For anyone wondering: there have been some rumours that Eric Schmidt has been indiscrete in the past, more specifically that he described that he had an “open marriage” and that he had relations with “exotic dancers”.
As far as I can tell, there is no reason to think that his close collaborators at Google didn’t know about and discovered something unsavoury recently. More to the point, there is no reason to think his behaviour (although offensive to some) was ever non-consensual.
It’s entirely understandable that, after more than a decade at the helm of the most incredible companies of all time, he’s stepping down to simply retire.
Given the times, the question bears being asked -- although as far as we can tell, No.
More than rumors. Apparently he had 1 of his many mistresses sign a "confidentiality agreement."[1] This is the kind of stuff Dave Chappelle used to joke about lol, in his "Love Contract" piece[2]. Can't believe someone actually did it - i.e. have the other person sign a confidentiality agreement before a consensual (sometime paid) sexual encounter.
The only thing I can think of is the timing of this announcement is perfect if you don't want any attention drawn to it.
Keep an eye our on the news tomorrow around 4pm EST. You'll see plenty of companies dropping bad news right before the holidays. By the time everyone gets back to work, they've forgotten!
It's not a reversion, it's a continued evolution. As Dworkin noted:
> Empirically speaking, sexual liberation was practiced by women on a wide scale in the sixties and it did not work: that is, it did not free women. Its purpose—it turned out—was to free men to use women without bourgeois constraints, and in that it was successful.
The hippies became Reaganites and women were allowed to participate in the economy to some extent, but that freedom also came with the expectation of sexual availability. You see it even now: suggest that maybe we should prohibit relationships between coworkers, and men flip out. The idea that we might categorically close off some spheres of life to sexual advances, so that women can work in peace and build their careers, induces apoplexy.
Where are you getting this that men flip out of they are prohibited relationships between coworkers?
I was just listening to NPR this morning where the woman speaking was saying that we need to more strongly define expectations for office behavior, but that women as well as men are against the idea of banning office relationships.
Weird though, because school/work is the most common place for couples to meet. Your opinion is another example of ivory-tower syndrome, or living in an ultra-liberal bubble.
Coworkers abstaining has more to do with risk (greater on the men’s side). Elites have always tried controlling sexual freedom and exploration because it threatens their control over literally creating future elite generations.
The sexual revolution absolutely improved women’s prospects from the Eisenhower era. Instead of forced to religious-coupling or pushed into traditional female roles, instead women were able to more freely choose their mate.
As to the sexual revolution, read Dworkin’s take on it. Her point that it is a distinctly a man-centric view of sexual freedom is prescient. It’s not just about being free to have sex whenever/with whoever you want, but also freedom to live aspects of your life without dealing with sexual advances. It’s about the freedom to go to work and have coworkers look at you as someone who can help advance their careers, or someone who they can mentor, not a potential date.
