I cannot abide Gretchen Carlson, the awful co-host on the dumbest news show on Fox News, Fox & Friends, so I should be pleased that she has left her job…except that the reason takes all the joy out of it.
Carlson, who just announced that she was no longer working for Fox News on her Facebook page, alleges that she was fired because she rebuffed Ailes’s sexual advances. Carlson, who had spent 11 years at Fox News, alleges that her firing from Fox was a retaliatory move after she not only refused to have sex with Ailes, but also tried to challenge what she claims was unfair treatment from her male colleagues.
Among other things, Carlson alleges that Ailes told her last September that “I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago.” Carlson also claims that Ailes instructed her to turn around on multiple occasions so he could ogle her posterior, while also requesting that she wear outfits that showed off her figure.
You know, this is the kind of behavior I expected of Fox News, but that doesn’t make it any more acceptable.
Carlson also accuses Steve Doocy, the guy who has been vying with Brian Kilmeade for the title of the dumbest guy on the dumbest show on Fox News, of also harassing her. Who knew Fox News could get even uglier?
Carlson’s full complaint is available online (pdf).
When you join a club that hates you, you ought to expect hatred. It doesn’t excuse the haters, of course.
It’s not right to rejoice in anyone being abused, but is it kind OK to hope the inevitable lawsuit is a learning experience for all involved? Not “a plague on both your houses” but perhaps “may you live in interesting times.”
File this under “least surprising news of the day.” Right after, “police shoot unarmed black man. No charges expected to be filed.”
Marcus Ranum @1
I actually hope that it rips Fox News apart. I hope Carlson extracts a whole lot of money from NewsCorp, that a whole lot of skeletons in Fox News’s closet come to light, and that the Murdoch children use it as an excuse to clean house and get rid of Ailes (who they have apparently been at odds with for years and who only still has his job because Rupert Murdoch likes how he dances like a monkey when Murdoch comes calling).
It’s more likely that there will be a quiet massive cash payout, the suit will be dropped and no one will admit fault. But I live in hope.
Dang, now that pesky empathy kicks in. ‘Twould be nice if these conservative folks also had that and didn’t first need something bad to happen to them to feel it. I’m almost certain that if you trawled through Carlson’s comments in the past, you’d find plenty to disparage victims of sexual harassment and worse in there.
False Noise employs a plethora of very similar-looking blonde noisecasters – none of whom seem to consider “truth” a standard worth worrying their pretty little heads about.
No doubt, in light of Carlson’s accusations, they will all face suspicion of moral flexibility – and their more consequential crimes (y’know, the ones affecting other people) will go unremarked.
Which one will become Mrs. Trump # 4?
I’m sorry she had to learn the hard way that no, feminists and assorted SJW’s don’t make up all those claims of sexual harassment and gender based discrimination and that being a “chill girl” doesn’t keep you safe either
Saddened but not surprised. If this was not happening at Fox, I would have been surprised. Does that make me cynical?
Her column on sexual haraassment from last year takes on a new meaning in light of the lawsuit.
“Who knew Fox News could get even uglier?”
Ooh, ooh—me! Me!
@qwints
That’s actually a good article. Though upsetting to read about the incidents of harassment and assault she experienced.
@Pierce R. Butler
I don’t think we need to bring their looks into this or speculate about their future marriages…
Brian Pansky @ # 10: I don’t think we need to bring their looks into this …
Do you think Roger Ailes hired them blindfolded, based on their journalistic skills?!?
To be fair. Steve Doocey probably wasn’t harassing here. Harassment implies intent, and I am not sure that Steve Doocey is capable of such a high mental function.
Pierce R. Butler#11
I got the same vibe from you post as Brian Pansky did.
It’s you, not Roger Ailes, who is belittling them with “pretty little heads” and talking about which is going to marry Trump. Those are both very specific tropes that are both very specifically directed at women.
If you can point me to where you’ve talked about Sean Hannity and his “vapid attractively lantern-jawed head”, or have asked which fucking male host is going be the next Mr. Oprah Winfrey, then maybe I’m off base.
*sigh*… “your” post.
Honestly, there might be something wrong with me.
Every. Comment. Mistakes.
tkreacher @ # 13: It’s you, not Roger Ailes, who is belittling them …
I’m pointing out that they are the ones who made it through a filtering process obviously selecting for specific types.
Would you get on my case for describing a set of pro basketball players as “long-legged”, Wall Street honchos as “money-minded”, Marines as “tough”, or Hooters waitstaff as “buxom”?
Ailes clearly picked ’em according to his own narrow criteria for sexiness, and for compliance with the Murdoch pander-to-the-ignorant-and-resentful messaging framework. With the possible temporary exception of Megyn Kelly’s resistance to Trump’s gross sexism, all seem to have delivered fully on that second standard; do you or anybody here want to categorically deny that Ailes never took the next step on that first standard before making his move on Carlson?
Btw, I have an event which I need to leave for now; will reply to further responses after several hours…
Will we start to see Deep Rifts in the right?
Pierce R. Butler #15
I have no doubt what so ever that Fox intentionally hires for a certain look at a blisteringly obvious pace. That isn’t my point.
I am specifically – actually, we can just completely ignore that part.
The question “which will become Trump #4” comes off really weird to me. I don’t think you would ever in a million years ask which male anchor will become [insert rich woman who has been married multiple times here] #4. Nobody asks that question condescendingly. Nobody makes a blanket statement implying a bunch of male newscasters are likely pining to marry some rich woman.
Yet I couldn’t possibly count the number of times I’ve heard it about women.
Do you follow?
I hope she sues them for everything they’ve got.
Roger Ailes = Fox News = News Corp = Rupert Murdoch = The Sun = Page 3
As the saying goes, the fruit never falls far from the tree. It would not be surprising to see a slew of similar cases emerge about the Murdochs and other News Corp shills. Rupert put the easy in sleazy a long time ago.
tkreacher @ # 17: Yes, I think I follow.
Let me re-state my case this way: Roger Ailes set out to build a collection of human Barbie dolls, and did so. I don’t know anything about being a woman, or being “conventionally beautiful”, but I kinda suspect that 100% of the FN bevy of blondes understood going in that their jobs entailed serving as eye candy for the cameras & the boss-man, with independent thought or opinion irrelevant or detrimental to their careers.
Under those circumstances, failure to note such characteristics and behavior strikes me as, to adapt a phrase, the sexism of low expectations.
Carlson’s revelations, likely to be confirmed by sworn testimony unless Roger & Rupert pony up for a quick out-of-court seal-of-silence $ettlement, support the regularly observed pattern of rich authoritarian men abusing their female employees for personal pleasure. Even the most oblivious of the broadcast Barbies must have perceived this – and the ones still working there have ipso facto decided to live with it. (To be fair, they probably face similar problems in any organization except, perhaps, small and highly secluded convents – but Fox most likely pays better, and offers the perk of fame.)
Thus, they have all demonstrated talent and experience in the skill set (ornamental value, submission to pushy male bosses, no qualms about saying what’s wanted instead of what’s true) necessary for a Trump Wife™ (though the incumbent seems secure for the moment, maybe even the rest of the year). Likewise, to pick your example, Hannity has what it takes (familiarity with US pseudojournalist stars & a knack for telling blatant serial inconsistent falsehoods without blink, stutter, or blush) to work as a Trump House press secretary or “communications director”, and – unless we simply ban all speculation about individuals – I won’t hesitate to say that such gold-digging thoughts have probably crossed what passes for his mind.
Did I make my point any clearer now?
No one deserves that shit. No, not even Fox News employees.
Like everyone else, I can’t say I’m surprised, though. Anyone else notice how short the table is and how low the cameras are during “Fox and Friends”? I’ve never seen anything quite like it on any other morning show. Most give their hosts a way to wear a short dress or shirt without having a clear shot from the camera up their skirts, but not Fox.
@Pierce R. Butler, your comment that they “decided to live with it” is pure victim blaming and factually incorrect. Read the complaint, Carlson releatedly stood up for herself and pushed back against harassment. Even if she had tolerated the harassment to keep her job, that harassment would still be illegal and she would have every right to take legal action.
Pierce R. Butler #20
Yes, all of that is clear. I still feel like you aren’t getting what I’m finding problematic, and further, have deepened it.
Let me try to parse it down to the essentials. You’ve just said that:
All of this, every bit of it, is true for any number of women working on Fox News. And yet, you didn’t say that these women, when considering the possible gold-digging thoughts that might cross their mind – er, pretty little heads – might consider taking a job as a press secretary or communications director.
It was that they’d be looking to gold-dig the rich man and get him to put a ring on it, because, you know, that’s what the women-folk gravitate to.
My point is, if it were Fiorina (or some rich female serial-marriager) that were the nominee, I am absolutely certain that, if we were talking about the presumably money-hungry male hosts in whatever context, you would not have asked which of them were going to be Fiorina #4. If the subject of them going for a money grab came up it would be what you just did for Hannity – press secretary or communications director, or whatever.
But, I digress. I feel like I might be too pedantic about this, and, I’m not even in the group that I’m arguing for. If it doesn’t strike anyone that way, then I’m just clogging the thread. And if it does, they are more than capable of taking it up themselves.
@8 qwints:
Wow, that was a very nice read. And good for her for writing that article.
Also, from the pdf document, it seems after Gretchen complained about being harassed at work Roger Ailes called her a “man hater” and a “killer”. And he repeated those two accusations at least one more time.
Okay, I get the “man hater” part: anyone woman who stands up for herself is automatically called a “man hater” by anti-feminists. But wtf is up with being a “killer”???
I would love to hear her say something like:
“I see now what progressives have been saying all along. FOX and far right politics encourage rape culture, victim blaming, misogyny, racism and hypocrisy.”
No, I am not saying she should be blamed because she worked at Fox Nuisance; more victim blaming is not the answer. I just want to hear her criticize them and air their dirty secrets.
Pierce R Butler, so what you are saying is that she, and the others who look like her, knew going in that a significant part of the reason they got the job was by being picked for their particular style and looks by authoritarian men who don’t see women as equals, so what did they expect. If that isn’t the very definition of victim blaming, I don’t know what is.
How is what you said any difference from, ‘if she just hadn’t gone out in that revealing outfit she wouldn’t have been sexually assaulted’. Or is it OK to victim blame because she was dumb enough to work for Fox so the same rules about victim blaming don’t apply because Fox.
If that is not what you meant you are communicating badly.
qwints @ # 22: … your comment that they “decided to live with it” is pure victim blaming and factually incorrect. … Carlson releatedly stood up for herself…
Carlson decided not to live with it (at least past a certain point), so my comment did not apply to her. The others decided (so far) otherwise, didn’t they?
… that harassment would still be illegal and she would have every right to take legal action. Quite so – who said differently?
tkreacher @ # 23: …It was that they’d be looking to gold-dig the rich man …
Or that the rich man would look to lay some gold on (one or more of) them, as being exactly his type.
if it were Fiorina (or some rich female serial-marriager) that were the nominee, I am absolutely certain that, if we were talking about the presumably money-hungry male hosts in whatever context, you would not have asked which of them were going to be Fiorina #4.
Does Ms Carly have a reputation for man-eating, or boy-toying, or whatever we may currently call the womanly equivalent of “womanizing”? (You wanna talk about a troublesome term, consider that one for a while…) She may well have, but I didn’t hear about it. Sfaik, marital issues have arisen for only the two candidates this year who happened to win their respective nominations.
You raise an interesting possibility, one of “Roger’s girls” as press secretary or equivalent position in a Trump administration. I don’t know much about any of them individually, nor whether any have skills beyond the inane chatterers they play on tv. For Trump purposes, that would probably be exactly right for the job – let’s hope we never get to find out.
John Phillips, FCD @ # 26: … is it OK to victim blame because she was dumb enough to work for Fox so the same rules about victim blaming don’t apply because Fox.
You seem to hear me disagreeing with the OP, which pls note I never said. As, it happens, I do agree that “Not even terrible people deserve to be sexually harassed” – but being sexually harassed does not make them in any way less terrible persons. Can we distinguish between people caught in a loop of abuse, and those who collude in such loops for money and (minor, in most cases at FN) “celebrity” status?
Pierre R Butler, but you are still coming across as saying that victim blaming is OK because she worked for fox as a pretty face. Or put another way, it’s OK to sexually assault a sex worker for what did a sex worker expect. Also, even if in your opinion she is a horrible person, what has that to do with how she looks or got the job or how is it relevant to her being sexually assaulted. Again, for all your statements to the contrary, it still comes across as saying it is OK to sexually assault her because she is a horrible person. Either way, it still comes across as victim blaming and nothing to do with her being sexually assaulted. If I was you I would just stop digging already.
Pierce R Butler,
I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. What point are you making? I’ve been sexually harassed at work without leaving my job. Sometimes I have even decided not to report it because I thought it would make my workplace even more uncomfortable if I did. It doesn’t mean I want to live with it. It means I need to keep my job. Because, you know, I kind of need to have one of those to feed myself.
Or do you just mean that the situation is different if your job is at Fox? I honestly don’t understand how to interpret your argument as anything other than saying the victims should expect it if they want to keep their jobs.
Also, please don’t kid yourself. This is not exclusively a Fox problem. It happened at CBC, too. It happens in every media outlet and every corporation across the world. It happens in academia, in government. Which occupations are women supposed to “expect it” and which ones are we supposed to expect to be respected?
John Phillips, FCD @ # 28: … it still comes across as saying it is OK to sexually assault her because she is a horrible person.
Maybe it comes across to you that way – but you really have to stretch my actual words to fit them into that shape.
You also might consider your conflation of “harassed” and “assaulted” as (among other things) trivializing the experience of the latter.
toska @ # 29: I’ve been sexually harassed at work without leaving my job.
Sorry – though sadly unsurprised – to hear about that. Unless, of course, you had a job pro-actively opposing and oppressing the rights of women and workers and damn near everybody else, in which case my sympathies would indeed be reduced.
This is not exclusively a Fox problem.
I never said, or imagined, it was. However, CBC – to pick your example – actually has explicit standards of civilized behavior, and those who work there have not thereby engaged themselves in overtly tearing down such standards for their entire society.
Pierce R Butler, I didn’t have to stretch them at all, just read them as they are. As for the distinction between harassment and assault, that is often a very fine line and usually can only be decided by the person suffering it. Perhaps you are not so good at this communication lark as you obviously seem to think you are.
John Phillips, FCD @ # 31: I … just read them as they are.
Then you shouldn’t have any trouble pointing me to the line which says “it is OK to sexually assault her because she is a horrible person.”, right?
As for the distinction between harassment and assault, that is often a very fine line…
Judges usually parse it as whether or not a physical attack occurs or seems imminent. Nothing I’ve read so far (and I admit I haven’t followed every peep and tweet about this) has Carlson saying either of these things.
Perhaps you are not so good at this reading thing as you obviously seem to think you are.