. Next question.

Missing my point entirely.


So, one more time, in big, bold letters:

She participated in a competition where attractiveness is literally one of the judgement criteria

And have you ever in your life said a negative thing about a woman's appearance? I know you aren't running for President, but I'd almost put money on it that you have.

[Kheldarson]

Missing my point entirely.

So, one more time, in big, bold letters:

She participated in a competition where attractiveness is literally one of the judgement criteria

And have you ever in your life said a negative thing about a woman's appearance? I know you aren't running for President, but I'd almost put money on it that you have.

And? Trump was her boss. That means that her appearance is now a matter of job performance. So his behavior is indicative of not only how he treats women, but also how he treats employees.

How he behaved is the equivalent of your boss calling together a press conference with all the higher ups in attendance and then bringing you up to say, "So this ass decided to let his certification slip so we're all here to watch him study and take the exam!"

How would you feel about that? Most places would consider that a lawsuit waiting to happen.

But because she's a beauty queen, she shouldn't expect privacy or consideration when it has to do with her job performance?

Nobody has said he couldn't have addressed her weight gain issue with her. Everybody is saying that how he handled it was horrendous.

[NecCat]

And have you ever in your life said a negative thing about a woman's appearance? I know you aren't running for President, but I'd almost put money on it that you have.

I've got a hundred bucks on Gravekeeper has never called a press conference for the purpose of saying negative things about a women's appearance, while she had to sit there and smile about it. Or any employee. I've never met him, and I still think that is a safe bet.

[mjr]

I've got a hundred bucks on Gravekeeper has never called a press conference for the purpose of saying negative things about a women's appearance, while she had to sit there and smile about it. Or any employee. I've never met him, and I still think that is a safe bet.

That's likely true, but misses the point.

I realize that "everybody does it" isn't an excuse, but let's at least try to not be self-righteous about it.

[mjr]

But because she's a beauty queen, she shouldn't expect privacy or consideration when it has to do with her job performance?

Are pro athletes any different? Players get microphones and cameras shoved in their faces after every game. Whether they did good or bad. Some athletes make mistakes on the field and literally get death threats.

Nobody has said he couldn't have addressed her weight gain issue with her. Everybody is saying that how he handled it was horrendous.

Apparently even discussing it is a crime (in a figurative sense), if you're certain people. So I don't think your statement is completely accurate.

[Kheldarson]

Are pro athletes any different? Players get microphones and cameras shoved in their faces after every game. Whether they did good or bad. Some athletes make mistakes on the field and literally get death threats.

Better analogy would be to phrase it in terms of their coaches. Because a person being asked how they think they did in a public performance is different than asking their bosses.

So if a coach is asked to say how their players did on the field, even if they did poorly, they still have an obligation as the leader of the team to spin things positively.

Leaders do not denigrate their followers. Praise in public, criticize in public.

That's the crux of the matter. Trump put Machado, his employee, into an untenable position by calling out her performance in public.

Apparently even discussing it is a crime (in a figurative sense), if you're certain people. So I don't think your statement is completely accurate.

No, it's not. The only reason why his comments are an issue are because he was being literally insulting and overstepping his boundaries as an employer.

We wouldn't even be having this conversation if he had pulled her into an office and said, "Hey, you've gained a lot of weight since winning the crown. We have certain expectations in terms of maintaining your appearance as representative of the franchise. Is this something we can work on with you?"

Because that would be being a good boss.

[mjr]

Better analogy would be to phrase it in terms of their coaches. Because a person being asked how they think they did in a public performance is different than asking their bosses.

That does happen, but I've seen many occasions (I watch the NFL almost every week, and MLB as often as I can when my favorite team is playing) where a coach will say "We didn't play well. We made a lot of mistakes, and there are things we need to correct."

He won't call out players specifically, but players will often publicly criticize themselves.

Bill Parcells once famously referred to Wide Receiver Terry Glenn as "She" on several occasions.

He often referred to Terrell Owens as "The Player".

Jimmy Johnson had an "Asthma Field". He left Hall of Fame Wide Receiver Michael Irvin behind once because he was late catching a plane.

Aren't those all "public" embarrassments for the players?

[Kheldarson]

That does happen, but I've seen many occasions (I watch the NFL almost every week, and MLB as often as I can when my favorite team is playing) where a coach will say "We didn't play well. We made a lot of mistakes, and there are things we need to correct."

He won't call out players specifically, but players will often publicly criticize themselves.

This is what a boss should do. What the players/employees do is their own business. But a boss does not call out their employees in public.

Bill Parcells once famously referred to Wide Receiver Terry Glenn as "She" on several occasions.

He often referred to Terrell Owens as "The Player".

Jimmy Johnson had an "Asthma Field". He left Hall of Fame Wide Receiver Michael Irvin behind once because he was late catching a plane.

Aren't those all "public" embarrassments for the players?

Don’t know enough about any of those situations, but the last one doesn't sound like a deliberate embarassment by the coach. If you're late, then guess what? You're late. That's on you, not the boss.



The question is not if Trump had a right to address her performance as Miss Universe (which includes her appearance). The question is if his behavior while doing so was appropriate. And that's an unequivocal no.

[mjr]

This is what a boss should do. What the players/employees do is their own business. But a boss does not call out their employees in public.



Don’t know enough about any of those situations, but the last one doesn't sound like a deliberate embarassment by the coach. If you're late, then guess what? You're late. That's on you, not the boss.



The question is not if Trump had a right to address her performance as Miss Universe (which includes her appearance). The question is if his behavior while doing so was appropriate. And that's an unequivocal no.

But again, the women in beauty pageants are in a competition where they are purposefully judged -- in public -- partially by their aesthetic.

I mean, it's not just a talent, intelligence, and interview contest. They also have (or used to have) evening gown and swimsuit categories, too. They're awarded points in those categories by (gasp!) people who are judging them on those things. In public. And some of the pageants are (or used to be) televised! More people at home judging! Oh, the horror!

It's all done in public. It's basically a "look how attractive I am" contest, if you boil it down to it's basic essence. And it's basically an "elimination". You have "Miss <State>", then Miss USA, then Miss Universe...

They're all the same. That's just how it is.

It's the same with men, and bodybuilding competitions. I personally think many of their physiques are grotesque, and I'd never personally want MY physique to look like that. But again, they're standing there in basically a thong, flexing their muscles and being (gasp!) judged on appearance.

What's hard to understand about that?

[Kheldarson]

What's hard to understand about that?

It's not a question of how they got chosen. It's not a question of what the public thinks of them. It's not a question of what they say about themselves.

It's a question of how those in charge of the event act.

They are bosses. They have a certain responsibility to the company and to the contestants as employees. That means that they should not discuss the performance of their employees in public. It doesn't matter if that performance is in how she speaks, how she acts, or how she looks.

What they can do is fire her for not upholding whatever expectations they have. But they cannot trash talk her to the public at large.


What's so hard to understand about employee and business relations?