MovieChat Forums > Disclosure (1994) Discussion > One fatal flaw: a subordinate CANNOT har...

One fatal flaw: a subordinate CANNOT harrass a superior!!!!!

posted 18 years ago by al666940-3
15 replies | jump to latest

No matter what gender either one is.

EVERY single sexual harrassment case EVERYONE has heard of involves the boss harrassing a subordinate, NOT the other way around.

I challenge ANYONE to post evidence of a case involving an employee harrassing a female boss.

Now, it's usualy a MAN boss, but ONLY because bosses are usually men, and secretaries/subordinates are women (at least that used to be the norm before).

The novel/movie make a GREAT point: sexual harrassment IS INDEED about power, not gender. A woman in power can harrass a subordinate JUST the same as a man in pomwer. It's just because man have usually held all the power position that most harrassers happen to be men.

Were women helding most power positions, most harrassers would be women, and no feminazi propaganda is gonna change that anyday.

There come a MAYOR problem in both novel and film:

If both Meredith and Sanders accuse each other of harrassment (Meredith did accuse Sanders first), there's only ONE question to make: WHO'S THE BOSS?

Because unless Bob Garvin (Donald Sutehrlad, the owner of Digicom) is SERIOUSLY senile, he would've realized in A SPLIT SECOND that THERE'S NO CHANCE IN HELL SANDERS HARRASSED HIS NEW SUPERIOR MEREDITH.

Why? Because Meredith can fire Sanders ANYTIME SHE WANTS (compensation/severance issues aside), especially if he behaves in such recless manner. Same thing with every boss regarding his employees.

The subordinate CANNOT harrass the boss!!!!!!!

The ONLY reason a boss can harrass an employee is because he has POWER OVER THE EMPLOYEE. Otherwise, the employee can tell him/her off without a second thought.

I know the harrassment charge against Sanders is only a distraction to set him up for the manufacturing line problems caused by Meredith. But outside the company people aware of her schemes (the lawer BLACKBURN), how can ANYONE else believe he could have possibly harrassed her?!!!!!!!

Like Bush saying he WAS FORCED to invade Iraq by the White House janitor telling him so...

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WorthyAntdawg 18 years ago

Obviously you didn't actually read what he said. He said the boss would fire the employee for harrasing him/her (the boss)...which is what happened, isn't it? You can be quiet now...oh and learn to read things completely before leaving dumb comments like "you can be quiet now".

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ShizaMinelli 18 years ago

Is making every OTHER word all caps SUPPOSED to make you SEEM more right.

It is very possible to harass a superior. Firing someone in the big business world can be alot harder than it seems. If there can't be any proof of harassment, than the fired employee can sue and walk away with a hefty chunk of change and possibly put the company out of business. In concept, you're right, but there are so many other factors to it.

...but it must be good. Ebert and Roeper gave it 2 thumbs up...

[–] pirate_john 18 years ago

>>There come a MAYOR problem in both novel and film:

Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy.

[–] tgramful 18 years ago

Raymond F. Gregory is an attorney who has handled cases like the one you describe and has written books about the cases in his career. What happens is that the woman gets promoted and is accused of using her sexual wiles and her body to get ahead, and is called vile names and various body parts just for being successful. Don't get me wrong. I've seen it happen where women do have sex to get ahead, and I've seen female warhorses who cost people their jobs. But harrassment also happens to innocent women to who just did their job and were rewarded with more responsibility, and were harrassed by, yes, subordinates. Of course she should reply that these actions are unwelcome and illegal and report the incident to her superiors instead of telling the guy she could have his lousyass pencil pr*ck fired, or rip off his shirt, and say: "you wanna piece of me"?

[–] Psyche-8 18 years ago

I think there's a major point being missed here and it is that Meredith harassed Tom for a reason. Not just because she could because she was the boss - it was all part of the set up. She intended to get him fired. Why? Because she'd made a mistake and didn't want to get found out. That whole business about the problems with the drives, she knew full well it was her fault but she intended to set Tom up, make it look like it was his fault and use him as a scapegoat. Once he'd been fired for harassing her, Meredith could tell the board that Tom made the mistakes at the plant and vow to put them right - earning her plenty of brownie points in the process.

The real 'fatal flaw' is that Meredith never considered that Tom would turn around and accuse her of sexually harrassing him. She never thought he would even have a case because he's a man, and moreover, she had no idea that Tom's phone had been left on and that someone had recorded the entire encounter on an answerphone.

"He murders his wife every night. Other than that, I think he's pretty harmless."

[–] gwydno 18 years ago

I think the question in this post is not that if women harrass men, but that Douglas' character is charged with harrassing his hierarchical superior. In this case, apart from being fired, the harrassing man would be charged for sexual abuse, or whatever it is called in legal terms, but NOT for harrassment, because the key point in harrassment is that the superior intimidates the other person with his/her hierarchy

[–] jun19fan40 18 years ago

BS
A student can harrass a teacher.
A worker can harrass his or her boss.

Just because one is supposed to have the power, does not mean that the person actually has that power.

[–] Smashex 18 years ago

Actually Sexual Harrasment now.. isn't just those involved.
Basically it is when anything someone feels they didn't want to hear or be involved in can claim sexual harrasment.
For example
2 employees are sitting in the break room at work. Tell dirty jokes... nothing more. Another employee overhears the conversation, they feel offended.
That person that was eavesdropping goes to Human Resources... and says that "I heard this joke/comment today at lunch and I was offended. Now, I don't feel I can work around this person anymore. This has caused an issue for me here."
The HR person will now apoligize for the comment... the 2 individuals will be investigated tor Sexual Harrasment and creating a Hostile Work environment and if they cannot find a viable defense against it. They will be terminated with no real recourse.

Thats just how things work... it's not just the direct contact wih people that create issue's with sexual harrasment, its ones personal feelings that are hurt that create the harrasment.

In the case of this movie... the story is based on the "No means No" statement being one of equality between men and women. It also show's that some women can be just as cold and calculating in the business world as any man... so.. just like in the movie... the woman here (demi) falls just as hard as Ken Lay did.
Just my thoughts.. and what I know to be true.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Soap_Distant 17 years ago

Good grief!

*Anyone* can sexually harrass *anyone* else.

Obviously, an employee abusing power bestowed upon them by the company which they work for can only work one way, but the idea that sexual harrassment is subject to this same logic is laughable.

If the original poster is looking for major flaws, then they need look no further than Michael Crichton's plot: An absurd "techno-thriller" with implausible technology that is not very thrilling.