Monsters MeToo moment?

A wonderfully worded one sided story.

Huffington Post...the “latestmxvideos.com” of news...

omalley wrote:

Huffington Post...the “latestmxvideos.com” of news...

So, if the story is fabricated, what's the real story?

So typical to attack the source.. cmon, you can do better

rosebud441 wrote:

So typical to attack the source.. cmon, you can do better

Huffington is as fake news as cnn and the onion

Monster isn't a small company. I'm sure they've got their fair share of HR nightmares.

rosebud441 wrote:

So typical to attack the source.. cmon, you can do better

Acidreamer wrote:

Huffington is as fake news as cnn and the onion

*cough* Faux News, Info Wars, Breitbart *cough*

Sounds about right:
“I thought, ‘This guy is like Prince Charming,’” she said, perched on a black leather couch below the print Hamilton bought her, a playful piece depicting Queen Elizabeth blowing a bubble. “I fell in love.”

What did she say she did there again?

Let’s be honest, the Monster girls likely have a zillion “me-too” moments.

Im not sure how you judge their situation. They’re glorified strippers. Daddy issues galore. Do they have rights? Sure. Are they exploited? Willingly.

I have a daughter. There’s a few key points Im gonna drill into her head when she’s old enough:

1. Wave fresh meat in a starving dogs face, expect to get bit

2. She’s getting MMA lessons from a VERY early age so that in the event some douche tries to take advantage she’s able to fuck him up

3. Some of these “me too” moments are just buyers remorse. If we didnt sexually repress women in this society, sex wouldnt be some mental block. There is no reason we cant expect women to responsibly enjoy sex so they dont need to be pressured into doing something both parties should enjoy doing.

#metoo is 2% actual victims and 98% money grabs and revenge .

Aceofspades wrote:

#metoo is 2% actual victims and 98% money grabs and revenge .

And 75% of statistics in Vital MX threads are made up on the spot.*

(*Margin of error, 25%)

Aceofspades wrote:

#metoo is 2% actual victims and 98% money grabs and revenge .

GuyB wrote:

And 75% of statistics in Vital MX threads are made up on the spot.*

(*Margin of error, 25%)

Gonna need to see some sources on that

Jabroni wrote:

Let’s be honest, the Monster girls likely have a zillion “me-too” moments.

Im not sure how you judge their situation. They’re glorified strippers. Daddy issues galore. Do they have rights? Sure. Are they exploited? Willingly.

I have a daughter. There’s a few key points Im gonna drill into her head when she’s old enough:

1. Wave fresh meat in a starving dogs face, expect to get bit

2. She’s getting MMA lessons from a VERY early age so that in the event some douche tries to take advantage she’s able to fuck him up

3. Some of these “me too” moments are just buyers remorse. If we didnt sexually repress women in this society, sex wouldnt be some mental block. There is no reason we cant expect women to responsibly enjoy sex so they dont need to be pressured into doing something both parties should enjoy doing.

I don't think these 6 women who worked at Monster were Monster Girls at a Supercross event....

??

The huff, what a garbage...

Women readily accept new ideas because they are ignorant; they spread them easily, because they are light; they support them a long time, because they are stubborn.

Dominants understood it well...



Women's, the problem is elsewhere...

What a hit piece.

Aceofspades wrote:

#metoo is 2% actual victims and 98% money grabs and revenge .

Source?

Huffingtonpost.. hahaha

Next up, Alex Jones of Infowars and Howard Stern collaborate to bring us a story about how Monster Energy is pumping high levels of papaya juice and milk into potential future employees to help naturally enlarge their breasts... SMH...

Sounds about right to me. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if every story was true.

Donovan759 wrote:

Huffingtonpost.. hahaha

Next up, Alex Jones of Infowars and Howard Stern collaborate to bring us a story about how Monster Energy is pumping high levels of papaya juice and milk into potential future employees to help naturally enlarge their breasts... SMH...

http://www.businessinsider.com/women-file-lawsuit-against-monster-energy-2018-1

Better?

The company did not immediately responded to Business Insider's request for comment.

All anyone has to do is pull the lawsuits, you realize that, yes? They're public domain unless a judge decides to seal a case, which is very rare.

So it doesn't matter who broke the story, they have the documents

That said, the prospect of there being some level of sexual harassment is impossible? Have you seen their marketing at events and what the primary (or secondary, depending on view) visual at the event other than the logo is, what?

Puppies and kittens? (no pun intended)

Always easy to kill the messenger while dismissing the message

flarider wrote:

http://www.businessinsider.com/women-file-lawsuit-against-monster-energy-2018-1

Better?

The company did not immediately responded to Business Insider's request for comment.

All anyone has to do is pull the lawsuits, you realize that, yes? They're public domain unless a judge decides to seal a case, which is very rare.

So it doesn't matter who broke the story, they have the documents

That said, the prospect of there being some level of sexual harassment is impossible? Have you seen their marketing at events and what the primary (or secondary, depending on view) visual at the event other than the logo is, what?

Puppies and kittens? (no pun intended)

Always easy to kill the messenger while dismissing the message

Actually, no... not better. This article quotes the Huff more than it gives new information.

I did thoroughly enjoy the pun. And you're right, I'm killing the messenger while dismissing the message and that's not cool. Anyone being mistreated to that degree deserves justice and should be heard.

So, you think it's implausible, considering Monster's use of women in their event marketing?

You also think that just because you dislike the messenger, the message is false

Then you think that even when followed up on by Business Insider, Monster declined comment, even a denial, is irrelevant? Now, you could say they refused comment because they don't comment about ongoing litigation, but then that proves there then is indeed, litigation, correct? If there was no litigation, why would they not vigorously state there is no such litigation?

Lastly, again because you don't like the messenger, you think they'd risk a defamation or slander suit, when one could easily go to the clerk of courts and review, either in its entirety or in abbreviation, the validity of such a suit's existence? To what gain?

^ I didn't say it was implausible. And my second "paragraph" wasn't sarcasm. It truly is tragic if these girls are being treated that way... I actually meant that you were right. It was wrong of me to dismiss the message that way.

Monster argued that these cases are without merit and had nothing to do with sex discrimination, and characterized the women who filed the suits as “disgruntled employees.”

“The only connection is that these individuals suing Monster for money have endeavored to band together to litigate their cases in the media,” the company said in a 600-word statement sent to HuffPost. “The cases are diverse, unrelated and do not remotely suggest a systemic environment of harassment or discrimination.”

That admission, by Monster's 600-word statement, proves there is, in fact, a lawsuit

Not litigating whether the facts of the case are true, and neither did HuffPo, they only reported that there is 5 lawsuits and some of the allegations made.

Donovan759 wrote:

^ I didn't say it was implausible. And my second "paragraph" wasn't sarcasm. It truly is tragic if these girls are being treated that way... I actually meant that you were right. It was wrong of me to dismiss the message that way.

Ok

Interesting read, but took most of it with a grain of salt. Wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the allegations were true. But also wouldn’t be surprised at all if a bunch of it was exaggerated and taken out of context to paint a very different picture.

It probably is ran like a “boys club” and would be tough to work there if you were an average to uptight woman. At least that’s what I’d expect going into most jobs at that company. Not much different than companies or workplaces that are predominantly women run and have the repercussions of that dynamic.

rosebud441 wrote:

So typical to attack the source.. cmon, you can do better

It's what happens when objectification truly becomes normalized.

flarider wrote:

Monster argued that these cases are without merit and had nothing to do with sex discrimination, and characterized the women who filed the suits as “disgruntled employees.”

“The only connection is that these individuals suing Monster for money have endeavored to band together to litigate their cases in the media,” the company said in a 600-word statement sent to HuffPost. “The cases are diverse, unrelated and do not remotely suggest a systemic environment of harassment or discrimination.”

That admission, by Monster's 600-word statement, proves there is, in fact, a lawsuit

Not litigating whether the facts of the case are true, and neither did HuffPo, they only reported that there is 5 lawsuits and some of the allegations made.

Flarider's right- Monster is acknowledging numerous lawsuits filed over sexual harassment- which would support, not detract from the validity of the HuffPost story.

So if I have this right, the one gal had no issues with business mixing with pleasure (two promotions) until it wasn’t going her way (fired/breakup)? Got it.

flarider wrote:

So, you think it's implausible, considering Monster's use of women in their event marketing?

You also think that just because you dislike the messenger, the message is false

Then you think that even when followed up on by Business Insider, Monster declined comment, even a denial, is irrelevant? Now, you could say they refused comment because they don't comment about ongoing litigation, but then that proves there then is indeed, litigation, correct? If there was no litigation, why would they not vigorously state there is no such litigation?

Lastly, again because you don't like the messenger, you think they'd risk a defamation or slander suit, when one could easily go to the clerk of courts and review, either in its entirety or in abbreviation, the validity of such a suit's existence? To what gain?

What? Dave putting words into other people’s mouths? Oh the tragedy!

My defense if I was named in that lawsuit would be that I drank to many Monsters and they messed me up then counter sue Monster, the aluminum company that supplies the cans materials, the label company for making it so appealing, the caffeine supplier, machine company that supplies the machines to package the product and so on since they are all obviously complicit in my derangement now......I didn’t used to be this way before working there!