What about the MEN.???

[Xelasnave.1947]

I blame Hollywood.
Alex

 

[billvon]

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.

Agreed. Although around here, losing his job would NOT be very doubtful; someone who continually harasses people for any reason (based on their sex, religion, race etc) would get maybe two chances before being shown the door. However, I realize that every place isn't like San Diego.

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.

Well, but keep in mind that that's based on a technicality (statute of limitations has expired.) Were Spacey to do that to someone today, the accuser would not likely remain silent for years - and he would indeed end up in court.

 

[billvon]

I blame Hollywood.
Alex

Hollywood is merely a reflection of the rest of the US, rendered in technicolor.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Hollywood is merely a reflection of the rest of the US, rendered in technicolor.

I have, right or wrong, formed that impression.
There seems a tendency not to respect others at many levels.
Could Hollywood help change that...of course they could.
In England writers helped guide folk the a higher level of behaviour...think Charles Lamb's essay on old China...it was him I think if not I provide opportunity for correction.
I see movies that present bad behaviour as heroic.
Your are not a man unless you drive a super charged v8, settle disputes with violence and treat women as sex slaves that have no worth unless they have large breasts.
As for rapists, cut everything off...second offence shoot them with one of those big guns they love.
Cull and cull some more.
Alex

 

[Bells]

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".

Yo, troll.

I never said any such thing. I gave you every day examples of sexual harassment that women face. I never said to ignore the intent of the perpetrator. I said the behaviour was intentional.

So stop lying.

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.

Instead of relying on the every day, you keep pulling out some of these fantastic hypothetical's. At this point, I need to ask, are you simply trying to find a way where a man can just get away with it? Looking at all the unlikely scenarios? Because that would be the only explanation for your using such hypothetical's that makes sense.

Obviously we will never get it 100% perfect... but a well thought out plan would seem better than going off half cocked (after all, look at what just happened in the Senate - Their rushed tax bill just accidentally killed all corporate deductions by setting the AMT at the same level as the normal corporate tax rate. Oops!)

The people writing the laws aren't perfect, and a shoddy hack job of a law will do far more damage than it would fix.

Oh hey, change of subject. How strange and unusual.

I worked for a manager like that - forget what country he was originally from, but he complimented damn near everyone on just about anything; genuinely nice guy, always wanted to make sure his employees were happy, that sort of thing. A few employees found it highly unnerving, and one was downright afraid of him - eventually a few of us went and talked with him about it, to let him know that while he wasn't doing anything "wrong" per se, it was being taken the wrong way and that he might want to rethink his approach.

Needless to say, he was mortified to learn he had made some of his subordinates upset, and was even more upset to find out they didn't feel like they could safely tell him this themselves.

He withdrew a lot after that, and ended up leaving the company not long after; his replacement was a douchebag and resulted in most of the experienced employees jumping ship for greener pastures.

Which is why pretty much most organisations have staff training before they start working, to prevent this sort of thing.

Did you ever wonder why one was so afraid of him? Ever ask why? Or was he too nice of a guy to worry about such things?

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?

He is trying to find excuses and ways to blame the victim for apparently 'ruining the lives of good men' or something along those lines. The whole exercise and the attempts to find ways in which it is not sexual harassment, with the various hypothetical's (that yes, are stupid and so out there that it reads like a bad comedy skit) is to protect the accused. It's either that or he's trying to figure out how a guy can harass and get away with it.

 

[Bowser]

Hollywood is merely a reflection of the rest of the US, rendered in technicolor.

I stopped watching most television when I realized what it was dumping in my lap.

 

[iceaura]

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)).

That's not quite how it's been working out, so far. Compare your two examples - Moore and Spacey. Their lives are not likely to be affected equivalently, or proportionately to their respective offenses.

So far - in the initial phases of what we hope is a sea-change - the severity and frequency of the penalties seems significantly disconnected from the severity and frequency of the offenses. Greater offenses are not reliably associated with greater repercussions, lesser with lesser. And fundamentally, long term, injustice will not stand on its own - it will require arbitrary force. Existing racial disparities in prosecuting sexual assault provide cautionary examples. So does the history of prosecutions for child abuse in the US.

It's not that lots and lots of innocent men's lives will be ruined (although a few will be, of course), it's that poorly reasoned efforts will not get anyone what they want, and will do far more damage than would be necessary to get it. In the passing witchhunting phase of child molestation a few years back, part of a long overdue breakthrough in a long-neglected problem, a few innocent lives were ruined, a couple of side effects that are probably harms took hold, but also and centrally the Catholic Church was overlooked.

So about the OP:

Instead of "not all men" employed as some kind of demand for impossible perfection in the law before taking action or a disingenuous pretense of victimization, how about "male burden equivalent to female burden" as one criteria for evaluation? Right now men - guilty or "innocent" - are getting off very lightly on average, and white men even more exempt, from the burdens imposed by sexual harassment and assault. And they are running the show. So evening out the burdens - innocent men bearing burdens more nearly equivalent to those borne by innocent women - seems like a potential approach. Having the burdens borne by those in a position to do something about them seems hopeful, for starters. It was Golda Meier, iirc, who once pointed in this direction, when confronted with a proposal to deal with increasing rape rates by putting a curfew on women: put a curfew on the men, she recommended. The women already bear the risk, the men can bear the restriction.

So one recommendation for the confused and beleaguered man who cannot figure out how to avoid harassing the women in his vicinity might be to mirror their behavior. Don't initiate anything, don't do anything, you don't see from them. Discipline your behavior as they discipline theirs - same burden of courtesy and forbearance.

 

[Kittamaru]

Instead of "not all men" employed as some kind of demand for impossible perfection in the law before taking action or a disingenuous pretense of victimization, how about "male burden equivalent to female burden" as one criteria for evaluation? Right now men - guilty or "innocent" - are getting off very lightly on average, and white men even more exempt, from the burdens imposed by sexual harassment and assault. And they are running the show. So evening out the burdens - innocent men bearing burdens more nearly equivalent to those borne by innocent women - seems like a potential approach. Having the burdens borne by those in a position to do something about them seems hopeful, for starters. It was Golda Meier, iirc, who once pointed in this direction, when confronted with a proposal to deal with increasing rape rates by putting a curfew on women: put a curfew on the men, she recommended. The women already bear the risk, the men can bear the restriction.

So one recommendation for the confused and beleaguered man who cannot figure out how to avoid harassing the women in his vicinity might be to mirror their behavior. Don't initiate anything, don't do anything, you don't see from them. Discipline your behavior as they discipline theirs - same burden of courtesy and forbearance.

An interesting proposition, but it omits something that should probably be included in any sort of recommendations/legislation regarding sexual harassment (or at least needs to be kept in mind) - retaliation, especially by folks who feel the victim "deserved it". There is a perverse and deeply rooted sentiment among some of our neighbors that the victim asked for it based on what he or she wore, how they acted, what they did or didn't do, et al. "Oh, they didn't take steps to protect themselves" or "Well, if she didn't want people to look at her, why did she dress like that" and "He shouldn't wear skinny jeans if he doesn't want women to comment on his junk"... shit like that isn't as uncommon as some would like to believe. Guys, especially, find themselves put in an odd place where the guy who wants to avoid this behavior is chastised and castigated by his co-workers and supposed friends for "not being a man" and other such shit.

Think about that a moment - a guy who notices and intervenes to prevent sexual harassment in an office environment risks earning the ire of his colleagues, and can find himself isolated or even demonized by them, making his work environment all the worse. Over time, what is the likely outcome going to be? If I had to wager, he'd just keep his head down and ignore it going forward in order to avoid further problems. Not exactly a good outcome, and obviously this doesn't happen everywhere... but it happens frequently enough (on both sides of the gender spectrum) that it seems to have prevented people from intervening in what they know is wrong, for the sake of their own security.

Of course, we have anti-retaliation rules on the books for many companies... how many of them are actually followed, especially in "right to work" states? For the most part, they just can't say they fired you because of *insert protected category here*; they'll use some generic bullshit and then you have to try and prove that it was actually retaliation. Good luck - hope you have money and a good lawyer or two!

Maybe, just maybe, we should also address the societal issues that continue to promote and protect this behavior from those that would, and want, to stop it, but feel powerless to do so lest they wind up tossed out on their ass for their troubles. Lets allow the good folks in the world the chance to be good folks... after all, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

I have no doubt this will be viewed as just another "#notallmen" spiel and summarily dismissed by some... but ultimately, wouldn't it be beneficial if "good men" and "good women" were able to safely step up and stop this kind of behavior, rather than keeping quiet just to keep their jobs?

 

[James R]

Moderator note: This thread is now closed.

The opening post reads like a troll manifesto, and the member who posted it has received an official warning.

The opening post seeks to diminishing women making sexual harassment allegations. It claims that men are the true victims. It blames women for sending "mixed messages". It implies that many women are not "fair minded". It implies that women make sexual harassment allegations because they "don't like" the men, rather than because the men are harassing them. And it states that women who report sexual harassment are "feminist trouble makers".

The intent can only have been to provoke an angry reaction from some posters, while at the same time dog-whistling to misogynists.

The discussion that has ensued has largely been off the "official" topic set by the opening post, which has been a good thing. It might be possible to have a more constructively focussed thread discussing some of the same issues, but however you look at it, this one is tarnished.