Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rauner says he pitched Illinois’ “attractiveness” in Israel
Next Post: Local right to work zone ban override motion comes up short for second time
Posted in:
* Denise Rotheimer, who has accused Sen. Ira Silverstein of sexual harassment, has been reading some comments here and sent me a Facebook message that she said I could post…
Rich how can people think “it was mutual ” when Silverstein was the sponsor of my bill? If it was mutual I would have just had an affair with him but it was not mutual! That’s why I went into a crisis. I had to figure out how to best handle the situation he put me in because it could have gotten worse- not just for my bill but my psyche.
I told Silverstein repeatedly just call the bill for a vote. He refused! We had two hearings and he wouldn’t let it go to a vote. Once the bill was voted on I could free myself from him but he would not let that happen.
I shouldn’t read these comments because they set off triggers and this is hard enough to go through. If not for that bill there would not have been this communications — he abused his position of power as the sponsor of my bill! Of course it wasn’t mutual. I never should have been put in that situation and I tried to find ways out! I wish they would just investigate this and get it over with.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 2:41 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rauner says he pitched Illinois’ “attractiveness” in Israel
Next Post: Local right to work zone ban override motion comes up short for second time
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“If not for that bill there would not have been this communications — he abused his position of power as the sponsor of my bill! Of course it wasn’t mutual. I never should have been put in that situation”
Worth repeating.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 2:53 pm
Denise, if you are reading this, thank you from all of the women out in the world who are unable to come forward and say what you have said. I hope you know that those who wonder whether the banter was “mutual” are the uninformed and blessedly privileged, who have never been in the choiceless position you were in. They do not know about the countless women who act like they are “one of the guys” and “just roll with it” so that the men around us will let us into their circle so that we can do our jobs. You are opening their eyes, slowly but surely, to the world the women around them live in every day. Thank you.
Comment by Nortorious RBG Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 2:54 pm
the bill wasn’t called because it was a bad bill opposed by lots of stakeholders. if it had been called it would have failed. whatever silversteins failings, he can count.
Comment by undiscovered country Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 2:56 pm
OK. Like I think I said on other posts, it doesn’t even matter (to me) whether or not it was mutual, because it could very easily have NOT been mutual, in which case the behavior would be a very clear and obvious abuse of power. I have no reason to disbelieve her, but either way Silverstein still needs to resign.
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 2:59 pm
Denise, please stop reading these comments. You deserve a medal for dealing with that pig. The fact that leadership isn’t demanding his resignation speaks volumes.
Comment by I am woman... Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:05 pm
@undiscovered country - there are many good bills that don’t get a majority. that doesn’t make it a bad bill. no need to try to impugn her job performance. that won’t help further the discussion.
Comment by Moist von Lipwig Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:05 pm
Ms. Rotheimer, for your own benefit, I’d quit reading the comments. While most of them will support your position, there will be stingers in there from people who aren’t processing this in a practical way. Maintaining a conversation passes for mutual in some people’s minds. It’s not. He overstepped badly.
For your own sake, skip the comments. 99 in your favor out of 100 will leave you upset about one. It’s not worth it.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:10 pm
I can’t know what the parties of this question know until and investigation is finished and made public. That said I think Silverstein should resign. But I think that largely because my take on human nature is that people seek power and wealth and authority so that they can enjoy the perks that follow. My first question is when did the lady tell him no? That “no” needed to be clear and may have needed to have been public. The second question might be more important. Does the lady really believe that the law change she was pursuing to be more important than how public figures treat each other when they are attempting to modify the fabric of the public good? Honor and dignity are perhaps more important than a modification of the law.
Comment by Matt Vernau Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:12 pm
It is a good rule of thumb for married men to not text single women at 11:30 at night. But when the single woman texts back at 11:32, it is hard not to see it as mutual.
There is also the part where she told the Daily Herald that her occupation was “legislative author” and Silverstein was the elected official she most admired.
This is not a clear-cut case either way I do not think. The IG is going to have her work cut out.
Comment by Thomas Paine Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:13 pm
Good bill or bad bill, he shouldn’t have treated her that way, and his position of influence over the fate of the bill made his behavior that much more appalling. The quality of the bill is not at issue here.
Comment by Commander Norton Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:14 pm
mutual relationship aside, it was an inappropriate relationship. The Senator should have known better even if he felt she was actively engaging in it with him.
Comment by Iggy Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:18 pm
– he abused his position of power –
So long as Silverstein remains the only one whose name has been dragged through the mud, those protecting people like him continue to abuse their positions to protect their power.
Comment by JB13 Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:20 pm
===It is a good rule of thumb for married men to not text single women at 11:30 at night. But when the single woman texts back at 11:32, it is hard not to see it as mutual.===
HOT TAKE!
Thomas, stop victim blaming.
Comment by MacombMike Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:21 pm
Amazing that in 2017 this is where we are, that we still have to teach people how to be decent. I knew Spingfield was a backwater but sheesh.
Comment by Chris P. Bacon Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:24 pm
Commander Norton, if she uses the fact the bill was not called as evidence that Silverstein was acting inappropriately, then yes the quality of the bill is at issue. Personally I don’t think that argument is needed either way because as you say his behavior is unacceptable by itself, regardless of the bill, but it’s not an invalid rebuttal to that single aspect of the argument, if the bill really didn’t have the support needed.
Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:24 pm
Without taking sides, the publicity on this matter will make it hard to find an impartial adjudicator, assuming that standard to apply to quasi-judicial proceedings in Illinois. Silverstein would save everyone a whole lot of trouble if he were to simply retire.
Comment by Keyser Soze Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:27 pm
=== If it was mutual I would have just had an affair with him but it was not mutual! ===
Lots of people engage in flirting without crossing over into an affair.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:39 pm
Matt Vernau, Thomas Paine and Retired Educator, yes, in an ideal world, “no” means “no.” But that’s not how it works when you’re a woman being sexually harassed. “No” doesn’t mean “no” to the harasser or “no” means “fine, you don’t get the promotion, pay raise, your bill called.”
Everyone who claims that women should just “speak up” and all will be well have never been sexually harassed. That’s not how it works. The implications are given that should you choose to stand up for yourself, you will NOT receive the item you’re seeking but I, as the harrasser, will just say it was a bad bill or “Tommy” was better suited for the job.
Until you’ve been sexually harassed, don’t even for one second pretend like you know how easy it is to just stand up and say “no.”
Comment by Shaking Head 2017 Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:43 pm
To those who are saying “well,it was a bad bill”, I ask this: Why didn’t Silverstein just drop it and say no to her and tell her to move on and find another sponsor. Or, why didn’t he bring it to a vote to prove it was not a good bill which could get support?
Here is the answer to those questions. He was leading her on. Geez. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:47 pm
@ response…well said..oh and if anyone he’s the first legislature to do this kind of stuff you’re living in a fantasy world
Comment by 10th. Ward Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:53 pm
Are we powerless victims? Do we need to level the playing field by crying foul and demanding consequences without a full hearing for the accused. There are two sides here. If that man is a creep then his political life and family life will rightfully be shattered forever, but let’s just say the narrative is not how it appears today. Should a life be forever shattered on an accusation alone. I hope for my sons’ sake that we are not at a point where we decide to do away with due process.
Comment by #Easy2offendNOT Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 3:59 pm
Offered without comment on anyone’s behavior, etc. just to demonstrate the timeline and proponents/opponents etc.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2151&GAID=13&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=91852&SessionID=88&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=99
Comment by LizPhairTax Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 4:01 pm
Some of the commenters need to read and reread -Shaking Head 2017- until they get the message. This is an unequal relationship and outing the male aggressor is the equivalent of giving up what you seek (and possibly whatever gains you have made to that point).
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 4:04 pm
I’m going to use this case as a reminder the next time I lobby for something. 1) Silverstein is in a position of power and he has been demoted and should be adjudicated for his activity. engaging with a jerk is dangerous and I should try to find another way to proceed if possible. This is a difficult situation to be in. 2) I would never, ever, ever decide that because my bill is controlled by a jerk that I should engage with such words that I’ve read in this case. Nor would I hire someone who has “lobbied” in this fashion.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 4:09 pm
— I knew Spingfield was a backwater but sheesh.—
And where is Silverstein from?
Comment by Toast Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 4:09 pm
Retired Educator, in many cases, sexual harassment takes place over many years. I’m willing to bet she knew she was being sexually harassed with the very first “cutesy” statement or “Just kidding” response. Again, it doesn’t matter when she or any other person knows they’re being harassed, that still doesn’t mean that they have the true ability to report the problem without losing everything or being blamed.
Comment by Shak Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 4:11 pm
It’s nuts to me that these armchair Clouseaus are truth-squadding someone who very likely is a victim of some bad behavior. No wonder women stay silent. Jeez.
Comment by Albany Park Patriot Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 4:21 pm
Sponsor of her bill? Didn’t he write the bill and she didn’t like his language, so she was going to tell him to cancel the subject matter hearing back in 2015? Didn’t the bill have problems since one of the co-sponsors, who was a member of the sub-committee, removed himself as a co-sponsor? And who were the opponents?
Did we ever find out what Inspector General the complaint was filed with?
Comment by Olivia Pope Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 4:32 pm
=== This is an unequal relationship ===
So we are in a world where any unequal relationship is sexual harassment? So if a restaurant manager starts dating a waitress and they eventually get married and have children and live happily-ever-after… did the waitress marry a sexual harasser?
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 4:36 pm
I second Thomas Paine’s motion.
Comment by Saluki Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 4:40 pm
That is fascinating logic right there “Just Observing”.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 4:40 pm
Just Observing - don’t be obtuse. First of all, this situation did not result in a marriage and “happily ever after.” Second, many workplaces forbid co-workers from entering into relationships and for good reason - especially if it is between management and a subordinate. Even if the restaurant did not forbid it, it’s still generally not a good idea. And if the restaurant manager was married while dating the waitress, he is a creep, sexual harassment or not.
Comment by ??? Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 4:46 pm
=== “My first question is when did the lady tell him no?” ===
She should have never be put into a position of being forced or having to say no. When did “no” become the magic word?
That to me is just as silly as: “Lady, give me your purse.” “She didn’t say no so that made the purse snatching OK.”
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 4:48 pm
While he was in the wrong she didn’t put a stop to it. Neither one can shift the blame. While his resignation hasn’t been called for he is paying anyway. He can’t explain this away to his wife and 4 kids. He dug himself a big hole. His reputation will never be the same. Too bad for him.
Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 4:57 pm
This comment thread is further evidence, for me, that the people who are instrumental in the functioning of our democracy are those who show up, rather than actually thoughtful, open-minded, intellectually curious leaders.
Comment by Moist von Lipwig Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 4:57 pm
Retired Educator, it wasn’t my example, it was Just Observing’s.
Comment by ??? Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 5:08 pm
If the manager and the employee are romantically involved, isn’t upper management supposed to place them in different work units. I hardly think that forbidding the relationship is realistic.
Comment by Cassandra Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 5:17 pm
I agree with Eric Zorn’s opinion.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-perspec-zorn-silverstein-rotheim-papers-1108-20171107-story.html
Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 5:26 pm
The only interesting person in the room is the one who can say no and make it stick. The only thing you can have any hope of controlling is yourself and the right thing to do is always the hardest thing to do and never forget that no good deed go unpunished.
Comment by Matt Vernau Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 5:53 pm
It might have seemed like innocent high school flirting but texts at 11:30PM are inappropriate. Never should have happened. It’s too late now because the damage is done to all concerned and then some.
Comment by Ginhouse Tommy Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 5:53 pm
Rotheimer: “Of course it wasn’t mutual”
“You’re cute,” she messaged him on Dec. 9, 2015. “You are cuter,” he responded. She replied “Good comeback,” and added the smile emoticon she sprinkled liberally through their exchanges.
Zorn: It’s difficult to square this evidence with Rotheimer’s accusation that Silverstein was “intimidating” and played “mind games” with her to satisfy a “twisted agenda.”
Comment by Alternative Logic Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 6:06 pm
Dec. 9, 2015
Denise: You’re cute.
Ira: You are cuter.
Denise: Good comeback : )
Ira: It is the truth.
Looks pretty mutual.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 6:06 pm
I second the Zorn column. Read the exchanges yourself and decide. Inappropriate, unethical and creepy, yes. Sexual harassment or assault, no. If she had clearly told him to leave her alone, and gotten a new bill sponsor, further actions on his part may have become sexual harassment.
Comment by Molly Maguire Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 6:15 pm
Ginhouse Tommy, “she didn’t put a stop to it” is the entire issue of sexual harassment….that the harasser bets on the fact that the victim can’t “put a stop to it” because he/she knows that they will lose their job, status or won’t be believed. Women have put up with comments and innuendos for many, many a year and haven’t said anything because “boys will be boys”, “he was just kidding” or “she should have just said no” comments from the bosses and co-workers.
Comment by Shaking Head 2017 Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 6:20 pm
Whether one agrees or disagrees with his take I think it’s both disappointing and hard to square Zorn’s decision that it was a good idea for him to insert himself and write an opinion piece on this topic–one that as a middle aged man himself he may not fully understand the complexity of.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 6:23 pm
“She said he did not proposition her or initiate physical contact. She did not offer any other evidence, saying she doesn’t want to try this matter in the media.”
Seems like she does want to try this in the media.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 6:24 pm
=== Just Observing - don’t be obtuse. First of all, this situation did not result in a marriage and “happily ever after.” ===
So if it did, than it wouldn’t be harassment? My point is that just because a relationship starts out as an “unequal relationship” doesn’t mean it is sexual harassment as the commenter implied.
=== Second, many workplaces forbid co-workers from entering into relationships and for good reason - especially if it is between management and a subordinate. Even if the restaurant did not forbid it, it’s still generally not a good idea. ===
And lots of workplaces don’t forbid it… because it’s not necessarily harassment. And yes, it might generally be a bad idea, but again, likely not harassment.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 6:32 pm
Sorry — Anonymous @ 6:32 p.m. is me.
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 6:33 pm
Responsa, excellent point.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 6:35 pm
Shaking Head, Responsa, others–have you read the actual text of the messages that she is making her case on? I think they are revealing. I think they tell a more complex story. Note her comment that the success or failure of the bill will explain his true motives.
Comment by Molly Maguire Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 6:40 pm
==one that as a middle aged man himself he may not fully understand the complexity of.==
Really? Isn’t this sexist, that a middle-aged man, no matter his journalistic integrity, history and skills, can’t comprehend both sides of this situation?
Comment by Wensicia Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 6:43 pm
My parents met at work and have been married 55 years.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 7:07 pm
Wensicia–I don’t think *any* of us can fully comprehend “both sides of this situation”. That’s why the thrust of my earlier comment was why did he want to write this particular piece today? What is Zorn’s end game with the piece? What did he hope to accomplish by it? That is not clear. The messages between Sen. Silverstein and Denise have been out for almost a week already for anyone who wanted to read them and make their own conclusions– which many of us sorta have, probably based largely on our own life experiences which are not all the same. But we are just individuals trying to sort it out and spouting on a blog–not a highly read columnist at one of the nation’s best known newspapers. I think he would have been wise to stay out of it. YMMV
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 7:25 pm
@Shaking Head 2017:
Rotheimer was not an employee and her job was not put at risk. Her desired goal was to have a bill enacted into law and it seems like it never moved passed the drafting stage because she could not agree on the text. There were 176 other legislators that she could have pitched her ideas at, but she chose Silverstein because he was a committee chair.
If one extends “harassment” to include a loss of “status” you would be breaking new legal ground.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 7:56 pm
A “middle-aged man” is capable of looking at and evaluating the evidence. The victim confirms there was never a proposition or any touching. I agree with Zorn. It’s possible to believe that the Senator misbehaved and that he is being scapegoated for the unnnamed legislators who have propositioned and touched women.
Comment by anon2 Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 7:58 pm
There has to be some sort of behavior based standard for harassment. It can’t all be based on Ms. Rotheimer’s subjective feelings and perceptions. Otherwise, people could just go around entrapping each other in harassment claims.
Sen. Silverstein’s exchange of power for this flirting, sexualized, whatever relationship is disappointing though and creepy.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 8:06 pm
Silverstein’s conduct is clearly unbecoming of a state senator and he should resign. This also appears quite mutual.
Denise: You’re cute.
Ira: You are cuter.
Denise: Good comeback : )
Ira: It is the truth.
It also looks like an element of retribution is in the air in that the complaint was not filed until the bill died. From DR’s facebook.
Dec 01, 2016
There are nearly 4000 Facebook messages between us since he began “pursuing” me while deceiving me about his motive to support my cause. I told him I would know whether his intent was genuine or not based on the outcome of SB2151.
It looks like there was a lot of activity by the sponsor and sometimes a bill just doesn’t work out.
Comment by Observer2017 Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 8:33 pm
The complaint has been made public, the IG is going to investigate. Neither party should be commenting to anyone other than the IG until there has been a resolution by that office, that includes contacts with Cap Fax.
Comment by West Side the Best Side Tuesday, Nov 7, 17 @ 10:23 pm
Of course it was mutual. A simple reading of her responses speaks to that. I agree with Zorn. So no bill ever passed through Silverstein without this childish back and forth? Please.
Comment by Michael Westen Wednesday, Nov 8, 17 @ 7:08 am
“So no bill ever passed through Silverstein without this childish back and forth? Please.”
Literally, no one is making that claim.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Wednesday, Nov 8, 17 @ 9:01 am
===Matt Vernau, Thomas Paine and Retired Educator, yes, in an ideal world, “no” means “no.” But that’s not how it works when you’re a woman being sexually harassed. “No” doesn’t mean “no” to the harasser or “no” means “fine, you don’t get the promotion, pay raise, your bill called.”===
Amen to that.
When I read the text message conversations, I cringed, because it was obvious to me as a woman she was trying to be nice by engaging with him, while politely turning him aside, in such a way his ego wouldn’t be bruised and he wouldn’t turn on her. Almost every woman has been put in this position at some time or another — I had a law professor who I went to see for help in his class, he found out I’d gone to a Catholic college, and leeringly demanded I wear a “Catholic school girl outfit” to our next meeting. I smiled and jokingly said, “Oh, I got rid of it when I graduated,” to put him off, and then never went back for more help. But of course I didn’t report him; a tenured professor who’s been openly sleeping with students for 30 years isn’t going to get fired for speaking inappropriately to a student, but I sure as heck was going to fail his class if I complained. Rotheimer was engaging in the same sort of “engage and turn him aside politely so he doesn’t get angry or retaliate.” I knew as soon as I saw it that plenty of people — mostly men — would say she was flirting back and so it was mutual and he did nothing wrong. You men who think it’s totally fine and appropriate for a man in a position of power to hit on a woman in a subordinate position, and create a situation so that women can’t say no without facing professional retaliation, THOSE WOMEN AREN’T FLIRTING WITH YOU, they are dying inside and wanting you to shut up and stop it. If nobody’s told you this before in your life, THAT ISN’T FLIRTING, that’s self-preservation, she does not want to date you, she does not want to hear your creepy come-on lines, she just wants not to get fired, screamed at, or physically attacked.
Of course there are plenty of men here, doubtless in positions of authority, who read this as flirting. That’s gross, guys. She isn’t flirting, and all the women in subordinate positions to you who respond similarly aren’t flirting with you — they’re trying to get you to stop without you screaming at them or hitting them. The 20-year-old waitress does not find your 50-year-old flirting charming, she finds it creepy. The secretary you’re engaging in “flirtatious banter” with is not amused, she’s trying not to get fired and hating you like fire.
I’m so glad Rotheimer spoke up. It’s going to be costly for her professionally, precisely because so many men are going to read this and say, “Well, obviously it was mutual,” because they can’t and won’t hear women saying no. If they’re forthright, they get called a bitch or worse. If they’re polite and evasive, they “wanted it.”
Go look up blogs where women send in text messages from men who say, “Wanna go out Saturday?” and they respond, “Oh, you’re sweet, but no thanks, I’m dating” and the men immediately respond with “YOU EFFING BITCH YOU’RE TOO UGLY FOR ME ANYWAY” and worse. Saying no to men’s romantic overtures is dangerous and unpleasant. If you don’t know that, you’re probably part of the problem.
Comment by Educ Wednesday, Nov 8, 17 @ 9:16 am
What is hard here for a lot of people - and I admit that I struggle with it too - is folks want this to not be messy. They want to see some text book version of sexual harassment where Silverstein makes blunt advances, she responds with equally blunt push back, and threats ensue. But we all know life is not cut and dry like that. We live the majority of our lives in the messy gray area. We don’t get to dismiss her claims because there isn’t a smoking gun. A likely reality is that Silverstein was lying to himself about what he was doing. And he also likely is oblivious on some level to how he is pervcieved - the power he holds and how folks interpret what he is saying
given that power. That doesn’t absolve him of anything. It just underlines this is all messy. And we don’t get to dismiss it just because it is messy.
Comment by Montrose Wednesday, Nov 8, 17 @ 9:17 am
Educ - you hit the nail on the head. Thank you for articulating that so well.
To your point: “Saying no to men’s romantic overtures is dangerous and unpleasant. If you don’t know that, you’re probably part of the problem.” — Fellow commentors, please open your eyes to what the women around you go through every day. These are your sisters, your wives, even your mothers. My husband thought much of these stories coming out lately is overblown or people being “too sensitive” because he hasn’t had his eyes open to what the women around him experience. It took my mother in law telling her #metoo story on Saturday. When she gently tried to turn down her co-workers “advances,” he persisted in making unwanted, lewd comments. When she reported him, he became hostile and attacking. Not wanting to make it worse and have this spread among others in the office (the harasser was well-liked) she apologized to him directly, and did not report his attacks. The suggestive comments and lewd jokes resumed. Rather than upset her work environment, in a job she needed as a widowed mother of two young children, she endured the comments until he eventually retired.
Every woman has a story like this. Go ask your family and friends. Just because a woman “doesn’t say no” does not mean it’s not harassment.
Comment by Nortorious RBG Wednesday, Nov 8, 17 @ 10:18 am
West Side yes indeed. Keeping the powder dry until the dust settles…maybe this has been addressed someplace but I heard today that she has her name on the ballot for something in lake county anyone know what ?
Comment by the Cardinal Wednesday, Nov 8, 17 @ 12:17 pm