8 women accuse Charlie Rose

[kenny]

I appreciated Rose's skill as an interviewer.

This thing is really snowballing.
I "hope and pray" our culture changes for the good after the exposure of all this intolerable behavior.

WTF must the world think of America?
First Trump, now this.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...s-accused-of-sexual-harassment-by-eight-women

Partial snip:

Three of the women spoke on the record, revealing their identities, says the Post. Five others spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. The Post says that all of the women were between the ages of 21 and 37 at the time of their unwanted encounters; had offered "striking commonalities" in their accounts; and all had confided with friends, family and colleagues about the incidents at the time.

Their allegations of Rose's groping, lewd phone calls and his walking around naked in their presence are laid out in a lengthy articlepublished Monday.

 

[monarch64]

https://www.thecut.com/2017/11/rebecca-traister-on-the-post-weinstein-reckoning.html

The above article explains something I couldn't quite articulate this past fall when I refused a job offer at the last minute.

I was asked to submit my resume to a company, went through several interviews, did a week of paid training in a different city, and then received a phone call from the male who solicited my resume. He was a former neighbor and I was friends with his wife; our daughters have known each other since they were 18 months old and attended two years of preschool together. He invited me to their house to have a conversation before I started my new gig.

He wanted to warn me about a certain co-worker, who was to be my mentor. The entire staff, he said, was male and had been for several years. He wanted to make sure that I knew better than to be "too friendly" or to give this person any impression that he might perceive as ... interested in anything more than a working relationship. He told me several unsavory things he had witnessed the co-worker do to women at outside work events that all staff attended. He also mentioned that the person, when he felt rejected by a girlfriend or female, had a tendency to retaliate in extreme ways.

I sat on that conversation for 48 hours. The morning I was due to report to work, I called the hiring manager and then the person who was to be my supervisor and informed them that I had reason to believe that I was not a good fit for the position. When pressed, I said I'd had a conversation with someone who warned me about another staff member and that I didn't feel comfortable joining the team. Both parties said they understood and didn't urge me to name names.

Shortly after I got off those phone calls, I messaged the former neighbor/friend and told him what had happened. He became extremely angry and said I threw him under the bus. He said he never said the things he told me and it was my word against his, and that his wife (my former friend) would vouch for him because she was sitting right there during our conversation.

Yep. This is the shit that happens to women. Real great world we live in. That dude should have been thanking his lucky effing stars that I didn't take the job, because had that potentially harrassing co-worker bothered me AT ALL I would have launched a lawsuit that would've made this huge company's collective heads spin. Threw him under the bus, my ass.

A couple male friends in my life to whom I recanted this tale were shocked that I didn't go forward with the job. I don't understand what's shocking about being made to feel so uncomfortable coming into a new situation that you don't want to follow through with potentially being harassed at work. Perhaps I'm just sensitive because I have a vagina. Maybe I need to "toughen up." :roll

Lesson here is: don't try to protect your work friends from potential situations by informing new hires to steer clear of them INSTEAD of reporting the *******s or confronting them about their unacceptable behavior yourself.

 

[arkieb1]

It's not just the US - it happens to women in the entertainment industry, in politics, in the business world and in ordinary every day life. The only thing the rest of us are thinking is that you have a president guilty of the same s@#* yet he is allowed to get away with it because he can afford to buy off and or threaten women that come forward.

 

[Calliecake]

I just heard Charlie's remarks regarding these allegations. He remarked he felt he was pursuing shared feelings. Right Charlie, Put the blame back on the women because they all want you. Sick!!!

I'm sure there will be many more men accused in the next few months. The floodgates are open now. He certainly won't be the last.

@monarch64 The good ole boy network is alive and well in America. Until this type of behavior becomes completely unacceptable to all men, I fear little with change.

 

[luv2sparkle]

I really hope things will start to change! On the flip side, I read that Jeremy Piven took a lie detector test and passed with no deception. I hope that all these women are telling the truth and not looking for their 5 minutes of fame. It will cause a backlash if they are not truthful.
I am somewhat surprised that Charlie Rose admitted it. I will change the channel every time I see his face on tv from now on. (not that I ever watched him before)

 

[monarch64]

^Jeremy Piven is an actor. An accomplished one, at that. And what is acting, really? Hmmmmm...

 

[rainwood]

I'm sorry to hear Charlie Rose is also like this, but not really surprised. I used to really enjoy his show, but after his latest interview with Hillary Clinton where he interrupted and talked over her so often I started yelling at the TV, I began to pay attention and he does that to women more often than he does it to men. And once I saw that, the bloom was off the Rose, for me.

 

[Arkteia]

I just heard Charlie's remarks regarding these allegations. He remarked he felt he was pursuing shared feelings. Right Charlie, Put the blame back on the women because they all want you. Sick!!!

What if men, indeed, process social situations different from women? I don't know about Rose specifically.

But to play the devil's advocate - why is it so that Tweeden accused Al Franken of behaving inappropriately and yet on the same tour, from photos, it seems that she is grabbing a man's behind - and this man is nowhere to be seen and does not join "me too"? Is it because this man, in contrast to Tweeden, thinks "I got lucky on that tour!"?

More - what if this whole sexual harassment campaign is part of the devil's plan to deprive us of our progressives? (Weinstein was a separate case). Bannon could make such a plan. (Or Ailes, when alive, specifically Ailes).

How many are now demanding that any man who is accused should resign? Before anything is proven? And mind you, in cases of powerful men, it might be the fear of potential payments in punitive damages, not the veracity of the accusations, that makes their employers suspend or fire them in haste.

I know one person who is immune too these attacks, Pence, because he never talks to a woman alone. Maybe some other fundamentalists with similar views. So the country shall be left with Pence, I guess. Not because men are not culpable, but because of our tendency to forget about presumption of innocence and not even provide them with the chance to clear their names.

So far, no casualties on the GOP side.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe Rose was just a creep. We all run into lewd creeps. But unless there are names, stories and I see what are the mentioned similarities, I am not believing this accusation.

I also think that progressives are more vulnerable. Maybe because they are more trusting, less paranoid?

 

[rainwood]

But to play the devil's advocate

You might want to examine why you feel the need to play devil's advocate here. If you choose to say "I don't believe them" just because the men accused are progressive, you're acting the same way as Roy Moore's defenders are.

Should Senator Franken lose his Senate seat? I don't know the answer to that. I'd like to think that he has learned to be a better man, and can remain an advocate for progressive politics. That's what I'd probably decide if there aren't more serious abuses and more victims. There is a sliding scale for me on the severity and the number of incidents, and I also look at the response to the accusations. I hope that if Senator Franken keeps his Senate seat, he will talk openly about the issue and what he and other men need to realize and do, and work hard to further the causes of women. I don't feel the same way about Charlie Rose. I'm just not buying his response, and the nature and number of incidents are different. And Roy Moore needs to lose the election, and slither back under the rock he came out from.

 

[Arkteia]

You might want to examine why you feel the need to play devil's advocate here. If you choose to say "I don't believe them" just because the men accused are progressive, you're acting the same way as Roy Moore's defenders are.

No. I am simply tired that every day I read about someone shooting someone, and someone grabbing someone. Mass murders have to stop, as to the #me too, Tweeden has abused it. I now refuse to believe accusations unless I see facts. Five of the women accusing Rose are anonymous, three have some similarities in the story, but we do not know what they are. Enough of anonymous accusations.

P.S. What if multiple women say they were treated with respect?

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/11...l-franken-treated-respect-champion-women.html

 

[monarch64]

Lol. Multiple women can say they were treated with respect but that does not mean other women who are making allegations are lying!

Not every woman on staffs I have been a member of was sexually harrassed by the UPS delivery man. Not every one was harassed by the owner of the agency. Not every one was harassed by the GM.

Arkteia, I’m sorry you feel the way you do. Society has conditioned us all to protect men over and above women. And you can add that last sentence to the long list of why women accusers choose anonymity, or don’t come forward at all.

 

[partgypsy]

The Franken thing, I'm a bit on the fence with. It sounds like on those tours, the entertainers, are more loose in their behavior with each other than what would be expected say a senator performing their job duties. No he shouldn't have stuck his tongue in her mouth. But I see his behavior in that situation, as an entertainer doing ribald jokes for the troops differently than what he is doing now. Should that be enough to disbar him from his senator job? I don't know.

 

[Arkteia]

The Franken thing, I'm a bit on the fence with. It sounds like on those tours, the entertainers, are more loose in their behavior with each other than what would be expected say a senator performing their job duties. No he shouldn't have stuck his tongue in her mouth. But I see his behavior in that situation, as an entertainer doing ribald jokes for the troops differently than what he is doing now. Should that be enough to disbar him from his senator job? I don't know.

Here- it is a long article but I agree.

http://bipartisanreport.com/2017/11...-forward-with-surprising-information-details/

The idea is, Franken has been the champion of the struggle for women's rights. He has been actively fighting against defunding PP. Getting rid of him will probably bring us +1 more Republican senator. I think we should choose our battles. Tweeden is a Trump supporter and might have secondary gains. Franken is pushing for a Senate investigation - it indicates that he is probably not guilty (or his response is that of a not guilty man). A senate investigation might bring out lot of dirt about other politicians, so Tweeden rapidly said that an apology was enough.

Why should anyone disbar (if it is the right term) Franken from senator job? If nothing has been proven, he is pushing for a full investigation, and Tweeden, a Trump supporter, says it is not needed? Sounds illogical to me.

 

[Rhea]

I don't think that having another republican senator is reason enough to keep someone who crossed the line and sexually harassed or assaulted someone. This is not a partisan issue. Or at least it shouldn't be.

I'm on the fence with Al Franken too though. I feel uncomfortable here because I've done something which I'm unsure about, used her past as a commentator on Hannity, to judge her. Is she out to make waves for something in which she was actually a willing participant? I've also read what the photographer said about the photo being staged. I'm not sure at what point I'm victim blaming or simply doing smart research.

I'll admit, I am concerned, I want people to feel safe in coming forward and speaking up. I don't care if it ruins careers. I also want some level of care taken in different levels of harassment or we'll soon get to the point where everyone is afraid of how they'll be perceived. Yes, liberal me afraid of a bit of PC. Intent and power needs to be considered. We've all felt uncomfortable with someone who was a little socially inept, from both men and women in many cases I'm sure - we can all be awkward. I'm not saying that "small" things should be brushed aside because they aren't small to some people and we cannot judge how it affected them. I do believe that the entire package needs to be considered though. I don't consider the socially awkward guy who kissed me randomly, hard and with tongue, in a pub to be harassment. His intent, I believe, was to try to pull (does that translate from English to American?) and he quickly backed down when I pushed him. He's not my metoo. He was just misguided and socially awkward.

 

[Matata]

CBS fired Rose

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charlie-rose-fired-cbs-news-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

 

[partgypsy]

BTW, according to Snopes the quote regarding the photographer saying the photo was staged is not true. They don't even know who the photographer is at this point in time. It is true that if you look at the photo, he is not actually touching her breasts. You can see a shadow. It's not cool, but it's also not groping.

 

[rainwood]

No. I am simply tired that every day I read about someone shooting someone, and someone grabbing someone. Mass murders have to stop, as to the #me too, Tweeden has abused it. I now refuse to believe accusations unless I see facts. Five of the women accusing Rose are anonymous, three have some similarities in the story, but we do not know what they are. Enough of anonymous accusations.

P.S. What if multiple women say they were treated with respect?

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/11...l-franken-treated-respect-champion-women.html

I sympathize with the battle fatigue. There is so much happening so much of the time that it makes my head spin. And so much is coming out about sexual harassment because it is so pervasive. We should acknowledge that, no matter how painful it is to be confronted by it every day. But sometimes we do have to step back and take a breather, and that's okay. You may want to do that. As my favorite political commentator, Elizabeth Cronise McLaughlin, says 'The only way they win is if we get tired and give up.'

So i understand your weariness. I just don't think that being tired of hearing all the accusations should translate into 'I need proof of every account.' That's not a solution; it's just more of the same old war.

 

[Arkteia]

BTW, according to Snopes the quote regarding the photographer saying the photo was staged is not true. They don't even know who the photographer is at this point in time. It is true that if you look at the photo, he is not actually touching her breasts. You can see a shadow. It's not cool, but it's also not groping.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...-Tweeden-s-USO-Tour-They-speak-for-themselves

I think we have to go back to history of USO tours. https://www.uso.org/entertainment

They started in 1941. Continued through WWII. The showmen at these tours are performing in front of the men and women who may not be alive tomorrow. And the showmen, too, are risking their lives in these situations. Marlene Dietrich participated in such tours, many of them, BTW. By nature, the tours may be ribald and not exactly what I would take my son to see, but this is the nature of wartime vs peacetime, I think.

So I am not surprised at all these photos. Franken was not a Senator at that time. He was a comedian trying to cheer up the troops. He was not a man of power, either.

I think the right word for these photos is ... clownish? Why today it came back to haunt Franken I can not grasp. Different life, different situation, clownish comedy aimed at making soldiers laugh.

And - the most interesting thing - Tweeden is not interested in full Senate investigation...

 

[partgypsy]

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...-Tweeden-s-USO-Tour-They-speak-for-themselves

I think we have to go back to history of USO tours. https://www.uso.org/entertainment

They started in 1941. Continued through WWII. The showmen at these tours are performing in front of the men and women who may not be alive tomorrow. And the showmen, too, are risking their lives in these situations. Marlene Dietrich participated in such tours, many of them, BTW. By nature, the tours may be ribald and not exactly what I would take my son to see, but this is the nature of wartime vs peacetime, I think.

So I am not surprised at all these photos. Franken was not a Senator at that time. He was a comedian trying to cheer up the troops. He was not a man of power, either.

I think the right word for these photos is ... clownish? Why today it came back to haunt Franken I can not grasp. Different life, different situation, clownish comedy aimed at making soldiers laugh.

And - the most interesting thing - Tweeden is not interested in full Senate investigation...

yes. When he offered a full investigation, she quickly said his apology was sufficient. And there is a picture of them a 3? years later laughing it up together.

 

[Arkteia]

CBS fired Rose

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charlie-rose-fired-cbs-news-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

Bingo! This is why I am against their decision.

"Allegations". He is fired for allegations of sexual misconduct.

Not for proven misconduct. No one waited to prove it.

(I understand - certain people might know too well that if there is an inquiry, more things might come out, so there might be a preemptive move.)

Or maybe Rose is innocent, but "allegations" are enough in today's world.

 

[Matata]

"Allegations". He is fired for allegations of sexual misconduct.

He has publicly apologized for the behavior while stating he thought he was "pursuing shared feelings." Prancing around naked in front of a woman who has not asked you to do so belies his grossly mistaken assumption about shared feelings.

He was suspended first which is the correct step to take regarding an alleged crime. Firing him would also be a correct step if his employer was presented with information providing strong proof of the alleged crime. In the end, CBS is just as culpable for his crime -- because they either knew or should have known about his behavior -- and cutting ties is a prudent business decision.

 

[rainwood]

Bingo! This is why I am against their decision.

"Allegations". He is fired for allegations of sexual misconduct.

Not for proven misconduct. No one waited to prove it.

(I understand - certain people might know too well that if there is an inquiry, more things might come out, so there might be a preemptive move.)

Or maybe Rose is innocent, but "allegations" are enough in today's world.

You are confusing criminal proceedings with what action an employer can take when given information about sexual harassment.

An employer has the right to discipline, suspend or terminate an employee without there being a criminal conviction for that employee's actions. In fact, no crime has to be committed, charged or proved. Sexual harassment isn't necessarily a crime. It may be, depending on what happened, but it isn't always. It must simply be that the employer reasonably believes that the actions of an employee violates the employer's rules and guidelines, and the action taken against the employee is within those same rules and guidelines. My guess is that CBS, as a news organization itself, knows how rigorously the Washington Post investigates these stories, and has taken action against Charlie Rose that presumably is within its rules and guidelines. I'm fine with that.

And even reading the summary of the accusations made it clear that his response was nonsense. He didn't dispute that he did what he was accused of, but seemed to be under a serious delusion that all these young female interns and low-paid employees were interested in him romantically and welcomed seeing a 70+ year old parading around in his open bathrobe or in the nude. Yeah, right. That makes sense.

So if you want to be dismayed about what happened to Charlie Rose, that's your decision but I applaud what CBS and PBS did because it was the correct response. We need to keep a sense of proportion, but what he did is on the wrong end of any sliding scale.

 

[Arkteia]

You are confusing criminal proceedings with what action an employer can take when given information about sexual harassment.

An employer has the right to discipline, suspend or terminate an employee without there being a criminal conviction for that employee's actions. In fact, no crime has to be committed, charged or proved. Sexual harassment isn't necessarily a crime. It may be, depending on what happened, but it isn't always. It must simply be that the employer reasonably believes that the actions of an employee violates the employer's rules and guidelines, and the action taken against the employee is within those same rules and guidelines. My guess is that CBS, as a news organization itself, knows how rigorously the Washington Post investigates these stories, and has taken action against Charlie Rose that presumably is within its rules and guidelines. I'm fine with that.

And even reading the summary of the accusations made it clear that his response was nonsense. He didn't dispute that he did what he was accused of, but seemed to be under a serious delusion that all these young female interns and low-paid employees were interested in him romantically and welcomed seeing a 70+ year old parading around in his open bathrobe or in the nude. Yeah, right. That makes sense.

So if you want to be dismayed about what happened to Charlie Rose, that's your decision but I applaud what CBS and PBS did because it was the correct response. We need to keep a sense of proportion, but what he did is on the wrong end of any sliding scale.

Dismayed?? Oh no, nothing about Charlie Rose specifically. I thought he was good-looking when he was younger but in general TV it is too slow-motion for me, so not much is lost personally.

Everyone comes into these discussions with his own life experience. I came from a country where arrests, tortures and false admissions started with unsigned letters from "informers", so I do not like when out of 8 accusers, 5 are anonymous. This is all.

I suspect that the main issue is different from what you said, that simply, CBC as a big company does not want to be criminally liable if in the course of investigation it is found out that allegations are true. So they are firing him rather than wait and have to pay millions in damages. That simple.

 

[rainwood]

Dismayed?? Oh no, nothing about Charlie Rose specifically. I thought he was good-looking when he was younger but in general TV it is too slow-motion for me, so not much is lost personally.

Everyone comes into these discussions with his own life experience. I came from a country where arrests, tortures and false admissions started with unsigned letters from "informers", so I do not like when out of 8 accusers, 5 are anonymous. This is all.

I suspect that the main issue is different from what you said, that simply, CBC as a big company does not want to be criminally liable if in the course of investigation it is found out that allegations are true. So they are firing him rather than wait and have to pay millions in damages. That simple.

I'm going to give this one more try then give up. First, I'm a lawyer and did some of this kind of work so have a pretty good idea how the law works on this. Second, if any of the allegations involve his employment at CBS, firing him doesn't change CBS's civil liability (and it would only be civil, not criminal) for anything he did while employed at CBS. It cuts off liability for any future conduct but doesn't change liability for past conduct if that conduct involved his employment at CBS, and CBS knew or should have known about that conduct and did nothing. Third, the allegations as I understand them are not primarily about his work at CBS but about what happened at his own company, and at his house. If that remains the case, his own company is at risk for civil liability, not CBS, or at least not unless allegations come out that are tied to his conduct at CBS. The same is true with PBS. They distributed the show, but did not produce it, and did not employ him or the women who have made the complaints. In fact it's not even filmed at PBS's studios anymore so it's hard to see that PBS would have any civil liability regardless.

So I don't think CBS's actions or PBS's actions were based primarily on avoiding criminal liability, but instead were decisions that they didn't want a sexual abuser to continue to have a show on their network, and decided to terminate the employment agreement (CBS) or their distribution agreement (PBS) with him/his company.

As always, you're free to believe what you want to believe, but I didn't want others to think your post was an accurate statement of either the facts or the law.

 

[kenny]

A young attractive person of lower-income and lower-social-status may be "attracted" to an old wealthy person.

I'm NOT saying this is what happened.
I'm NOT defending Rose, nor am I remotely on his (or anyone's) side.

Just responding to the post saying, in effect, young people can't be attracted to old people.
May/December romances/flings/marriages happen and when/if they do is nobody else's business if both are consenting adults.

If rose did what these women allege then he should rot in jail with the other scumbags.

 

[Arkteia]

I'm going to give this one more try then give up. First, I'm a lawyer and did some of this kind of work so have a pretty good idea how the law works on this. Second, if any of the allegations involve his employment at CBS, firing him doesn't change CBS's civil liability (and it would only be civil, not criminal) for anything he did while employed at CBS. It cuts off liability for any future conduct but doesn't change liability for past conduct if that conduct involved his employment at CBS, and CBS knew or should have known about that conduct and did nothing. Third, the allegations as I understand them are not primarily about his work at CBS but about what happened at his own company, and at his house. If that remains the case, his own company is at risk for civil liability, not CBS, or at least not unless allegations come out that are tied to his conduct at CBS. The same is true with PBS. They distributed the show, but did not produce it, and did not employ him or the women who have made the complaints. In fact it's not even filmed at PBS's studios anymore so it's hard to see that PBS would have any civil liability regardless.

So I don't think CBS's actions or PBS's actions were based primarily on avoiding criminal liability, but instead were decisions that they didn't want a sexual abuser to continue to have a show on their network, and decided to terminate the employment agreement (CBS) or their distribution agreement (PBS) with him/his company.

As always, you're free to believe what you want to believe, but I didn't want others to think your post was an accurate statement of either the facts or the law.

Rainwood, thank you for explaining it. I am not a lawyer so thank you for explaining how it is usually processed in these cases. This is about Rose. I stand corrected.

However, in a democratic society fully allowing plurality of opinions, I feel it is my right to have a dissenting opinion. Which is simple - before I cast my own stone at Rose, or anyone else, I want to have more information about the nature of sexually inappropriate behavior people are accused of.

Why? Because Brian Bank's case, a travesty of justice and law, when the public was quick to believe the accuser without any DNA or other evidence, and which ended up a promising athlete's career.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/25/local/la-me-rape-dismiss-20120525

This case effectively illustrates that admission of guilt does not imply guilt.

This one case taught me to give the benefit of the doubt in all such cases. Which we shall be seeing times and again.

 

[House Cat]

Rainwood, thank you for explaining it. I am not a lawyer so thank you for explaining how it is usually processed in these cases. This is about Rose. I stand corrected.

However, in a democratic society fully allowing plurality of opinions, I feel it is my right to have a dissenting opinion. Which is simple - before I cast my own stone at Rose, or anyone else, I want to have more information about the nature of sexually inappropriate behavior people are accused of.

Why? Because Brian Bank's case, a travesty of justice and law, when the public was quick to believe the accuser without any DNA or other evidence, and which ended up a promising athlete's career.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/25/local/la-me-rape-dismiss-20120525

This case effectively illustrates that admission of guilt does not imply guilt.

This one case taught me to give the benefit of the doubt in all such cases. Which we shall be seeing times and again.

This case you have posted is very different from Rose’s circumstances. Rose isn’t even on trial yet and he has already admitted to and apologized for his actions. Stop defending him!

When you defend someone who has sexually assaulted women, you become part of the problem.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Nobody wanna talk about Al Franken or John Conyers ?...

 

[Maria D]

I read the article in the Washington Post that brought the Charlie Rose allegations, which apparently were known for years and years, to light. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/eight-women-say-charlie-rose-sexually-harassed-them--with-nudity-groping-and-lewd-calls/2017/11/20/9b168de8-caec-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.a6e7a41ffeaa

Make no mistake, I think he's an absolute creep. However, based on some of the behaviors by the women interviewed for the article, I can fathom how he thought his advances were, if not welcome, not minded.

Reah Bravo was an unpaid intern in her late 20s racking up debt in order to be part of Rose's organization. He offers her $2500 plus expenses to go out to his LI home for a 5 day work-week and to organize his stuff. She goes and Rose isn't there much of the time. She gets a call from a male staffer advising her that if Rose does anything sketchy she can call the company car service and ask to be taken home. Well, Rose then does do something sketchy - he insists they have wine by moonlight and puts his arm around her. Here is how the interaction is described in the interview:

she felt a mix of apprehension and confusion. “It reflected his poor judgment. How could a man of his stature and his power be doing something so inappropriate? . . . It seemed reckless.” Caught off guard, she said she did not know how to respond and endured his embrace.
​

Did she call the car service? Did she tell anyone else in the organization that she was uncomfortable? No, the opposite! She spends more time with him and, my interpretation anyway, is that he continues to "groom" her much like a pedophile grooms a child. She claims that Rose needed to hear how much she valued going out to his LI home so she obliged, in writing.

“Have I told you how much I absolutely enjoy it out there?” she wrote him on Sept 1, 2007. “The company, the conversation, the comfort...that said I’m happy to go out there for both the remainder of this weekend AND parts of the next in an effort to finish the books faster.”
​

She also wrote to a female executive producer:

“On a personal note, I know working for Charlie requires one to embrace his uniqueness and develop a professional relationship that can account for it. It’s taken a couple straight forward conversations between the two of us, but I feel I’m in a better place than previously. And that’s not to say that I was previously in a really bad place! It all might sound cryptic, but you seem to play somewhat of a motherly role for staff members and I just wanted you to know that I’m okay : )”
​

Yes, he's a disgusting creep. Yes, people shouldn't have to call out harassers because they shouldn't be harassed in the first place. However, I do believe that Rose is being honest when he says he thought feelings were consensual. This would be the same way a priest in a scene from the movie "Spotlight" thought the children he was abusing enjoyed his company. While we certainly can't expect children to expose their abusers, I hope a lesson learned from all this "outing" of crap that everyone knew about for years is that harassment/abuse must be exposed immediately.

 

[House Cat]

I read the article in the Washington Post that brought the Charlie Rose allegations, which apparently were known for years and years, to light. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/eight-women-say-charlie-rose-sexually-harassed-them--with-nudity-groping-and-lewd-calls/2017/11/20/9b168de8-caec-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.a6e7a41ffeaa

Make no mistake, I think he's an absolute creep. However, based on some of the behaviors by the women interviewed for the article, I can fathom how he thought his advances were, if not welcome, not minded.

Reah Bravo was an unpaid intern in her late 20s racking up debt in order to be part of Rose's organization. He offers her $2500 plus expenses to go out to his LI home for a 5 day work-week and to organize his stuff. She goes and Rose isn't there much of the time. She gets a call from a male staffer advising her that if Rose does anything sketchy she can call the company car service and ask to be taken home. Well, Rose then does do something sketchy - he insists they have wine by moonlight and puts his arm around her. Here is how the interaction is described in the interview:

she felt a mix of apprehension and confusion. “It reflected his poor judgment. How could a man of his stature and his power be doing something so inappropriate? . . . It seemed reckless.” Caught off guard, she said she did not know how to respond and endured his embrace.
​

Did she call the car service? Did she tell anyone else in the organization that she was uncomfortable? No, the opposite! She spends more time with him and, my interpretation anyway, is that he continues to "groom" her much like a pedophile grooms a child. She claims that Rose needed to hear how much she valued going out to his LI home so she obliged, in writing.

“Have I told you how much I absolutely enjoy it out there?” she wrote him on Sept 1, 2007. “The company, the conversation, the comfort...that said I’m happy to go out there for both the remainder of this weekend AND parts of the next in an effort to finish the books faster.”
​

She also wrote to a female executive producer:

“On a personal note, I know working for Charlie requires one to embrace his uniqueness and develop a professional relationship that can account for it. It’s taken a couple straight forward conversations between the two of us, but I feel I’m in a better place than previously. And that’s not to say that I was previously in a really bad place! It all might sound cryptic, but you seem to play somewhat of a motherly role for staff members and I just wanted you to know that I’m okay : )”
​

Yes, he's a disgusting creep. Yes, people shouldn't have to call out harassers because they shouldn't be harassed in the first place. However, I do believe that Rose is being honest when he says he thought feelings were consensual. This would be the same way a priest in a scene from the movie "Spotlight" thought the children he was abusing enjoyed his company. While we certainly can't expect children to expose their abusers, I hope a lesson learned from all this "outing" of crap that everyone knew about for years is that harassment/abuse must be exposed immediately.

This is one woman. Does this lead you to believe that the other seven felt the same way?

It is my belief that men who chronically harass women have an issue with empathy, so much so that they see nothing but what is inside of their own heads. In their mind, the women are objects. Their feelings aren’t even a consideration. I would bet my last dollar that there wasn’t a single one of these men that was thinking how these women felt. They were only thinking about their own feelings.

I’m beginning to feel like a broken record when it comes to talking about the timing of reporting these incidents/attacks. If you feel that it is important for the attacks to be reported immediately, then you must make our environment safe to do so. Defending a person who has sexually assaulted 8 women isn’t going to create that environment.