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.
Then you will be OK with the sign that says: "I have a prostate and I vote?". The point is that this poster implies segregation based on gender which is against most corporate rules...
Well I'm trying to learn. It's tough to teach an old dog new tricks though... It all seems very confusing to me now and I'm more confused as there seems to be no definitions of anything, everyone has different opinions, and there seems no agreement, even among women. It seems like as a man you have to be walking on eggshells as you are avoiding the hidden mines.
It's pretty simple. When you are in the office or working with someone, especially when the woman is in a junior position to you, act like you would normally act when in a business situation with a man. Would you hug a man, or kiss him on the cheek? Would you grab his waist? Comment on how his shirt makes his chest look good?
The allegations of harassment are not about shaking hands, you know. It's pretty overt stuff that I don't need to repeat here.
Social situations, where you don't work with a woman and especially if you're not in a business location or on business at the time, can be a little murkier. Most allegations against men in those situations are outright assault or rape (that I've read).
However, the current legal theory is that harassment is not something that happens in the workplace -- it is something that happens between a woman's ears. There is no bright line. It is all about how a woman feels, and that makes measuring it very difficult. Survey a thousand men asking them if they are good at understanding how a woman feels, and my guess is almost none of them would answer in the affirmative.
Let's take a hypothetical: Imagine two women in the workplace (let's call them A and B). In fact, let's say they are identical twins who not only look alike but dress alike. Let's say they have the same education, training, and jobs. Let's say their male boss treats them identically.
And let's say woman A says the boss harrasses her, while woman B says the boss does not harass her. Yet the boss treats them identically. The boss' behaviour is identical, but woman A feels harassed.
The above hypothetical is not absurd.
Let's take something less straightforward. Let's say the workplace is an auto shop, and one of the techs has a calendar posted, and the calendar art is in the style of retro garage pinup. Something like this from the 1940s:
And let's say a woman tech objects to the image and finds it to be harassment. Under our current system, she's right because it is all about how she feels.
Here's a real example. A woman in my workplace (a white collar, cubicle environment) had a poster in her cube that says in large bold letters "I Have a Uterus and I Vote."
A man complains to HR that the poster creates a hostile, threatening workplace. Moreover, the woman is a manager with a dozen employees, all of whom are women. The man who complains to HR also points out not a single employee of the manager is male, and asserts gender harassment and discrimination.
The above happened.
If you were in HR, how would you respond?
The objection to a picture of a scantily clad female designed to appeal to men sexually is not because of how a female co-worker feels about it. It's because it's a sexually suggestive picture of a female, which objectifies the gender, some of whom must look at it. It's not a picture that all in the workplace would enjoy. The purpose of it is only for men. It can objectively be considered creating a somewhat oppressive environment, esp considering the history of women in this and other countries. It's just not respectful of your co-workers.
That's the objection to it. Not how a female in your office feels about it.
It may or may not be considered against the law, but a workplace may have a policy against it, just out of respect and consideration for all employees. And it would apply to both genders: no scantily clad women OR men pictures, or those depicting women OR men in suggestive poses. Just leave all that stuff at home. Nothing at work that might cause problems, might be best. Even if no one objected. It's just best not to be provocative at work.
If I were HR, I might create such a policy, just to avoid these issues.
Just so you know, some men use such things to "put women in their place." They roll out the sexy pics of women...on the walls, on cups, on notepads, coasters. Just to make sure that women know they "don't belong here...this is what women are for: our sex objects." It's a subtle message they send. So to YOU it may mean nothing, but some women have a history with such things. Because men have used them for such a purpose.
It's a work place. A place where women go, just like men, to earn money, do a job, so they can pay their rent, their utilities, buy food, save a little. They have a right to go to work at a place that isn't made to feel like a boy's club, just as men have a right to go to work at a place that isn't made to feel like a girl's club (with beefcake pics of scantily clad buff men all over the place.) All workers deserve respect and consideration.
Next thing what might happen is if I stare or look at a sexy lady I will be called on for sexual Harrasment. Along with trying to talk with her in general to be in a relationship with her
But what if it was the other way around? Would there be crying out for sexual Harrasment towards a Male?
The metoo movement is just a witch-hunt and a way for white women, sjws and pro black women to gain resources. You don't see many Asian and Latina women calling out men for sexual harassment. The lives of men, and their families have been up ended or destroyed. Some of these men may never get another job ever again. I'm not worried about Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Russell Simmons, Matt Laure and Bill Oriely. Those men have millions and will live comfortable till they die. I'm worried about the average employee who lost their jobs to such allegations. In most states if you are fired for sexual harassment. Their is no unemployment for you. Also being fired for sexual harassment, that persons is red flagged by labor departments thus meaning no job in the future if ever. Such men may end up leaving the country all together to survive. Don't get me wrong, some men do use their power to sexually harass women. But not all.
It's actually my job to read the news AND not create a more rapey world for women. Give it a try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronxguyanese
The metoo movement is just a witch-hunt and a way for white women, sjws and pro black women to gain resources. You don't see many Asian and Latina women calling out men for sexual harassment.
What on earth are you talking about? Where do you get your data?
The stats say 2-10% are false. The stats also say there are over 300,000 cases a year. So, that's approximately 2,000 - 30,000 false allegations. That spread also shows the data to be unreliable. The truth is we don't actually know how rare false allegations are when a) there are inconsistencies in how sexual assault is defined, b) there unsubstantiated/unfounded reports are being classified as false and vice-versa, c) there are biases among those in law enforcement and social work, d) the burden of proof on college campuses is alarmingly low, below the standard for law enforcement and e) the public is reckless about furthering false/incomplete information and how they classify sexual assault/rape, which leads people to believe they were raped when they weren't. It's safe to say that many cases of actual rape don't see a courtroom when they should. And some cases should never see the light of day.
Correction. That's 6,000 cases of false allegations on the low end.
The problem is with classifying inappropriate conversation, for example, as a "precursor to rape". Are you suggesting that someone who says "nice azz" is going to rape you?
That's just not true. We've had a say for quite some time. Not only can women say "no", they can say it loud and emphatically, if need be, and walk away. And many do. Those who don't need to work on that. The #metoo movement was necessary. But we can't be strong, independent and in control and be perpetual victims at the same time. We also won't continue to get away with leaving it to men to make judgement calls when we're not saying "no" while peddling the stereotype that they're dumb and slaves to their junk.
There are many situations where saying nice * is just testing the waters. A lot of people who do it, will receive a bad response. They back off only to reinstate similar behaviors weeks later. If someone is a part of your life in other capacities, just walking away with an emphatic no is not always so clear cut. It does boil down not knowing the difference between no and "the chase."
I'm worried about the average employee who lost their jobs to such allegations. In most states if you are fired for sexual harassment. Their is no unemployment for you. Also being fired for sexual harassment, that persons is red flagged by labor departments thus meaning no job in the future if ever. Such men may end up leaving the country all together to survive. Don't get me wrong, some men do use their power to sexually harass women. But not all.
Also don't forget: attractive and/or naturally desirable men usually don't get hit with sexual harassment charges. Interactions with such men are a good thing in women's minds. (Unless it's blatantly crass or physically painful.) It's only average-looking men with modest approaching skills that get hit with these charges. Women do not naturally desire such men, making their approaches a form of harassment. And the MeToo witch hunt is meant to deter such men from approaching women. Which only trivializes real instances of sexual harassment. The kind where power play and manipulation are involved, rather than the approaching man not being attractive enough.
Now, I was referring to direct one-on-one interactions. When it comes to things like catcalling or half-naked pictures of women, I have no dog in that fight. I don't cat-call or get cat-called. And my work desk is very, very spartan: my coffee tumbler from a cruise I took is personalized as it gets. The rest are piles of TPS reports and computer parts.
Yes, in the ideal world this would be the right approach. What do you think will happen in reality? HR department will probably just laugh at the guy in the best case scenario. If an HR person is man hating feminist, she might say something about the right of women for self expression or similar BS. I think men need to start their own "MeToo" movement and publish the names of the women involved. Then maybe the man hating feminist mafia will get some taste of what it means to be judged guilty without any proof or trial...
In reality, HR will act the way I stated because they are so afraid of lawsuits these days that any complaint will be addressed regardless of whether it is from a woman or a man.
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.
