Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that it is an over-reaction - but it isn't imaginary; it exists in the real world and can be measured.
Perhaps I missed it in the article. I don't recall reading anything like threatening women with consequences for their careers, just because other women elsewhere have spoken out against crimes committed against them.
Academic psychologists publish survey data that men think about sex, on average, once every 7 seconds. The problem with such studies, of course, is they rely upon surveys and hence cannot be directly measured. Even if the surveys are off by an order of magnitude, it is still quite a bit.
The same problem exists with unwanted sexual advances - the "unwanted" part exists solely between the ears of the object of the advance and cannot be directly measured.
The article said that one executive did not want to hire women at all because it was too risky. Cutting women out of a career path isn’t a consequence for their career?
No, the situation described in the OP really has nothing to do with women reporting rape. Someone having lunch or dinner with a colleague, or sitting next to them in a plane, has nothing to do with incidents of assault.
Please re-read the article. The article is about men wishing to avoid situations that might be harmful to their own careers should a woman imagine things occuring That. Are. Not. There.
In the real world, essentially all allegations of sexual harassment are by women against men. And the legal standard isn't what that man did - it is how that woman feels.
We've heard of allegations where a woman says she feels uncomfortable because a co-worker leers at her in the break room -- even though the man doesn't even notice she exists and instead is thinking about the poor performance of his fantasy football team over the weekend and all that objectively happened was she wandered through his line of sight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
It's hard to believe that men can't understand that.
RuthieTruthie, when you post sentences such as the one above, how do you think that makes men feel?
The risk isn't in what I will do, but how it will be perceived by others.
Rational people can spot egregious unambiguous bad behaviour. Rational people can spot the Harvey Weinsteins of the world.
But that isn't what the article is about.
It isn't merely, as you say, the risk of how something you do or say will be perceived by others (although that is the major risk).
It is also the risk of how inaction - doing absolutely nothing at all except breathing and minding your own business - will be wrongly perceived by SJWs who look for a #MeToo moment every second of every day.
I recall a woman in the office years ago had two large posters in her office: "I Have a Vagina and I Vote" and "Anita, We Believe You." That certainly made me uncomfortable. Can you imagine a man having posters in his office with male analogs of those?
The article said that one executive did not want to hire women at all because it was too risky. Cutting women out of a career path isn’t a consequence for their career?
When I read the word threatening, I read it more literally - "Sorry, Ms. Johnson, I will not have a business dinner with you because of the actions of other women in the workplace."
Rational people can spot egregious unambiguous bad behaviour. Rational people can spot the Harvey Weinsteins of the world.
But that isn't what the article is about.
It isn't merely, as you say, the risk of how something you do or say will be perceived by others (although that is the major risk).
It is also the risk of how inaction - doing absolutely nothing at all except breathing and minding your own business - will be wrongly perceived by SJWs who look for a #MeToo moment every second of every day.
I recall a woman in the office years ago had two large posters in her office: "I Have a Vagina and I Vote" and "Anita, We Believe You." That certainly made me uncomfortable. Can you imagine a man having posters in his office with male analogs of those?
The Anita poster is a position of advocacy. That's the scary thing. For someone like that, case specifics don't really matter - they have an ax to grind, and will look for any sort of trigger.
No, the situation described in the OP really has nothing to do with women reporting rape. Someone having lunch or dinner with a colleague, or sitting next to them in a plane, has nothing to do with incidents of assault. It's hard to believe that men can't understand that.
I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse, or you really don't understand what's being discussed. I'll go ahead and make an effort, even though I'm more than a little certain I'm wasting my time here.
This has nothing to do with women reporting rape. Nobody is in favor of rape. Nobody supports cloaking sexual assault, except for those who have something to gain (like the decades-old accusers who come forward when it's "safe", claiming they couldn't step forward years ago because then they wouldn't be able to keep collecting money, and so they cheerfully left other women to be molested and assaulted so they could keep getting checks).
What this is about is an inflamed climate where anyone (strike that: any woman) can make an accusation, and that's all we need... she has a "right to be believed", and we do not need any evidence. Her hurt and quavery voice and tears is sufficient to drag down the monster who attacked her, and we can safely ignore his protestations to the contrary as mere self-service. Oh, "I didn't do it, I never met her, nobody else remembers this..." Suuuuure! That's what all of the abusers and attackers say! Off with his head! And anyone daring to ask questions, ask for any evidence, ask for any witnesses, ask why this dastardly deed has been held back for years or decades; and you're just like the abuser yourself!
So, just like that last poster... look in the mirror, because you are the problem. When you don't need anything but the story, and claim to believe absolutely everyone who steps forward with an unprovable accusation, and then we find out that an actual abuser got away with it in the din of all the politically- or agenda-motivated accusations, you can proudly know that YOU helped to shield a sexual abuser so that you could engage in virtue-signalling. Hooray.
I'll stand up right now and say that I'm fully willing to see any allegation of sexual abuse or attack fully investigated and prosecuted, no matter who is the accuser or the victim. Will you make the same stand? That you want to see actual investigations, where the outcome isn't pre-determined but will follow the facts and evidence, and accept that no matter how much you believe it's possible for an accused attacker to be exonerated? Or even that we cannot proceed, because there is no objective, empirical evidence that they did anything wrong? Does your son or husband or father have a "right to be believed" as well?
Biggest issue is $metoo doesn't have an answer for what benefits does a gender affirmative action bring? Between two people, what does a ceo gain from mentoring a woman over a man? If the result is the same, why not go for the guy each time? Yes a woman would be as effective but there is no consequences if he chooses to not mentor the woman. There are no boycotts or support X company based on women ceos.
How does increasing "diversity" affect sales or shareholders? If women CEOs helped profitability, they would be there in higher numbers already
All metoo has done is given a vocal reason for not mentoring, true or false, it doesn't matter. Does it suck? Yes, but there is no laws requiring companies to not suck. no labor laws saying x% need to be women.
And gender discrimination isn't covered when "mentoring" because it isn't a job duty
I'm a guy and have NEVER been accused of doing anything inappropriate towards a woman.
You're lucky. I have been and only because she got upset my winning the argument. They took her at her word and I lost a job I had a great chance at being hired.
But I actually don't hate her. What resulted, was I quit smoking 10 months after being laid off and still haven't smoked in 5+ years. She and most everyone after was fired two years later anyway.
Seriously, why not just change your attitudes about how to treat a female colleague.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
