Things have been getting really strange regarding Nancy's status at Archie Comics over the past 6 months or so...

Report: Archie Comics sues Co-CEO Nancy Silberkleit
Archie Co-CEO Accuses Company of Smear Campaign
Judge Issues Order Against Archie Co-CEO Nancy Silberkleit

And now, more recent news:
Goldwater Sues To Have Silberkleit Removed As Archie Co-CEO
Judge orders Co-CEO Nancy Silberkleit "not to do anything" for Archie

I have no idea how much of this is true, but this is getting really strange

Seems as though all is not well with Archie comics...and the sad thing is that we'll never REALLY know what went on.  Who knows how much of either side is fact or fiction?

Seems as though all is not well with Archie comics...and the sad thing is that we'll never REALLY know what went on.  Who knows how much of either side is fact or fiction?

I agree. Sounds like High School drama on a corporate level.  It takes 2 to tango, or in this case several.

Quote from: radio_ on January 31, 2012, 10:24:01 PM

Quote from: Captain Hero on January 31, 2012, 09:42:22 AM

Seems as though all is not well with Archie comics...and the sad thing is that we'll never REALLY know what went on.  Who knows how much of either side is fact or fiction?

I agree. Sounds like High School drama on a corporate level.  It takes 2 to tango, or in this case several.

I don't like this idea that it has to be "everyone's fault."  It may make us feel better about everything as fans by moving the blame around proportionately, but that seems a bit Disney to me. 

Then don't like the idea. I don't know any of these people so I don't know their behaviors behind closed doors. How she reacted in the board meeting was childish but it seems something or a combination of "Somethings" had to happen for her to just lash out like she did. I have known in certain circles of friendships when a new person joins the group some may feel threatened. I don't know if this is the case here or not. We will find out more as this goes on.

Quote from: Ghidra on January 31, 2012, 10:51:09 PM

Quote from: radio_ on January 31, 2012, 10:24:01 PM

Quote from: Captain Hero on January 31, 2012, 09:42:22 AM

Seems as though all is not well with Archie comics...and the sad thing is that we'll never REALLY know what went on.  Who knows how much of either side is fact or fiction?

I agree. Sounds like High School drama on a corporate level.  It takes 2 to tango, or in this case several.

I don't like this idea that it has to be "everyone's fault."  It may make us feel better about everything as fans by moving the blame around proportionately, but that seems a bit Disney to me. 

Then don't like the idea. I don't know any of these people so I don't know their behaviors behind closed doors. How she reacted in the board meeting was childish but it seems something or a combination of "Somethings" had to happen for her to just lash out like she did. I have known in certain circles of friendships when a new person joins the group some may feel threatened. I don't know if this is the case here or not. We will find out more as this goes on.

I don't buy this storyline of the heroic feminist warrior fighting against the evil patriarchal office.  Even if she had a point to make, you automatically lose by going that low brow with such a base level comment.  What if a guy in that office had started calling female employees vaginas (or something similar)?  Do you realize what would happen in that case?  I think sexual harassment law is good, but it has to be egalitarian or it doesn't work.

Your point about the outsider coming into a close-knit group is valid.  But I also think there's another example of people that aren't cut out for management.  From what I read so far, it seems she had the whole office turned against her. 

Why that occurred is up for debate, but it's just weird to me how someone's spouse can suddenly be given 50 percent control of a company like it's feudal England or something.  If it's handed over to someone that's a nut, it's not to be very good for the company.  Interestingly enough, I found this blurb about Nancy's background:

Despite the role her husband held with Archie Comics, Nancy Silberkleit was not involved with operations and had no business experience when she started at the company. When she accepted the role, she found help in the form of Columbia Sportswear chair Gert Boyle. Boyle offered Silberkleit advice and instruction, which helped to guide her decisions as head of Archie Comics.

Either way, yeah, I don't want to pass judgment.  Even the supposed penis story could have been made up for all I know.  Unfortunately, it takes eons for this stuff to get deliberated in the court system, so it may be a while before we find out anything.  But the fact that a judge restrained her from working for Archie at least says something.

Ghidra..I honestly do understand where you are coming from. Like I said it was childish for her to lash out like she did. But all I am saying is that it is possible that it could have all built up from several incidents. We do not know everything. I agree she was given this job fairly easily especially without truly knowing what all was involved and not many credentials. From stuff I have read about her it did sound like she was trying to fit in at some point. We don't know if she was being treated unfairly or not and like Captain Hero mentioned we may never know the whole truth.

Just analyzing what she (purportedly) said.  That was obviously what she was trying to articulate with the metaphor.  If true, it just seems like hypocritical 70's era BS to me that would get no one anywhere when working in a group.  Either way, this lawsuit describes a pattern of behavior, whether true or not, so it isn't about one board meeting.

It's possible she may have not been given a lot of support in the company, but the other possibility is there may have been good reasons for that.  Like that her ideas were really bad.  If she had a sense of entitlement due to the stake in the company she was given due to a will, yeah I could see some major conflict resulting from that.

Article kind of spotlights the sexism determining how people perceive this case.  Nancy is the victim here, no matter what happens, and deserves pity.  On the other hand, if the opposite had occurred, people would be calling for Goldwater's head.  And instead of something that covers both sides, we get something that gives voice to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

Interesting tidbits from this article though that back up what I was saying earlier:

When my husband was alive, I didn’t really get involved, didn’t care or know anything about comics.

in court papers, Goldwater alleges that her literacy efforts cost $100,000 and brought in only $10,000.

Definitely, someone I want with 50 percent control over my comic book company.  lol

Archie Comics shocked the world in 2010 by introducing a gay character, Kevin Keller. Little wonder Kevin made headlines around the globe: Archie and the gang from Riverdale USA had always been the squeaky-clean squares in the dark, geeky world of comics, a “safe” alternative to increasingly tortured superheroes, something a middle-American mom could reach for at the supermarket checkout line.

But the controversy over Kevin turns out to be nothing compared with the real threat to Archie’s family values: a struggle for power between the families of the men who founded the company in the 1930s. At stake is an iconic brand that is the last of the big comic-book makers to remain independent (DC is owned by Time Warner; Marvel was gobbled up in 2009 by Disney).

"Family values" is often code for homophobia just like "states' rights" is for wanting to bring back segregation and Jim Crow laws.  I don't know.  The way she describes this kind of p***es me off.  Yeah, it may be a "safe place," unless of course you're a gay teen/child, in which such a place can become a living hell if you're treated like an outcast that can't be spoken of like in the previous world of Riverdale. 

Leave it to some nitwit from Newsweek to discuss these things without even deconstructing what they actually mean.  She then goes on to point to Kevin as part of some kind of financial turn around without any mention of "controversy."  It doesn't even make sense in the context of her article.

Quote

Definitely, someone I want with 50 percent control over my comic book company.  lol

Why didn't you quote what else was said within those Parentheses in the article?

Because there was no point to?  Here's the rest of the quote though since you insist:

(in court papers, Goldwater alleges that her literacy efforts cost $100,000 and brought in only $10,000. Silberkleit’s lawyers responded that such efforts were intended as a marketing tool, not a profit center).

Her lawyers aren't even arguing that the figures are wrong. Sounds like terrible business to me if that project was in the red by $90,000.  I read Silberkleits own blog page that described her work at Archie Comics.  This was supposedly her big project she focused on, probably because it was somehow connected to her previous non-business experience as a teacher.

Quote

"Family values" is often code for homophobia

That wasn't even what they were referring to in "Family Values". It was a play on words.

It's a pun.  A pun has two meanings, not one.  In this case, it was referring to the "family feud" in the lawsuit and people thinking that Kevin was an assault on "family values."  The term family values has an extremely political connotation.  Just my opinion, but phrasing it that way without an opposite viewpoint being presented gives credence to the views of bigots. 

All she said at the beginning was how shocked people were about Archie introducing Kevin because it was supposed to be the "safe" comic book of choice of moms.  Nothing opposite of that was said, despite all the positive attention Archie received Kevin.  I don't read things on face value.  I usually go in between the lines a bit when reading something.

I am not going to rehash what I have already said in earlier posts. This all boils down to "He said, she said." Neither one is right in this and it all needs to be resolved for the betterment of Archie Comics.

You have no place to say "neither one is right."  You weren't there, where's your evidence?  Obviously, if things were that toxic at Archie that there needed to a be a lawsuit, I guess these growing pains needed to occur so the company can continue to progress after the judge applies what the law is to the facts of the case. 

As for "he said, she said."  That's the point of having a court case, so the judge can determine who is telling the truth.

Yes, sometimes there's wrong on both sides, but acting like we'll never find out which side was more wrong because we feel uncomfortable with the idea of the dispute itself is still very Pollyanaish imo.  We don't live in this perfect world where every dispute is both parties' fault and it can be resolved with a big warm hug.