My boss is being accused of sexual misconduct and I don't know what to do
Hi all,
I don't know where to turn on this. I work in a small company, my boss who is an amazing person and has given me so much and helped me really kick start my career has had some accusations over the past little while. But now I've heard a few stories that really show that he's done some shady stuff. My boss has been like a brother to me and is a close friend. I have no idea how to digest this and I have no idea who I could talk to, so I'm just posting here.
I don't want to lose a friend, he's been nothing but amazing to me.
Edit: thank you everyone. I'll keep reading the comments. I just need to reflect on this and I appreciate your discussions.
Edit 2: There is proof enough to not deny things, inappropriate and agressive advances and groping stuff. Nothing good.
This is an impossible subject to talk about because even now I feel disgust when I read the mostly reasonable and level-headed replies in this thread. All I can think about is the victims and the pain/discomfort he likely caused them. It feels like even having this discussion is dismissive of their plight.
Putting emotions aside though, I think there are really two possible outcomes here.
1.
I do believe that the patriarchy harms men. I think there are a lot of basically decent men out there who have completely warped views about appropriate behavior, power dynamics, consent, and what it means to be a man. It wasn't long ago that men were expected to be persistent and explicit about their desires. And jokes about physical attractiveness were a given. Totally overlooked.
That hasn't disappeared overnight. A lot of men have been taught through modeling, bullying, or social pressure, that persistence is a form of flattery and that they need to actively pursue a woman. They also view failing that pursuit as a personal failing on their part. Their masculinity is attached to the success of their sexual conquests. I think these men can change if they are otherwise good men. I think they can have their eyes opened to the damage this causes everyone, including themselves. But it's a long process. Honestly, I assume every man on this website has had to change their views on these things in the last couple of decades. Not to say everyone here was a sexist pig, I certainly wasn't. But feminism has continued to evolve and we all had to listen with empathy and then evolve with it. Not everyone got the message. Especially since we continue to get mixed messages from media, other men, and perhaps even the women in our lives. My own mother is less of a feminist than I am. At this point, good men know that "no" means no. But many probably-decent men still think "I don't know" means "convince me."
2.
The other outcome is that your boss is a predator. I think a lack of empathy is simply not fixable. People who are extremely manipulative and use others like objects are unlikely to ever see that as a problem no matter what they say or how much work they do. There is a reason pedophiles and rapists reoffend so often. There is a reason they very seldomly take true responsibility for their actions. They're narcissists and/or psychopaths. Think of all the men who were "pillars of their community" and turned out to be shit bags. By the way, more will possibly come out about your boss. Be prepared for others to come forward now that the cat is out of the bag. You might hear something in the coming months that answers this question for you. Something worse might very well be brought to light.
I worked in a facility that housed pedophiles and kept them away from the community. It was basically a permanent halfway house for those who weren't in jail anymore or were never in jail due to developmental or psychological issues. I still don't know the answer to some of the big questions. Do their horrific crimes mean that they forfeited their humanity? I don't know. They could be kind and funny. They had hobbies and interests. They got sad when something they were looking forward to didn't work out. They loved their moms and siblings. They had skills and desires. I would often catch myself having a laugh with one of them and then walking away feeling like I was in bizzaro world because I couldn't forget what they had done. They were clearly human but how could they do what they did to another person? Did they lose the genetic dice game and get stuck with brain chemistry that predetermined their actions? Even if they did, does that mean they deserve any empathy from the rest of us? What about the victims and what they deserve? Maybe in support of the victims they deserve to be shunned. Many of them were just manipulative narcissists, so how real were their emotions and displays of humanity anyway?
I just don't know. These are huge questions. I hope for your sake that your boss is a better fit for the first category in my response.
Its tough because I obviously can't give all the details here on a public and open forum. But I knew that in Tildes I would see a good conversation and have people probe my situation in a way that would help me process it or at least try to. It's been interesting reading the discussion around it and feeling my thoughts and emotions as I read the opinions.
Source: CDC
When the issue is this prolific there is no room for compassion towards those who perpetrate these crimes. This laxness does nothing to lower those rates and contributes towards its nuanced acceptability in some circles, i.e. claiming false accusations are actually higher than they really are, blaming victims for being under the influence, judges not wanting to ruin assaulters "futures."
As a victim of multiple assaults, this effort to be careful not to exclude these assaulters stings because it is dismissive of my own pain and hurt. What about my humanity that was desecrated and abused? Those scars never go away and I will always have an element of fear of my assaulters finding me again. Being dismissed by authorities and even having users here on Tildes dismiss that experience adds further salt to the wound.
If a person has a verified accusation of committing such heinous things, there is no redemption for that level of manipulation and sexual predation. They will continue to act in such a manner because it is very much a power/control thing. Supporting them only bolsters their hubris that they can continue acting in such ways.
I'm not saying that compassion shouldn't exist for criminals and that family relationships add strain to that dynamic. But when you see the statistics and charges for sexual assault are routinely dismissed or incredibly short in comparison to drug charges, I would argue it should be treated more as a cancer.
When someone who I assumed was a good friend attempted to date rape me, our mutual friend circle couldn't comprehend he would do such a thing. As others have mentioned in this thread in similar experiences, he was charming and came across as a person who cared for others. I coming in with an experience that countered that image he cultivated created a rift in that friend group, thus leaving me alone and friendless in that situation while attempting to heal with no support. The fact that I have to be so candid with my personal experience in order for others to understand that impact further exemplifies the issue. I and others shouldn't have to put our hearts on our sleeves in order to convince others that sexual assaulters should not harbor compassion. If the facts and accusations prove to be true as it appears in this case, they are not a good person and will likely continue to commit such acts if they feel they can get away with it with enough support.
I am deeply sorry that you were the object of such horrendous acts and I would never put myself in a position to judge, recriminate, diminish, dismiss or invalidate your struggle, your emotions, your knowledge, your memories or your reasoning. I am here reading and listening to you, as that is the position where I wish to be in.
I'm sorry if I don't address every point of your argument right know, but you bring experiences that require greater meditation on my part, as I would be weary of providing you with a quick response that would be emotionally insensitive and intelectually unsatisfying. Those are delicate issues.
In the meantime, I just wanna say that you don't need to prove anything to me or anyone else, okay? I hear you. That's enough.
I sure hope you're well.
Hey lou, I appreciate your response and your careful consideration of my own experiences. I'm fortunately in a much better place nowadays and have gone through a period of healing where I feel comfortable telling my experiences for advocacy for those who are not yet there on their healing journey.
With that advocacy mindset in consideration, I'm here to help explain from the victim perspective when it comes to these sensitive matters. I understand some things are lost in text when conveying things on the internet and there is a level of emotion involved. Yet, I want to express sometimes it feels that valid feelings of hurt come across as being dismissed with this topic when it comes to giving concessions to perpetrators of sexual assault.
My initial interpretation of your comments regarding this topic comes across as a "both-sidesy," and that's influenced by own experiences dealing with this topic. Perhaps I am on the extreme end in my feelings regarding this, but when it comes to sexual assault, there is no room to give grace to perpetrators. Instead the focus should be on the victims and holding those who committed such acts to a higher degree of punishment and accountability. Just as we shun Nazis, sexual assaulters should also be treated in such a manner because they have committed a heinous act against another human.
This idea that the perpetrators also deserve some support as if they are victim too only perpetuates the cycle of our treatment of it being too lax. Movements like #MeToo shouldn't be thought of such a shake-up when all we're asking is for such acts not to be routine and require such outcry. For lack of a better term it feel like "rallying the bros" when it comes to wanting to support the accused. I would even argue that this is just as harmful to men who already under-report their experiences with sexual assault due to fears of emasculation.
To round out this rambling, I sincerely believe that if we took a firmer stance of standing with the victims versus finding concessions to reason with the assaulters, it would help foster a culture of this not being "normalized." It's 2023 and I remember those statistics being the same in 2013. Why has it not gotten better despite these massive movements to call it out! It is a failure of us as a society to quell sexual violence when I can identify with being part of not just one statistic, but multiple. And that experience is the same when you speak to other victims and you realize how prolific it is.
Thank you so much for explaining this all so clearly, I had similar feelings about the seeming "both-sides-y"-ness in some comments in this thread (unintentional and not malicious I know, but nevertheless somewhat triggering). I wasn't able to articulate them as well as you did.
Agree with this so much. It's incredibly exhausting to bring out the "it happened to me" or the "hey do you know five women? if yes then you likely know at least one victim" in order to get people to understand how common the problem is and how much perpetrators still get away with it.
While I'm also for restorative justice, there's nothing restorative or just about prioritizing compassion for the perpetrator over supporting the victim. There are many forms of support, one option is socially rejecting the perpetrator.
The proof that I have at this point is pretty solid. But I like your point.
When I was in high school, I had a friend who put his hands down a girls pants while she slept and I just cut him out. I always wondered if I could have helped him through that situation instead. It's a thought that is playing in my head and I appreciate your thoughts on it because this has been tearing at me.
The reason I posted here was exactly for this kind of conversation. Thank you.
My counter to @lou 's position is that predators are predators and they will use people, manipulate people, and leverage relationships to avoid consequences.
That kid in high school, maybe he could learn. Your boss is probably a predator.
Also, not something we would normally talk about... but there are social consequences to not turning your shoulder to someone like that. If you didn't cut out that kid then some people could see you as maybe not seeing an issue with the behavior, maybe that kid would see that his actions didn't lead to consequences that were that bad.
@lou how far would you take that belief? I have to imagine that a friend could do something bad enough that you would cut them out?
I have recently been in a similar situation. A friend of 20+ years was accused, then convicted of, some fairly serious sex-adjacent crimes. I know his accuser and I believe their accusations. I had some time to figure this out because he ended up doing three years in prison (which was the maximum sentence for his particular crime). There was a LOT of discussion among my friends about the situation. But I still consider him my friend, for now, and with care.
People do bad things for all sorts of reasons. In my friend's case he was in a seriously bad place regarding his mental health, near-suicide at times, and was deep in alcoholism as well. Neither of those things make what he did OK, but they do mean he's in a position to change. He's no longer drinking. He's had lots of therapy and made significant changes to his life after release. I believe he deserves a chance. What he did was bad but it wasn't immediate cutting-off kind of bad. I'm not sure what would be, context is very important.
The other thing is, I can't say I believe in restorative/rehabilitative justice and letting people have second chances unless I actually y'know, do that. Also he's in a relationship with one of my best friends and if I cut him off I can't keep an eye on her, and I want to do that. He gets his second chance but not with conditions.
How does his accuser feel? Are they getting at least that same level of support?
I'm torn because I also believe in restorative justice, but having been attacked myself and seeing him lose zero friends while I lost almost all of them, hurt almost as much as the attack itself. I do think if I hadn't lost so many friends it wouldn't have hurt so much, but I also couldn't be friends with someone who was still friends with him. I suppose the situation would have been much easier as adults with more disparate friend circles, not all together at one school. Still, when it comes to things like this, I tend to worry about the victim first. What kind of support they're receiving. The person who hurt them gets all of this forgiveness and care, what does the victim get?
I believe that in the event I am friends with both the attacker and the victim, my only moral choice is to be a friend to the victim, even if it means my friendship with the other can no longer continue. That one, or else neither.
I've seen some of this "I take no sides" but in all practicality siding with the attacker nonsense and it shouldn't be this way.
I'm sorry to hear you were attacked. I hope you're doing OK.
On the question of the accuser, I can only assume they are. We're not friends, I know them well enough to chat at parties and to think they're a nice person but we were never particularly close. Also they moved away several years ago, I'm not sure if that was related to the incident but I think it was a work thing.
If I was in a situation where both Alice (accuser) and Bob (accused) were still part of my friend group and both were present, that change the calculus somewhat. I'd still want Bob to get their second chance, and I'd probably still provide some support to them to make that chance work - perhaps if they needed help moving house or similar - but if it came down to having to choose, it would always be Alice.
I'm not sure forgiveness is quite the right word for how I feel about my friend. They did a really bad thing, and they caused harm to another human being by their actions, no matter what their diminished responsibility for doing that via mental illness, it still happened. I have not forgiven him, not really. But I do believe people make mistakes, and they can change, and I want to see him do that. Maybe forgiveness will come later, if he proves he deserves it.
Of course you wouldn't, just as all the people who get conned in other ways would not give their money to the conman. But this guy? "He seemed so nice". If you can tell you're being manipulated it's not good manipulation. It's the skilled manipulation you need to look out for.
I appreciate both sides. I just needed discussion and there is no one I could discuss this with who wouldn't know too much right away. Thank you so much!!
I'm a bit befuddled by your comment, if you could expand. Are you of the opinion that once people exhibit one type of behavior, they are unable to change said behavior?
I.e - "Predators are predators."
It's my experience that treating people this way is self fulfilling, by labeling someone as irredeemable, they have no incentive to be redeemed.
I'm going to share this statistic again that was in another post of mine in this thread to help hone in what I am about to state.
That's awfully high and that's a lot of victims who have been hurt. It's not exactly a hidden secret that women share amongst their circles or on "Have you dated this man?" groups about predators who have hurt them and several others. These predators so often fail to be charged in a judicial manner because the bar for proof is incredibly high. When an assault happens, there are typically no witnesses and this often results in victims words vs predators words.
Is it really a self-fulfilling prophecy and not more so a failing of their own character that they commit such heinous acts? I've been a victim of sexual assault several times and I am very candid about my experience because too often they get dismissed. In each incident, the perpetrator purposefully chose to inflict such pain despite how reprehensible such acts are. That is a CHOICE. A choice that takes a certain level of cruelty and no empathy. To actively choose to overpower someone and take control of their bodily autonomy, then proceed to defile it. It's a really fucked up thing to CHOOSE to do and cannot be riddled away as a lapse in judgement.
Those who decide to commit such acts are not redeemable to a certain extent. If it comes out a friend is a sexual assaulter, you cut off that friendship because to not do so says you're OK with accepting such reprehensible things. It invalidates the victims and bolsters the predators hubris because it shows a lack of repercussions.
I know for a fact that two of my assaulters went on to assault others because they were shielded multiple times by friends. That's not self-fulfilling, that's just them being horrible human beings continuing to be horrible. They already lack the incentive to be redeemed because if they did have an inkling of desire for such, then they wouldn't have violated another person in the first place.
My feelings and thoughts on this subject are so extremely complicated, but I think to say that all perpetrators are irredeemable is not taking into account the complexities of the situation. When I was younger my dad always made big macho claims about how he'd kill any man that ever did anything like that to one of his kids. When I told him that I was attacked, he just said "huh. I never thought it would be a kid." and the conversation ended. Because the person who attacked me was a kid. A drunk 16 year old that had previously been one of my best friends. And he did go on to attack someone else, while drunk, and 17. I don't know if he's been redeemed, personally I'd like to never learn anything about him ever again except the bare minimum necessary to make sure I don't run into him, but I think it has to be possible. His brain wasn't even done being formed yet, how can it be irreparably corrupted? Especially when every act that I know about took place while he was chemically altered? It just seems like such a bleak pronouncement for humanity that you can lose so much of yours before you're even an adult.
This isn't speaking to all, or even most situations, I know. And I'm not speaking with any sort of data, or even a clear eye of what ultimately happened to this person. I know for certain that it hurt me deeply that so many people chose to maintain friendships with him. Do I feel any better about it if those friendships helped him to change and never hurt anyone again? A little bit, I suppose. It seems selfish to say that I'd rather have the friends and him be out hurting people. The best case scenario that I can imagine is redemption for the perpetrator fostered by support from people with absolutely no connection to the victim. If you work with, go to school with, or in any way know the victim, you cut out the perpetrator, but they can get support from anyone else. That's pretty pie in the sky for a lot of reasons.
I just feel like accepting that they're irredeemable is antithetical to a belief in restorative justice. I can't get on board with it. What I can sign on to is that their redemption is and should be very fucking difficult. They may need to go through a period of isolation and being shunned if there's no appropriate person in their lives that can support them without harming the victim. (For ex, the perpetrator's parents). They should have to choose to change before they're allowed to build a fulfilling life, and their victim's needs (whether for an apology and to know that they've changed, or to be left alone forever) should never stop being their obligation. I can sign on to the idea that they're never totally free of that sin, and should never get to completely stop paying for it, but I can't sign on to the idea that they cannot change and will never be worth of personal relationships.
I don't think OP should maintain that friendship with their boss. I think it's very disrespectful to the victim who is extremely likely to find out about it. But I think someone outside of that workplace, who knows the boss but not the victim, who knows the sort of headspace that the boss was in and if there are any factors that might allow him to change and become a better person, I think they should stay in his life, and do their utmost to foster that change, including being harsh and clear about the reprehensibility of his actions. People are more likely to change when they have something to lose, and when growth shows that they have something to gain. I don't think that should ever come at a cost to the victim, but I don't think any change will happen otherwise.
Note to anyone responding: Please don't offer condolences or ask about how I am. I've had a lot of therapy and I've had worse things happen to me. I don't really like thinking about any of it, and that's easier when I'm not trying to respond to those sentiments. Thank you for understanding.
It's a bit uncomfortable for me to say, because I have tremendous difficulty reasoning about this issue—I have tremendous difficulty reasoning about the experience of somebody who would, e.g., rape—but I feel this is an overly absolutist position. There is some discussion of the issue in this blogpost. I find it insightful and recommend reading the whole thing, but will reproduce one pertinent section:
This is interesting, but I really dislike the frasing "risk of commiting rape". It sounds like it's something that happens to these men, not something that they decide to do. I might be missinterpreting it, but it rubs me the wrong way.
There is a fine line between attributing agency (which is good) and culpability (which is counterproductive). I think some of the other language in the post makes it clear they are doing the former ('realizing what you did was wrong and never doing it again speaks well to your character—although of course it does not erase the harm you did'), while that phrasing is a hedge to help prevent falling into the latter. It is also, particularly pertinently, in the portion you quote, speaking to the problems at the societal level, not at the individual level; in that context even agency becomes much less interesting, and it seems reasonable to speak about risk.
I don't understand how attributing culpability is counterproductive.
I agree with so much of what you said, but it still amplifies my point. First, the way you're talking about SA'ers makes it seem like their actions are baked into their being, inseparable from them. Is someone who breaks into a car destined for a life of thievery? Is the man who beats someone up at a bar hurtling through his entire life violently, with no chance to change? Is a woman who verbally abuses her children incapable of ever apologizing and changing? Because of the heinousness of some SA, and I think it's important to note that SA encompasses a spectrum that starts with unwanted physical contact and tops out with violent unwanted sexual penetration, you are wiling to write off entire people. But I would bet you'd also feel compassion for the homeless, the drug or alcohol addicted, and many others. It's easy to write off violent people as irredeemable, because we're disgusted by their actions. But we also have an almost endless library of evidence that the very people you're labeling as irredeemable are capable of becoming something different. To this point, I am a shining example of this. As an adult, I can look back and see a few instances of being a predator and am truly disgusted by them. But because I had compassionate people around me, who could and would speak into my life, I changed and made amends. Now, I was about as low on the spectrum of SA as you can get, but that means there's a huge portion of SA'ers who also exist on that end of the spectrum, but are being written off wholesale with your line of thinking.
As another point, I'd like to draw a contrast to people who forgive murderers after they've lost someone they love. We also have a massive library of examples that compassion and forgiveness that is repairative in the aftermath of truly gruesome crimes. Now, I will concede that it's the victims purgative to extend that forgiveness and I would never make the case that it's compulsory. But that also means it's up to the associated individuals to make that choice for themselves and continuing to be affiliated with them doesn't have to be a endorsement of their actions. By your logic, if the person you love the most in the world sexually assaulted someone, no matter how intimately you know parts of that person to be good, you would be bound to exile them to a life of zero friends, zero love, zero compassion, zero forgiveness.
I think it's also worthwhile to point out that your logic of the mindset of a sexual assaulter is so linear, I almost can't truly believe you actually believe it yourself. You're telling me you think that every single person who sexually assaults someone does it with clear mind, intention, and motive? That they simply think in their mind "Let's destroy this person's life by violating them." I feel like it's impossible that you believe that, despite making the case. You have to be able to acknowledge that not all criminal actions are thought out and that a huge portion of them are actually motivated by wildly misinformed and ill-thought or understood intention. Your case is similar to the idea that we should just execute anyone who commits a crime, because they're obviously irredeemable. But most humans believe that's barbaric now. But by your logic, you're ok with them losing everything, every relationship, every job they get, any financial stability, any point of connection, because they made a really stupid and selfish decision. I feel like the more I dig into your logic, the more it seems purely motives by feelings. I see similar rational, like the feelings bigots have about trans people, are immediately dismissed, because we see the motivation (Feelings) and say "Well how you feel or what you think is a terrible metric to make this decision."
You're grouping all sexual assault into one tight group and trying to push them off a cliff and I'm sorry, but I'm standing on the edge of that cliff and pushing back. I believe human lives have value and are worth investment. I believe humans are capable of change and know that to be true because my entirely life is one of change and repentance of my actions. Does that mean I believe there shouldn't be consequences, absolute not. But I refuse to believe that the solution to sexual assault is to isolate someone entirely from the world. The only result I can see from that is that the person who's isolated sees that there's no other option but to be the vile person they are, because they can't be redeemed anyways.
You're comment comes across as very dismissive of my own experiences of being sexually assaulted MULTIPLE times. Instead of trying to understand why I as a victim would be so hesitant to maintain a relationship with a known SA or continue to mingle with those who support them, you instead try to invalidate it.
Two of my assaulters where 17 when they committed their acts against me. They're in their 30s now and have continued to go about their lives. I still carry the scars of what they did to me 13+ years later and have had to go through extensive therapy to relearn how to trust others because of what they did to me. I don't know exactly what you did that you identify on being on the scale of sexual assault, but your victim(s) most likely carry a similar scar from that experience. I still have nightmares of what was done to me, do those you affected have them as well?
I see a lot of commentary of "what about me" in your comment and a heavy lack of compassion on how victims heal from sexual assault. Even just unwanted physical contact is frustratingly bad because it is one person ignoring another person's personal space and clearly stating they don't respect it. It comes across as power and control over another, and violates their own free will. When I have flashbacks of these types of encounters, it feels like I'm drowning and screaming for help, but the water is already in my lungs.
If I found out my husband ever committed such a thing, I would immediately divorce him and pack-up. After everything I've told him about my own sexual assault experiences, him doing such a thing would be such a slap in the face. His brothers and family would most likely do the same because they have an inkling of my past and would honestly be disgusted their son did such a thing.
Trying to equate my compassion for the homeless or addicts to sexual assaulters is a disgusting comparison. Again a sexual assaulter commits an act that violates the free will of another person's body. A homeless person hasn't done that to me nor has an addict. It's OK to want to find your own journey to redeem yourself, but it's not ok to expect victims of sexual assault to back that journey. Instead of having compassion for that perspective you have instead taken it as an affront to your own character. You're willing to stand on the edge of a cliff for sexual assaulters and not the victims is very telling.
I was going to try to explain it in a long comment but I'll cut it down to something simple.
I use the word "predator" but I'm talking about a special kind of person, probably a psychopath. The kind of person that I would call a predator, I believe they are usually not redeemable or capable of significant change.
I appreciate the clarification, because I'm reading this thread and can't help but look back at my younger life and see that I was a predator, but am not now. None of it was intentional, all of it was ill-thought, and all of it was predicated on the world view I was given when young and have spent my adult life dismantling. I am the very case I'd make about the possibility of redemption, because I had people around me who loved me despite my failings and helped me change. My case isn't that all predators are able or willing to change, but some or many are, and similar to our rational behind rehabilitative criminal systems, I believe we can't throw the entire group of SA'ers out, just because the worst of them are unable to change.
That's why you stay in contact but keep it on the DL. Make it all kayfabe.
Are you telling me to wrestle him?
I think in that situation, you did the (or a) right thing by cutting him out. It shouldn't be high schoolers' responsibility to teach other high schoolers how to be respectful humans.
I'm going to point I am going to guess you are a guy and come from a place of privileged. What I mean by that is that this theoretical friend who would harass women is no danger to you and is nice to you because you aren't the type of people he's trying to have power plays over. So it's easy to ignore what bad stuff he does to others cause you don't have to see it and he is totally fine with you. What you are also doing by staying out of it is saying you don't care about the victims he does attack. The very least you could do even if you want to stay friends is condemn him for his actions and let him and everyone know you don't think that is ok and even support him getting punished for it (yes, you can think some one deserves punishment that is also your friend).
That's not at all how they're defining privilege in this context. They define it:
Sorry to hear this, but if there have been multiple accusations from different people then there's probably something to it.
Every human is multi-faceted and can be a good friend towards one person and abusive towards another. How well your boss treats you isn't necessarily an indicator that he's incapable of sexual misconduct towards others.
If the friendship between the two of you is genuine and mutual, then holding one another accountable, and supporting each other to be better human beings, should be part of it. Enabling someone's bad behavior isn't part of it.
I've had a similar experience, there was someone in my friend group who was well-liked by everyone. He was charismatic, helpful, said all the right things about supporting feminism, was proactive in joining and supporting human rights advocacies including feminist advocacies, etc. He turned out to be a sexual predator. He intentionally befriended the most outspoken feminist women in our group and only showed his good side to them, and he carefully targeted younger women who he felt were less well-connected and less likely to speak up. As he didn't show remorse for his actions when given the chance, we kicked him out of our group.
That situation is actually quite similar. He's a big supporter of women and has raised thousands for anti domestic abuse causes.
I really appreciate your insights. Thank you.
Oof, I do find it extra creepy when advocacies are used as a smokescreen for bad behavior.
There's additional complexity in your situation too since he's not just a friend, he's your boss, so there's that power dynamic between you two as well. I understand this really puts you in a tricky spot!
Thanks for the understanding and the perspectives.
There is a high prevalence of abusive people in jobs and positions that let them prove to the world how unabusive they are. Virtue signalling is very real, unfortunately. I will just repeat what I wrote in a different reply:
Predators don't just groom their victims, but their chosen character witnesses.
All we can do is be our best selves, but also be able to acknowledge that some people are just wired differently and if proof of that shows up, we withdraw our trust in them from that point onwards. It's not on us to suspect everyone else of being bad just because some people are. It is on us to move on in life away from someone that has proven themselves to not be trustworthy.
A whole lot of people are very believeable. But if there is actual proof that they aren't trustworthy, then we withdraw our trust. Doesn't matter if they seem so believable if hard facts say they aren't. Then we do like you have done here; seek council and support from others to deal with our own grief and/or discomfort.
Case in point: a long time ago I rode the bus regularly. For a while I had crutches and the bus driver helped me with the crutches when getting in and out. There was nobody watching and so he could easily not have done that.
I later found out that he raped some young woman who was alone on his bus, and supposedly it wasn't going to be possible for her to have kids later. I'm a guy in case that matters for the story.
My wife ran into this situation with her former boss at a hospital. He was a great mentor to her and was well respected by everyone. Worked his way up from a nurse into a VP role over the course of 20+ years at the same hospital. He had an administrative fellow (kinda like an intern in healthcare administration) who everyone agreed was absolutely terrible. She would pretend she knew stuff and really didn't. Couldn't grasp basic concepts of her field, and wouldn't admit when she didn't know something. So when he didn't extend her a full-time role, she turned around and accused him of sexual harassment. The guy was absolutely devastated. The organization began their investigation, which dragged on for months and months. Interviews, confiscation of his work phone, etc. She said that he harassed her over text, but neither she nor his phone were able to produce any evidence. She eventually dropped the complaint, but by that time, he had enough of his name being dragged through the mud by this woman and accepted a job elsewhere. She actually still works at the hospital, and gets bounced between departments due to her incompetence but nobody wants to fire her.
Nobody here is going to know what the real story is with your boss. But I'm not a fan of how accusations automatically turn into guilty convictions in the court of public opinion. If your boss is being accused of shady shit, then an investigation needs to be done. It's really unfortunate when someone falsely accuses someone else of something out of spite, because it sows seeds of doubt into the accounts of real victims.
Well, today I was confronted with some proof that I have to accept. That's the challenge. I have never seen him do anything (even in situations where it could have happened) but I really have to accept it.
Ah, well if you've been given proof, there you go. You now know what kind of person he can be. I don't know the nature of the shady stuff your boss is accused of, but you have to think about whether you really want to be friends with someone who does whatever it is.
Sucks all around and very sorry about this situation - but you would definitely be doing the right thing by accepting it.
Do you personally know any of his accusers? Do you know if they're receiving support?
Yes I do know them. I mean it's a work thing and it's a small company but I know they are getting support.
If you remain friends with your boss, will the victim definitely know about it?
Please know that predators don't just groom their victims, but also their chosen character witnesses.
They'll be a reasonable person that admits fault, shows humility, shows empathy and insight into others, all of that.
This is how you can tell that this was deliberate, given that you've seen proof. Since they do know how to not act like this. Yet they chose to.
Some people are just differently wired than others. In my younger years I often tried understanding how they ended up like that. These days I just shrug my shoulders and don't care. I care more about how they do know how to behave, but choose to go after a person here and there that they think (often correctly) they can get away with harassing.
If they didn't know what they were doing was wrong, how did they know what to hide? That's a sentiment that's stuck with me ever since I heard it. Applies to all kinds of abuse.
I would say that you need to try to remain as objective about the situation as you can. You can support your boss without refuting or minimizing the allegations against them. Unless you have access to firsthand information that refutes a particular claim, I would advise keeping an open mind.
Almost every one of the most heinous criminals in history have at least one person that they treated with extreme kindness. I'm not saying you should immediately believe any claims you hear, but if someone has reasonable evidence to support their claims... Your boss might be a bad person who's just really kind to you. Maybe kind to a whole group of people. Maybe kind to almost everyone. But also possibly really awful to some.
I don't have anyone close to me that's been accused of anything of the same magnitude as this, but I've definitely found out that sometimes you only get to see one side of a person. Sometimes you're unlucky and it's the bad side. Other times, it's the good side.
Ultimately I'm just trying to say that if this is true, don't try to run mental circles around yourself in pursuit of explanations that lessen the gravity of their wrongdoings. You can still want to have a positive relationship with someone while condemning their actions. But you also don't need to go to an extreme and like cut them out of your life immediately before there's been a chance to hear both sides and make a fair judgement.
It's really making me question my ability to judge a character. I also found out that he had an affair a few years ago which is blowing my mind. I really appreciate your reply.
I had a similar experience with a co-worker who was a good friend. I worked with him for years and thought he was a good guy. I invited him to my wedding, etc. I turns out he was not a good guy at all and did heinous things , he was kind to me and I just never saw it coming nor did our other close co-worker of years. I questioned, and still question to a degree, my ability to judge character because of this, but I have come to accept that a skill manipulator and someone that lacks empathy can simply be convincing enough to trick others and I shouldn't beat myself up for it. I just needed to not so blindly trust others.
It's important to remember humans are multidimensional. Someone can be an amazing friend and a completely shit partner. I wouldn't question your ability to judge character, you're learning along with everyone else.
If someone chooses to maintain friendship or even just contact with someone the group has collectively decided to ostricise, then one has to remember that the accused could let that information out, either completely accidentally, or triumphantly as proof of being acceptable.
OP, you will need to know that your continued friendship could possibly come to light at some point, and be extremely damaging to your reputation at work.
I'm old and jaded now so I would probably tell my guilty-boss-friend that things are awkward at work right now, and I'll have to wait until I find new work before it's a good idea to hang out again. A true friend would understand and not want his crime to put me in danger. This would also give me more time to re-assess the friendship outside of the ingrained work dynamic: do I actually want to be friends going forward.
If the friend were falsely accused (which you had already said time and again on this thread he is not), I would look for new work immediately and remain friends throughout.
Your post was very clear, but even on Tildes everyone wanted to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and you yourself (rightfully) had trouble believing anything until there was enough proof. It's very very hard to be believed, and predators count on this to further their goal.
These are all layers of coverings that predators intentionally use to hide behind, and utilize to hurt more victims, and to keep victims silent after the attacks. It's important that at work you do not give the impression that you are continuing to provide cover: not just for yourself, but also because it will mean further harm for the victims.
I had an amazing boss. Helped me grow as a leader, challenged me, recognized my potential. We were close. He came to me first for important things. He was well liked. Many people still talk about him at my company and how good he has.
He had an inappropriate, consensual relationship with a colleague. One day I came into work and he was fired. I was shocked. This wasn't the person I know. Then I learned he had asked another colleague to lie for him to keep him from getting fired.
People aren't always who you think. I tried texting him and he ignored me. I moved on. It's not like I lost what I learned from him. I still often reference him and just add the caveat that I never knew the side of the person who got fired.
Thank you. It certainly is hard to accept in the moment.
I thought about it some more, here are a couple things which I think are relatively low-risk that you can do in this situation:
Keep yourself safe from him. If you're the same gender as his victims, now you know not to let your guard down around him. If you're not the same gender, you still have less reason to trust him overall.
If he happens to meet your friends who are the same gender as his victims, you can privately and discreetly warn them about him. Something like, "Hey I just wanted to make sure you stay safe, I'm giving you a heads up about these ongoing allegations about this guy."
I hope this helps!
https://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html
I think this post might help you find definitions and words to put to your experiences and thoughts about this.
It is about how people that commit these types of acts all to often are treated like a missing stair in a staircase, in a place that most people know well. The group often decides to not "fix the stair" but just jump around it for convenience's sake. Then someone else shows up, they don't know about the dodgy stair and step through it. What very often happens is that they are told they should have been more careful, nobody else is getting hurt like that. Or the group makes sure to always warn newcomers about the broken stair. Lots and lots of effort go into avoiding dealing with the broken stair, rather than fixing the problem by removing it and fixing it.
Very good read.