Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me a bit of the "Me Too" Movement. Women were willing to go along with sexual harassment when it was good for their career, but then rose up in outrage once their career had already benefitted. If you put up with this behavior to improve your resume, you own it.

Maybe it's time for you to understand the Me Too movement.

Here's a TL;DR

Women were more likely to tolerate sexual harassment when they thought they had no alternative. Once it was more likely that they would be believed and supported rather than treated as the problem that needed to be disposed of, they were more likely to speak up.

HTH

That's crap. They wanted to be part of a very competitive industry and speaking out might have precluded it, but plenty of women spoke out or left jobs where they experienced sexual harassment, in earlier decades than the 90s. It was a choice to have the career and tolerate the abuse. Same with these chefs.

So you do agree they were abused; you just don't agree that their abusers should be called out. Gotcha.

I'm saying that they have no integrity if they stayed to advance their career and now pile on, once they don't need him.

Sean Penn has physically assaulted people, and he was just awarded his third Oscar. That kind of behavior is rewarded.

I’ve been following these stories. I’ve never eaten at NOMA but always heard about it. Absolutely shocking. What a complete jerk. Physically assaulting people. I have lost all respect for him. He is a turd

Anonymous wrote:Dan Giusti was Executive Chef during the years NOMA was #1. He left to become a person who cooks school lunches. I always wondered why he did that, but now it makes more sense.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/01/brigaid-noma-school-lunch-dan-giusti

I love Dan Giusti! He does videos on how to cook with super cheap ingredients: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kd2271nZRaU&pp=ygUVZGFuIGdpdXN0aSBlcGljdXJpb3Vz

Dan Giusti was Executive Chef during the years NOMA was #1. He left to become a person who cooks school lunches. I always wondered why he did that, but now it makes more sense.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/01/brigaid-noma-school-lunch-dan-giusti

Anonymous wrote:So much for the strong EU labor laws.

Denmark is part of the EU but has a few exceptions, including some labor laws (and of course not on the Euro).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me a bit of the "Me Too" Movement. Women were willing to go along with sexual harassment when it was good for their career, but then rose up in outrage once their career had already benefitted. If you put up with this behavior to improve your resume, you own it.

Maybe it's time for you to understand the Me Too movement.

Here's a TL;DR

Women were more likely to tolerate sexual harassment when they thought they had no alternative. Once it was more likely that they would be believed and supported rather than treated as the problem that needed to be disposed of, they were more likely to speak up.

HTH

That's crap. They wanted to be part of a very competitive industry and speaking out might have precluded it, but plenty of women spoke out or left jobs where they experienced sexual harassment, in earlier decades than the 90s. It was a choice to have the career and tolerate the abuse. Same with these chefs.

So you do agree they were abused; you just don't agree that their abusers should be called out. Gotcha.

I've been following this. I went to Noma when they were at their peak - can't remember what year but it was during the time when they were always #1 in the world and apparently the worst abuse was taking place according to these stories. The service was so friendly and each dish was presented by the chef that made it. I thought it was super laid-back and not pretentious like many similar places. At the end of the dinner they took us up to their test kitchen where they brainstormed and created dishes - which is mentioned as a location of a lot of the abuse.

The thing that struck me after reading the NY Times articale was that so many of the chefs told us how much Rene supported their careers, encouraged them to start their own restaurants, taught them so much about foraging, etc. They even gave us a list of local restaurants in Copenhagen that were started/run by Noma alumni. We went to one the next night and it was amazing. This is exactly the opposite of what they report in these stories. To me it's almost like Stokholm Syndrome - They all had great things to say about their abuser.

I think emotional and physical abuse can really traumatize people especially when the perp is someone they look up to and really want to please. Like Weinstein and others in Hollywood, they threatened to blacklist them and ruin their careers. The Noma staff who spoke up in these stories said having Noma on their resume could set them up for life and they tried hard to just live through it for a period of time when they could finally get out and do something else. I don't think we can judge unless we walked in their shoes.

That said, I'm pretty old and in the 70s-80s as a fairly attractive woman in the workforce, I experienced MAJOR sexual harassment on a daily basis. There was no such thing as HR to go to - you just had to grow a thick skin, shout back at them and go on with your day. You could usually shut them down with a comment about their tiny dick. Crazy times.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me a bit of the "Me Too" Movement. Women were willing to go along with sexual harassment when it was good for their career, but then rose up in outrage once their career had already benefitted. If you put up with this behavior to improve your resume, you own it.

Maybe it's time for you to understand the Me Too movement.

Here's a TL;DR

Women were more likely to tolerate sexual harassment when they thought they had no alternative. Once it was more likely that they would be believed and supported rather than treated as the problem that needed to be disposed of, they were more likely to speak up.

HTH

That's crap. They wanted to be part of a very competitive industry and speaking out might have precluded it, but plenty of women spoke out or left jobs where they experienced sexual harassment, in earlier decades than the 90s. It was a choice to have the career and tolerate the abuse. Same with these chefs.

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me a bit of the "Me Too" Movement. Women were willing to go along with sexual harassment when it was good for their career, but then rose up in outrage once their career had already benefitted. If you put up with this behavior to improve your resume, you own it.

Maybe it's time for you to understand the Me Too movement.

Here's a TL;DR

Women were more likely to tolerate sexual harassment when they thought they had no alternative. Once it was more likely that they would be believed and supported rather than treated as the problem that needed to be disposed of, they were more likely to speak up.

HTH