An accidental action leading to an ending of his career is beyond common sense.

If this is all there is, he has been done wrong.

I have a colleague who makes off color jokes constantly. He's male.

Around women, they're sexual harassment--or *could* be. Around men, they're not.

I had a colleague who made off-color jokes constantly back in the '80s. Around women, they were funny. She made them around men, too, and no man in his right mind would be a twit and complain about them. They weren't come-ons, many were funny, but the dynamic was wrong.

Who's more likely to re-remember things as sexual harassment? The women around my current male colleague or the men around my female former colleague?

Who would be taken more seriously?

If the men complained, they'd be scoffed at. To question the women's perceptions would be viewed as sexual harassment all over again.

Doesn't matter if either intended it as harassment, but we've lost the very idea of "intent." The perception of harassment constitutes harassment. I've stopped trusting a lot of people. I have no defense if I say anything amiss. I have no power in this situation--not even as an equal.

Yet by that measure, perception = truth, I was repeatedly harassed in various ways (all non-sexual, btw) by my boss. On the other hand, I don't think my boss viewed his jokes as harassment. He was trying to be "one of the gang," and I wasn't able to handle the idea given past work traumas. Until I got to know him better, then I realized he was uncomfortable in many ways with a large hierarchical gap between himself and those he supervised. That realization came at the end of several years working with him as my supervisor, and only in the last month or so before he suddenly left for a better job. Had he left a month or so earlier, I'd have been convinced he was a complete asshole, not just somebody who was lonely and trying to fit in. But that would be empathy.

But "intent" is hard to prove either way. Better the certainty of knowing that one's perceptions are unquestionable.

Men often don't experience their behavior as harassing or offensive - but that does not lessen the impact on the women who are its targets.

Which is the beauty of the #MeToo movement, to the extent it is just sharing stories without specific names attached. It gives men a glimpse of how behavior they don't view as offensive actually impacts the women who are its targets - AND - how pervasive it really is. I was impressed at the amount of introspection I have seen from men arising out of the stories detached from the specific accusers. It permitted men to be horrified - without feeling the need to defend the person accused (as is happening now with Franken and Keillor).

MPR owes more than jack shit to Garrison Keillor.

After that it should be proprietary MPR business and private? A person's life is destroyed in the public sphere. What does it even mean that MPR only owes something to that person, the "party involved," if it doesn't include the public where that person's reputation was destroyed?

He's got a distinct bias on the subject. Particularly since yes, that alone wouldn't merit him getting fired. You ever notice how all of these guys tend to deny at least part of what they did? Lauer has denied unspecified parts, Franken says he doesn't remember, Roy Moore claims he got permission, Weinstein admits to the sexual harassment, but swears he didn't rape anybody.

That's what people in a bad spot do when caught. They are effectively trying to bargain out that while they might have done some mildly inappropriate things, but nothing really bad.

Just curious.

If he says it didn't happen..then he is immediately accused of calling the victims liars and is demonized even more. Let's take Franken, who I believe has the most bullshittiest of allegations against him.

If he put an arm around a woman for a photo and his hand grazed her butt...there is nothing he can possibly say that will satisfy people. If he says "well my hand dropped as she walked away and grazed her behind" then the headlines are that he admitted to groping a woman or accused of minimizing sexual assault.

If he says "no I did not grab her" then he is accused of being victim blaming pig who thinks the women are liars.

He can categorically deny saying "hey let's meet up in the bathroom" because he knows he didn't say it. But in all honesty, he probably cannot deny the fact that in the thousands of photo ops he has done, at some point a hand didn't accidentally brush against a woman's behind. No intent to grab, but very likely could have happened. And some women could have that feeling impact them differently than it would him or other women.

Some women, based on their own experiences, [actually anyone not just women] can be more sensitive to touch than others. Any touch may feel like a violation or too friendly to someone while others are just really touchy. My grandpa would rub people on the back that he was friends with (like a pat on the back with a little rub...not like a Bush rubbing Merkle) - he didn't talk much, but gave warm embraces and hugs to men and women. Up in Lutheran Northern Minnesota...a lot of Swedes aren't that comfortable with that much physical interaction. He never meant any harm, definitely nothing sexual...that was just how he was raised (big Catholic Mexican family) but I know that some people were a little put off at first by it.

What I am saying is that saying you don't remember or didn't think it was a big deal, doesn't always mean you are minimizing or hiding something. I mean it's not like having a secret button under your desk to lock people in a room with you.

And so far, this does smell like a set-up. Not just to take down Garrison but to make the entire sexual harrassment tidal wave seem suspect.

I wonder who she is. It seems like a BreitBart type operation.

I would not fire someone for what Garrison said he did. I don't think most reasonable employers would either.

Otherwise, they fired a guy because he patted somebody on the back while trying to console that somebody.

If MPR is convinced, they could share the story and allow 40 year fans of their biggest money maker a chance to make a little more informed judgement.

I'm a Minnesota native and I've been making an automatic monthly payment to MPR for years and years.

I'm absolutely enraged about the way they just threw Keillor under the bus for a single allegation - what a chickenshit thing to do! No loyalty to this man who in no small way contributed to the growth and success of this radio station for the past 40 years.

Anyway, I made my protest - I called MPR and told them to cancel my membership, no more money from me - and I made sure to tell them why.

In my opinion, this sexual harassment stuff is veering into Salem witch trial territory, when a single accusation is used to justify totally destroying a lifetime's legacy.

An employer made an investigation into an allegation into that person's behavior, decided there was something to it and terminated the person. If Keillor believes he was mistreated the remedy isn't a public airing, it's a lawsuit against MPR.

That you know who that person is and like their work does not make the details any more your business than they would be if the employee in question was the night manager at your local grocery store.

Keep in mind that the accuser(s) don't need to be revictimized by having the details in public. If they choose to air them that's their choice but it's not something they owe you.

Sometimes clever guys with upper midwestern accents and leftish politics are shitheads to women. I have no idea why people on this board find that so hard to believe. People on the right don't seem to understand that helmet-haired Baptists with bible belt accents can be shitheads to women, and we all seem to know they're idiots and that this particular blindness is Exhibit A. Here's the trick: your blindness to shittiness by men who seem like your sort of guy is the exact SAME THING. MEN CAN BE SHITHEADS TO WOMEN and frequently they are. Even if you like them, even if they seem clever, even if their politics dovetail neatly with your own. Even men who have made a living from seeming especially likable to some segment of society.

You're standing up for dudes you DO NOT EVEN KNOW and implying that the women who are accusing them are liars. Go think about why you're doing that and be better.

One allegation by one individual, who apparently did not complain at the time, does not seem to merit a public trashing.