I've wondered if some approaches actually work, or whether it is more a matter of stroking one's own ego.I ant buyin it... when people say ther confused about what harrassment is... or confused about the "signals"... ther lyin... full stop.!!!
I've wondered if some approaches actually work, or whether it is more a matter of stroking one's own ego.I ant buyin it... when people say ther confused about what harrassment is... or confused about the "signals"... ther lyin... full stop.!!!
Yeah thats somptin to wonder about.!!!I've wondered if some approaches actually work, or whether it is more a matter of stroking one's own ego.
Of course some approaches work; with any crime, a certain percentage of criminals are going to get what they want. (Which is the impetus for the crime in the first place.)I've wondered if some approaches actually work, or whether it is more a matter of stroking one's own ego.
I suppose so...Of course some approaches work; with any crime, a certain percentage of criminals are going to get what they want. (Which is the impetus for the crime in the first place.)
this is the problem. you can't make statements like this without backing this up with examples, otherwise it's akin to lies.
what mixed messages and how does this occur? without these, it shows one actually is speaking from zero experience or assuming there are mixed messages.
Yeah, I've always been rather confused by this notion of "mixed messages"--what, precisely, are people talking about here? I honestly cannot tell whether people are genuinely unclear about what constitutes harassment, or if it's some sort of knee-jerk defensiveness; though I'm leaning towards the latter.
The idea that sexual harassment can somehow be an "accidental" or "unintentional" is an absurdity, and the instances where a person mistakes an actual accidental instance, i.e., brushing against someone in passing, are so infrequent and typically easy to parse that they're not really even worth discussing.
A silly example? Of course it is - but stupid shit happens, and people take things both out of context and in the wrong way all the time. If we are going to make the rules and laws absolute, we have to be certain that there is no room for error; otherwise, not only do we risk ruining the lives of people who haven't done anything wrong, but we also risk having those laws challenged and overturned in a court of law due to how generalized they are.
From what I have read, Bells has neither said--nor implied--any such thing.See, here's the thing - people like Bells keep going on and on about "how can groping someone who doesn't want to be groped" be "accidental". It's classic reductio ad absurdum fallacy. Physical touching isn't the only thing claimed to be sexual harassment - hell, Bells pulled in "leering", yet at the same time, we are to completely ignore the intent of the "perpetrator".
Yeah, mistakes happen-though I'd venture that "mistakes" of the sort you describe are pretty damn rare. In fact, I'd even posit that more (in numbers, or as a percentage) innocent people have been executed for crimes that they did not commit, than have people been terminated from a position for a mistaken claim of sexual harassment.Well, what about someone who is sitting in a cafeteria, staring into space as he contemplates a particularly challenging issue he is working on, and just happens to be looking in the general direction of a woman who decided to wear a somewhat low-cut shirt that day, and she takes offense to it, thinking he is "leering" at her breasts? She goes to HR and files a complaint - poor guy gets called into the HR office for sexual harassment, and hasn't the foggiest idea what is going on.
A silly example? Of course it is - but stupid shit happens, and people take things both out of context and in the wrong way all the time. If we are going to make the rules and laws absolute, we have to be certain that there is no room for error; otherwise, not only do we risk ruining the lives of people who haven't done anything wrong, but we also risk having those laws challenged and overturned in a court of law due to how generalized they are.
EDIT to add: For what it is worth, when writing laws, it should be noted that for every situation you can think of in which the law may have to apply, one should account for the numerous situations that simply haven't been thought of and the weird extenuating circumstances they can bring with them.
That's not true at all. People come from different backgrounds, cultures, societies and families, and what is OK in one culture/society will often be considered harassment in another. Even keeping to one society you are going to see changes over time, and what was OK 100 years ago is not OK today.The idea that sexual harassment can somehow be an "accidental" or "unintentional" is an absurdity
She continually circulates back to it in the other thread.From what I have read, Bells has neither said--nor implied--any such thing.
Yeah, mistakes happen-though I'd venture that "mistakes" of the sort you describe are pretty damn rare. In fact, I'd even posit that more (in numbers, or as a percentage) innocent people have been executed for crimes that they did not commit, than have people been terminated from a position for a mistaken claim of sexual harassment.
Perfection and infallibility would be nice, but... you know.
That's not true at all. People come from different backgrounds, cultures, societies and families, and what is OK in one culture/society will often be considered harassment in another. Even keeping to one society you are going to see changes over time, and what was OK 100 years ago is not OK today.
That's why education to prevent sexual harassment works, and that's why it's required in so many places today. There are managers (I've met some) who honestly think that regularly complimenting a female subordinate about her hair, or her dress, or her figure, is just being polite. These people are generally not out to oppress women, or to assert their dominance over them. They are just clueless as to how their behavior is perceived..
Ignorance doesn't mitigate culpability. The perpetrator may not fully comprehend the significance or magnitude of their actions, but whatever their action, they still acted with intent.That's not true at all. People come from different backgrounds, cultures, societies and families, and what is OK in one culture/society will often be considered harassment in another. Even keeping to one society you are going to see changes over time, and what was OK 100 years ago is not OK today.
That's why education to prevent sexual harassment works, and that's why it's required in so many places today. There are managers (I've met some) who honestly think that regularly complimenting a female subordinate about her hair, or her dress, or her figure, is just being polite. These people are generally not out to oppress women, or to assert their dominance over them. They are just clueless as to how their behavior is perceived.
With sexual harassment, as with so many other things, Hanlon's Razor often applies.
Do we prefer to risk utterly destroying the lives of innocents (and potentially having the law completely defeated/overturned in court), or do we take the time to do it right.
If it is stupid, why make a hypothetical argument?See, here's the thing - people like Bells keep going on and on about "how can groping someone who doesn't want to be groped" be "accidental". It's classic reductio ad absurdum fallacy. Physical touching isn't the only thing claimed to be sexual harassment - hell, Bells pulled in "leering", yet at the same time, we are to completely ignore the intent of the "perpetrator".
Well, what about someone who is sitting in a cafeteria, staring into space as he contemplates a particularly challenging issue he is working on, and just happens to be looking in the general direction of a woman who decided to wear a somewhat low-cut shirt that day, and she takes offense to it, thinking he is "leering" at her breasts? She goes to HR and files a complaint - poor guy gets called into the HR office for sexual harassment, and hasn't the foggiest idea what is going on.
A silly example? Of course it is - but stupid shit happens, and people take things both out of context and in the wrong way all the time. If we are going to make the rules and laws absolute, we have to be certain that there is no room for error; otherwise, not only do we risk ruining the lives of people who haven't done anything wrong, but we also risk having those laws challenged and overturned in a court of law due to how generalized they are.
EDIT to add: For what it is worth, when writing laws, it should be noted that for every situation you can think of in which the law may have to apply, one should account for the numerous situations that simply haven't been thought of and the weird extenuating circumstances they can bring with them.
That's not true at all. People come from different backgrounds, cultures, societies and families, and what is OK in one culture/society will often be considered harassment in another. Even keeping to one society you are going to see changes over time, and what was OK 100 years ago is not OK today.
That's why education to prevent sexual harassment works, and that's why it's required in so many places today. There are managers (I've met some) who honestly think that regularly complimenting a female subordinate about her hair, or her dress, or her figure, is just being polite. These people are generally not out to oppress women, or to assert their dominance over them. They are just clueless as to how their behavior is perceived.
Also, consider your example. Suppose this manager does this and one day he is called out on it--either formally, by a higher-up, or informally. As far as "consequences" are concerned, what's really gonna happen to this guy? Probably pretty much nothing: he will be informed that his actions are inappropriate and that's about it. Supposing he continues to act in this manner? Then, he might get some sort of formal reprimand--or, in the most extreme of instances, he might lose his job (though highly doubtful). Or, he will learn that such behavior is inappropriate, and even threatening, and will change his ways.
Point being (also, this isn't directed towards you, specifically, as you've not talked of consequences), this talk of "ruining (people's) lives" is kind of a strawman. The guy who compliments women on their appearance constantly isn't gonna become a social pariah, he's highly unlikely to lose his job, and there won't be any legal consequences. The people whose lives are being "ruined" have repeatedly--and with much deliberation--preyed upon women (and girls (Moore) and boys (Spacey)).
And, insofar as "ruining lives" is concerned, none of those guys--the Moores, the Weinsteins, and the Spaceys--is likely to experience any legal repercussions.
Stupid mistakes don't equate to malice.If it is stupid, why make a hypothetical argument?
:EDIT:
Well, if you admit your argument was stupid from the get go, what does that say about the people wanting to agree with you?
Further, on this matter of "ruining lives":
Roy Moore, who knowingly and with much deliberation, sexually assaulted a minor and preyed upon countless others. He is going to "suffer" absolutely NO legal consequences, for a number of ridiculous reasons (statutes of limitation among them). Social consequences? He might become a Senator.
Trump, who raped his first wife, sexually assaulted at least a couple dozen women, and has likely harassed hundreds or even thousands of women--again, with knowledge and deliberation, will likely remain President for the next seven years. Or possibly, for the remainder of his lifetime. (Does anyone really believe he will willingly leave office?)
If your talking about a stupid mistake as your post, I didn't go looking for malice in it.Stupid mistakes don't equate to malice.
Yeah, I've always been rather confused by this notion of "mixed messages"--what, precisely, are people talking about here?
The idea that sexual harassment can somehow be an "accidental" or "unintentional" is an absurdity, and the instances where a person mistakes an actual accidental instance, i.e., brushing against someone in passing, are so infrequent and typically easy to parse that they're not really even worth discussing.