RSS
The most recent YouGov poll includes a battery of questions concerning what types of behavior are perceived as constituting sexual harassment. All queried situations involve behaviors by men directed towards women who are not friends or romantic partners. They range from a man asking a woman out for a drink on the low end to a man exposing his genitals to a woman on the high end.
The following graph shows sexual harassment sensitivity scores* by various demographic characteristics. The higher the score, the more likely the group is to perceive a behavior as constituting sexual harassment:
The largest gap is partisan, followed closely by sex. Differences by age and race are modest, though non-whites and younger people (who trend more Democrat) are moderately less likely than whites and older people (who trend more Republican) to perceive behaviors indicating potential romantic interest as sexual harassment. This is in spite of the fact that Democrats are considerably more likely to judge behaviors as harassing than Republicans are.
Though cross-tabs are not available, we can reasonably deduce from this that white Democrat boomer women are the most likely of all to perceive expressions of interest as constituting sexual harassment.
Parenthetically, the gap between men and women is widest on a question that asks if “a man looking at a woman’s breasts” constitutes sexual harassment. Some 35% of women assess this behavior as “always sexual harassment”, compared to 16% of men who do the same. I suspect that something approaching 100% of heterosexual men look at breasts at some point during the course of any given day. In contemporary American society, then, around one-in-three women assume the average man they come across is a sexual harasser, at least subconsciously.
Since empirically assessing the validity (or lack thereof) of stereotypes is the blog’s raison d’etre, we’d be remiss not to point that while older women are modestly more likely than younger women to report having ever been sexually harassed, women aged 18-29 are five times more likely to report having been sexually harassed in the last five years than women aged 65 and older and twice as likely to have been sexually harassed as women aged 45-64. It seems men are more sexually aroused by young women than they are by post-menopausal matrons. It seems, too, then, that men are disgusting pigs!
* (1.5*always sexual harassment)+(0.5*usually sexual harassment)-(0.5*usually not sexual harassment)-(1.5*never sexual harassment)-20
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
There will be some cucks who fail to do so, but there are those of us who ensure that humanity’s B/H ratio (boobglance per heteromale) remains solidly above the 1pd level.
97% of boobglance scientists agree that this level is the minimum required to maintain life on Earth: the science is settled.
Bear in mind that there are a bunch of heteromales who live in backward societies where visual boobage is scarce (e.g., societies who take bad fiction seriously: Muzzies, OrthoHeebs, etc).
Single heteromales in those shitholes could go a week without seeing funbags, so we ought to try to do at least an extra couple every day. Just to be safe.
Just ask Alyssa "Don't Look at My Boobs, you Pig" Milano.
https://bestofcomicbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Alyssa-Milano-cleavages-awesome.jpg
https://bestofcomicbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Alyssa-Milano-hot-pictures-2.jpgReplies: @dfordoom, @Dissident, @nokangaroos
Ain´t science grand? :P
Ya, old bitches who thought they could ride the carousel forever are now unattractive and forgotten by the scumbag men who used them for sex ages 18-40.
It’s okay, the current crop of 18-40 somethings will end up just as dis-illusioned and used as the 40+ group. Gotta take as many dicks as possible (“Have fun”) before “marriage” AKA dying alone as a crazy cat lady.
White men who bitch about the state of the white race but then sleep around (think SilvioSilver) – look yourselves in the mirror and realize that the problem is YOU – our women are just modelling the behavior that the majority of white men desire from them. White men are always addicted to something that takes precedence over their Nation and their People. Pussy, Whiskey, Sportsball, Trucks – our high T redneck white men need to reconsider their priorities. Nothing wrong with any of the aforementioned things (in fact I like all of them) but just put them down the list a bit okay.
The data generally indicates a polarization between Asian men and women. The latter has wider appeal to outgroups, the former has less.
On many social indicators, Asians do better than whites, and Asian men are presumably better behaved than white men (and probably less promiscuous).
But it doesn't do anything to rein in their women.
Women aren't emulating, men, or alpha men for that matter. They emulate older women, or famous women.Replies: @Rosie
Lol...who has more cultural influence over a 20 year old girl, some guy of any age or Taylor Swift?
If your conscience is bothering you, Boomer, deal with it in private. Don't project your past onto everyone else.
It's not the 20th century anymore .
https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/why-todays-young-men-are-terrified-of-sex/
Just for AE: GSS data sighted.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
The Whitest of White men, the Vikings, raped their way through Europe, and I'm told, they might have been a wee bit race conscious.Replies: @Rosie
i) Cuckservatives are the anvil to the feminist hammer.
ii) White T*****ionalism is a goddess cult, which is to say, just another form of feminism.
Here’s the deal: Expressions of romantic interest constitute sexual harassment if:
1. Such expression of interest comes from a man in a position of power over the woman, such as an employer or supervisor.
2. The expression is both intended and reasonably calculated to humiliate and undermine a woman, and in fact does so. (For example, commenting on her appearance or staring at her boobs when she is trying to have a work-related discussion.)
The first one is straightforward and very straight-line. Intent is irrelevant. It is always inappropriate to come on to a subordinate. The second one is more complicated. I know it when I see it. Absent a pattern of misconduct, private and discreet expressions of romantic interest by a peer, with any refusal being scrupulously honored, should be presumed to be innocent.
Variously cited to either Henry Kissinger or Richard Nixon.Dating co-workers is a bad idea. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.Replies: @Rosie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX5G47mhM28Replies: @Rosie
I'm not disagreeing that the behaviour is inappropriate, but in a sane society people are socialised to behave decently from childhood. If that doesn't happen you can't deal with the problem by legal sanctions or firing people simply because there are no objective grounds on which to do so.Again, it's very subjective. Define precisely in legal terms what "come on to" means.Replies: @Rosie
Imagine how much more efficient and productive a workplace would be without any of those things. Think about how much money a business spends on dealing with sexual harassment incidents, investigations, lawsuits, consultants, seminars, meetings, firing, rehiring, and training. Ultimately, these costs of doing business are passed down to the consumer.
Placing men and women in the same work space imposes an impossible standard upon both. They must become androgynous and consciously and continually resist every natural inclination they have regarding the opposite sex, everyday of their working lives. What abject misery.
As long as you have both sexes in the work place, you will have what's referred to as "sexual harassment".Replies: @Jim, @Rosie
The causal factor is interesting to speculate about.
Do pre-existing liberal beliefs incline women to perceive harassment?
Or does harassment drive “soft” right-of-center women towards the left?
The GOP has become far more tolerant of male boorishness since 2010, which is helping it with working class voters (while not delivering for them). But this is having a backlash with indoctrinated middle class white women.
—
Q 66 is an acid test for “mens rights”, but with pessimistic results. 20% of Trump voters believe that “women have it easier”, the highest figure in any demographic. But an equal share said that men have it easier.
The 5% of liberals that think women have it easier, hard to say if this is just noise, gays or trans; or if it is a potential source of BernieBro/Yang defectors.
“Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac”
Variously cited to either Henry Kissinger or Richard Nixon.
Dating co-workers is a bad idea. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
https://youtu.be/PUy7EzqEP0I
But even if they did, it still wouldn't matter, because a powerless and dependent woman may not feel at liberty to refuse.
Boomer women are too old to be harassed. What would the point be?
“Hey, you t-t-t- talkin’ ’bout My g-g-g-generation?”
Are the women who are most concerned about sexual harassment the pussy hat wearers who are in zero danger of being harassed? Or is it the angry blue-haired feminists who never get harassed who are most concerned?
Is there a correlation between attractiveness and concern over this issue? It's interesting that younger age groups seem less worried about the issue even though you'd expect them to be much more thoroughly indoctrinated.
Where’s the line? Where’s the line, Rosie?
The right question: How do I steer well clear of the line so that I can be among the 99% of men who are never accused of sexual harassment.Replies: @dfordoom
It's okay, the current crop of 18-40 somethings will end up just as dis-illusioned and used as the 40+ group. Gotta take as many dicks as possible ("Have fun") before "marriage" AKA dying alone as a crazy cat lady.
White men who bitch about the state of the white race but then sleep around (think SilvioSilver) - look yourselves in the mirror and realize that the problem is YOU - our women are just modelling the behavior that the majority of white men desire from them. White men are always addicted to something that takes precedence over their Nation and their People. Pussy, Whiskey, Sportsball, Trucks - our high T redneck white men need to reconsider their priorities. Nothing wrong with any of the aforementioned things (in fact I like all of them) but just put them down the list a bit okay.Replies: @216, @anon, @Rich, @Thomm
This is the apex fallacy.
The data generally indicates a polarization between Asian men and women. The latter has wider appeal to outgroups, the former has less.
On many social indicators, Asians do better than whites, and Asian men are presumably better behaved than white men (and probably less promiscuous).
But it doesn’t do anything to rein in their women.
Women aren’t emulating, men, or alpha men for that matter. They emulate older women, or famous women.
https://contexts.org/files/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-11-at-7.41.10-PM.pngReplies: @216, @res, @LoutishAngloQuebecker, @AKAHorace
It's okay, the current crop of 18-40 somethings will end up just as dis-illusioned and used as the 40+ group. Gotta take as many dicks as possible ("Have fun") before "marriage" AKA dying alone as a crazy cat lady.
White men who bitch about the state of the white race but then sleep around (think SilvioSilver) - look yourselves in the mirror and realize that the problem is YOU - our women are just modelling the behavior that the majority of white men desire from them. White men are always addicted to something that takes precedence over their Nation and their People. Pussy, Whiskey, Sportsball, Trucks - our high T redneck white men need to reconsider their priorities. Nothing wrong with any of the aforementioned things (in fact I like all of them) but just put them down the list a bit okay.Replies: @216, @anon, @Rich, @Thomm
White men who bitch about the state of the white race but then sleep around (think SilvioSilver) – look yourselves in the mirror and realize that the problem is YOU – our women are just modelling the behavior that the majority of white men desire from them.
Lol…who has more cultural influence over a 20 year old girl, some guy of any age or Taylor Swift?
If your conscience is bothering you, Boomer, deal with it in private. Don’t project your past onto everyone else.
It’s not the 20th century anymore .
https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/why-todays-young-men-are-terrified-of-sex/
Just for AE: GSS data sighted.
Variously cited to either Henry Kissinger or Richard Nixon.Dating co-workers is a bad idea. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.Replies: @Rosie
I knew someone would go there. No, hot young women don’t want to have sex with their DOM bosses or any royal ugly dudes.
But even if they did, it still wouldn’t matter, because a powerless and dependent woman may not feel at liberty to refuse.
The data generally indicates a polarization between Asian men and women. The latter has wider appeal to outgroups, the former has less.
On many social indicators, Asians do better than whites, and Asian men are presumably better behaved than white men (and probably less promiscuous).
But it doesn't do anything to rein in their women.
Women aren't emulating, men, or alpha men for that matter. They emulate older women, or famous women.Replies: @Rosie
What are you talking about?
Wrt East Asian, your data confirms what I said.
East Asian men are apparently the least promiscuous, but their women are more promiscuous, and more promiscuous than South Asian women.Replies: @Rosie
Some relevant discussion: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/29638/nonintegral-and-not-half-integral-median
It turns out this is actually an interesting question. Apparently the official definition of a weighted median is "the 50% weighted percentile."
Discussion: https://stackoverflow.com/a/32832865
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_median
Making this even more fun, apparently there is no standard definition for weighted percentile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentile#Weighted_percentile
Rosie, I am not sure how reliable these results are. For four of five races the men claim to be having more hookups than the women. The only women who say that they are getting more sex than their men are the east asians, this is not by a large margin and there are not a lot of east asians in the states compared to blacks, whites and latinos.
Either male university students are having a lot of sex with non students or some groups or all groups are lying. Perhaps white women are unusually honest about their sexual histories, perhaps white and black men tend to boast.Replies: @Rosie, @Audacious Epigone
Are there any statistics on how many women actually enjoy having a man look at their breasts?
I had this lesbian radical feminist friend. One day when she was walking past a construction site the guys working there whistled at her and made some admiring remarks about her posterior. She was absolutely delighted. She was on Cloud Nine for the rest of the day.
Remember, the only thing worse than being ogled by men is not being ogled by men.
Pure gold.
Sounds reasonable until you actually try to define it in legal terms. Then you find that it’s so wildly subjective as to be meaningless.
I’m not disagreeing that the behaviour is inappropriate, but in a sane society people are socialised to behave decently from childhood. If that doesn’t happen you can’t deal with the problem by legal sanctions or firing people simply because there are no objective grounds on which to do so.
Again, it’s very subjective. Define precisely in legal terms what “come on to” means.
Maybe one person might be overly sensitive or got the wrong idea, but if there is a pattern of independent complaints, then there is certainly a basis for action.Replies: @res, @dfordoom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX5G47mhM28Replies: @Rosie
You’re asking the wrong question.
The right question: How do I steer well clear of the line so that I can be among the 99% of men who are never accused of sexual harassment.
And while it's possible that 99% of men are never accused of sexual harassment it's also likely that about 90% of men suffer the anxiety of knowing that they can be accused at any time of crossing that very poorly defined and totally subjective line.
And do women in the workplace have any responsibilities in this matter? Are they for example expected not to wear low-cut blouses or short skirts designed specifically to attract male attention? Is there a code of conduct for women in the workplace?Replies: @Rosie, @Daniel Williams
https://contexts.org/files/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-11-at-7.41.10-PM.pngReplies: @216, @res, @LoutishAngloQuebecker, @AKAHorace
Further information on that study would be helpful.
Wrt East Asian, your data confirms what I said.
East Asian men are apparently the least promiscuous, but their women are more promiscuous, and more promiscuous than South Asian women.
East Asians as a whole are more reserved. That is not as limited for women, because they're not usually the initiators anyway. Or, at, if they don't initiate, he will.Replies: @216, @Anon
I'm not disagreeing that the behaviour is inappropriate, but in a sane society people are socialised to behave decently from childhood. If that doesn't happen you can't deal with the problem by legal sanctions or firing people simply because there are no objective grounds on which to do so.Again, it's very subjective. Define precisely in legal terms what "come on to" means.Replies: @Rosie
Sure there are. If you are repeatedly making young women (who work just fine with other men) uncomfortable and refuse to adjust your behavior, then you’re going to be shown the door.
Again, there is no need to do this. People form all sorts of subjective impressions the reasons for which they can’t articulate. That doesn’t mean they’re not correct.
Maybe one person might be overly sensitive or got the wrong idea, but if there is a pattern of independent complaints, then there is certainly a basis for action.
What if Trump voters make me uncomfortable and refuse to adjust their behaviours by voting Democrat? I want them to be shown the door.
What if fat people make me uncomfortable and refuse to adjust their behaviours by dieting? I want them to be shown the door.
What if white people make me uncomfortable and refuse to adjust their behaviours by going extinct? I want them to be shown the door.
What if Christians make me uncomfortable and refuse to adjust their behaviours by becoming atheists? I want them to be shown the door.
There are lots of behaviours that make me personally uncomfortable. Part of learning to live in society is learning to deal with those things.Replies: @Rosie
The right question: How do I steer well clear of the line so that I can be among the 99% of men who are never accused of sexual harassment.Replies: @dfordoom
Steering well clear of the line is easier if you know where the line is, and you can be confident that it won’t suddenly get moved.
And while it’s possible that 99% of men are never accused of sexual harassment it’s also likely that about 90% of men suffer the anxiety of knowing that they can be accused at any time of crossing that very poorly defined and totally subjective line.
And do women in the workplace have any responsibilities in this matter? Are they for example expected not to wear low-cut blouses or short skirts designed specifically to attract male attention? Is there a code of conduct for women in the workplace?
Now, I'm sure some employees are fired for a single instance of sexual harassment, but I seriously doubt those are of ambiguous, plausibly-deniable sort.
Of course, one can always find travesties of justice, but that doesn't mean there is any systematic witch hunt against men going on.I don't know. That's a separate issue, and one I don't really care much about either way. Of course, revealing clothing is necessarily going to draw stares, so the threshold of what would be considered inappropriate staring is probably going to be higher in those circumstances. Either way, you still shouldn't be bringing up her sex appeal in the middle of a work-related discussion.
And by the way, I meant to refer you to this above:
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-lay-opinion-rule.html
In other words, it's perfectly fine to say: "That creep was leering at me." That doesn't mean you'll be believed without corroborating evidence, though.Replies: @216, @dfordoom
Wrt East Asian, your data confirms what I said.
East Asian men are apparently the least promiscuous, but their women are more promiscuous, and more promiscuous than South Asian women.Replies: @Rosie
So? They’re still quite a bit less promiscuous than White women. They are much closer to the level of Asian men than anyone else.
East Asians as a whole are more reserved. That is not as limited for women, because they’re not usually the initiators anyway. Or, at, if they don’t initiate, he will.
LAQ was blaming white men who sleep around as the cause of female promiscuity. That's a standard tradcon apex fallacy, ignoring that the male range is greater than the female range.
"Hey, you t-t-t- talkin' 'bout My g-g-g-generation?"Replies: @dfordoom
An interesting question – are the women who are most concerned about sexual harassment the ones most likely to attract such harassment, or the ones least likely to?
Are the women who are most concerned about sexual harassment the pussy hat wearers who are in zero danger of being harassed? Or is it the angry blue-haired feminists who never get harassed who are most concerned?
Is there a correlation between attractiveness and concern over this issue? It’s interesting that younger age groups seem less worried about the issue even though you’d expect them to be much more thoroughly indoctrinated.
And while it's possible that 99% of men are never accused of sexual harassment it's also likely that about 90% of men suffer the anxiety of knowing that they can be accused at any time of crossing that very poorly defined and totally subjective line.
And do women in the workplace have any responsibilities in this matter? Are they for example expected not to wear low-cut blouses or short skirts designed specifically to attract male attention? Is there a code of conduct for women in the workplace?Replies: @Rosie, @Daniel Williams
You seem to assume that men are being ruined out of nowhere for a single, uncorroborated sexual harassment allegation. I don’t know why you would think that. I rather suspect men are only disciplined when they are repeat offenders who have been warned their conduct is unacceptable.
Now, I’m sure some employees are fired for a single instance of sexual harassment, but I seriously doubt those are of ambiguous, plausibly-deniable sort.
Of course, one can always find travesties of justice, but that doesn’t mean there is any systematic witch hunt against men going on.
I don’t know. That’s a separate issue, and one I don’t really care much about either way. Of course, revealing clothing is necessarily going to draw stares, so the threshold of what would be considered inappropriate staring is probably going to be higher in those circumstances. Either way, you still shouldn’t be bringing up her sex appeal in the middle of a work-related discussion.
And by the way, I meant to refer you to this above:
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-lay-opinion-rule.html
In other words, it’s perfectly fine to say: “That creep was leering at me.” That doesn’t mean you’ll be believed without corroborating evidence, though.
The practice of at-will employment combined with HR harassment policies is concerning. Remember that a significant minority of our population lives paycheck-to-paycheck, and most men that get fired are liable to get divorced. So men are correct to be concerned, even if the claims are probably exaggerated.
But the things you've listed as inappropriate for men are just as hopelessly vague and subjective and impossibly to clearly define.
What sexual harassment rules amount to is trying to enforce politeness and social decorum, and trying to outlaw boorishness and social ineptitude. Now I happen to think that politeness and social decorum do matter, and I dislike boorishness and social ineptitude, but these things can't be enforced by rules because they're entirely subjective.
Even worse, they amount to trying to police perfectly normal behaviour like flirtation. If you have a workplace with men and women then those men and women are going to flirt and they're going to take a sexual and romantic interest in workers of the opposite sex. The women are going to try to attract male attention. The men are going to trying to persuade the women to date them. That's what happens when you put men and women together. Sometimes the male efforts to get women to date them will be clumsy. Sometimes the female efforts to attract male attention will be crude. Not everyone has great social skills. But you can't enforce good social skills.
Men shouldn't stare at women's boobs in the middle of a sales conference. Women shouldn't wear skirts so short that they barely cover their nether regions (as a female friend of mine used to do at work). But to make these things disciplinary offences is silly and unworkable.Replies: @Anon
East Asians as a whole are more reserved. That is not as limited for women, because they're not usually the initiators anyway. Or, at, if they don't initiate, he will.Replies: @216, @Anon
The data shows no correlation between male thirst and female behavior.
LAQ was blaming white men who sleep around as the cause of female promiscuity. That’s a standard tradcon apex fallacy, ignoring that the male range is greater than the female range.
Now, I'm sure some employees are fired for a single instance of sexual harassment, but I seriously doubt those are of ambiguous, plausibly-deniable sort.
Of course, one can always find travesties of justice, but that doesn't mean there is any systematic witch hunt against men going on.I don't know. That's a separate issue, and one I don't really care much about either way. Of course, revealing clothing is necessarily going to draw stares, so the threshold of what would be considered inappropriate staring is probably going to be higher in those circumstances. Either way, you still shouldn't be bringing up her sex appeal in the middle of a work-related discussion.
And by the way, I meant to refer you to this above:
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-lay-opinion-rule.html
In other words, it's perfectly fine to say: "That creep was leering at me." That doesn't mean you'll be believed without corroborating evidence, though.Replies: @216, @dfordoom
There’s a distinction here. Workplace HR is distinct from campus tribunals. The former is designed to minimize organizational liability, the latter is designed to advance an ideological end.
The practice of at-will employment combined with HR harassment policies is concerning. Remember that a significant minority of our population lives paycheck-to-paycheck, and most men that get fired are liable to get divorced. So men are correct to be concerned, even if the claims are probably exaggerated.
In other shocking news: Bear caught on-camera sh*tting in woods!
The legalization of human interactions has really made a mess of it.
You associate with the people you are around. I hate to say this — but context matters.
https://www.mic.com/articles/112062/the-way-most-people-meet-their-significant-others-is-not-what-you-think
but i suspect that the nexus remains
school
church
Work
I am not sure how effective the internet social arena works
The shift of women entering the workplace has forced most companies to engage policies to protect themselves from what is the natural tend of men and women — to seek out a someone to be with.
I am leg guy, large breasts don’t do that much for me. They may get my notice dependent of several variables, but at the end of the day — breasts are ok and great legs . . .
in academia and the work place i think they have timed the look one can have is ten seconds and that may be generous.
3. The man is unattractive.
Unrelated:
I spent my youth in Oxfordshire. Oxford and Banbury have a massive problem with child prostitution. This has been allowed to become a problem by liberal women. They are effectively accomplices and they number in the tens of thousands.
This woman was later promoted to head up the anti-bullying unit in Canberra.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/senior-bureaucrat-sonia-sharp-to-leave-after-public-sector-commissioner-review-20150423-1mrerl.html
Facilitating the rape of minors has no effect on their careers. The sisterhood always closes ranks.
I have seen English girls on vacation.
I have had to send students out of the class because they looked like they had come dressed for a porn shoot. No one male or female should wear trousers so low you can see their public hair.
If you don’t want to attract the wrong sort of attention, put your knockers away.
Have you seen the way some Kiwi girls behave? Like English girls ‘having fun’ they wear more make-up than clothing. They get as drunk as they can as fast as they can and then ‘chunder’ in the street.
Girls, before you behold the more in Bret Kavanaugh’s eye, behind the beam in thine own. Metoo is codswallop.
Now, I'm sure some employees are fired for a single instance of sexual harassment, but I seriously doubt those are of ambiguous, plausibly-deniable sort.
Of course, one can always find travesties of justice, but that doesn't mean there is any systematic witch hunt against men going on.I don't know. That's a separate issue, and one I don't really care much about either way. Of course, revealing clothing is necessarily going to draw stares, so the threshold of what would be considered inappropriate staring is probably going to be higher in those circumstances. Either way, you still shouldn't be bringing up her sex appeal in the middle of a work-related discussion.
And by the way, I meant to refer you to this above:
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-lay-opinion-rule.html
In other words, it's perfectly fine to say: "That creep was leering at me." That doesn't mean you'll be believed without corroborating evidence, though.Replies: @216, @dfordoom
OK, let’s put it this way. Suppose I decide that in my company female employees can be fired for inappropriate behaviour, inappropriate behaviour including dressing provocatively, lascivious talk, rudeness, general sluttiness and unladylike behaviour. I’m sure you would, quite correctly, object that these offences are hopelessly vague and subjective and impossibly to clearly define. And I’d agree with you.
But the things you’ve listed as inappropriate for men are just as hopelessly vague and subjective and impossibly to clearly define.
What sexual harassment rules amount to is trying to enforce politeness and social decorum, and trying to outlaw boorishness and social ineptitude. Now I happen to think that politeness and social decorum do matter, and I dislike boorishness and social ineptitude, but these things can’t be enforced by rules because they’re entirely subjective.
Even worse, they amount to trying to police perfectly normal behaviour like flirtation. If you have a workplace with men and women then those men and women are going to flirt and they’re going to take a sexual and romantic interest in workers of the opposite sex. The women are going to try to attract male attention. The men are going to trying to persuade the women to date them. That’s what happens when you put men and women together. Sometimes the male efforts to get women to date them will be clumsy. Sometimes the female efforts to attract male attention will be crude. Not everyone has great social skills. But you can’t enforce good social skills.
Men shouldn’t stare at women’s boobs in the middle of a sales conference. Women shouldn’t wear skirts so short that they barely cover their nether regions (as a female friend of mine used to do at work). But to make these things disciplinary offences is silly and unworkable.
Women make rules for Betas and break rules for Alphas.
East Asians as a whole are more reserved. That is not as limited for women, because they're not usually the initiators anyway. Or, at, if they don't initiate, he will.Replies: @216, @Anon
The only white men not interested in NE Asian women are those who have no experience and/or interaction with them or those who worry about the social stigma and/or fallout within their family.
I grew up in middle America with no East Asians in my elementary and middle school. There was one American-Asian girl in my large high school (she was adopted and acted totally white). It wasn’t until college I encountered Asian women, especially NE Asian women— in science/engineering classes.
I had four separate long-term relationships with white female girlfriends but in every one of them even the sex got boring (even if it felt good). And there would always be drama and fights over little shit (I’d assumed this was a normal part of M/F relationships). All of them were very hot-looking and easily ranked as 9’s to other guys (friends told me).
After many years of secret fantasizing and having dreams about being with an Asian woman, I finally decided to be bold and ignore cultural and familial norms (prejudice) and find a foreign-born NE Asian women on line.
The very first NE Asian women I met online and in person— who happened to my same age— I married. 15 years later and no complaints, no regrets, no fights, and the interracial sex never gets boring.
I would highly, highly recommend to any white guy to find a NE Asian women and marry her. You will find paradise on earth.
https://louisem.com/29880/color-thesaurus-infographic
https://contexts.org/files/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-11-at-7.41.10-PM.pngReplies: @216, @res, @LoutishAngloQuebecker, @AKAHorace
How are they consistently getting non-integral medians? You sometimes see fractions in even number samples where the median just happens to fall in the gap, but that is not common.
Some relevant discussion: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/29638/nonintegral-and-not-half-integral-median
It turns out this is actually an interesting question. Apparently the official definition of a weighted median is “the 50% weighted percentile.”
Discussion: https://stackoverflow.com/a/32832865
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_median
Making this even more fun, apparently there is no standard definition for weighted percentile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentile#Weighted_percentile
https://contexts.org/files/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-11-at-7.41.10-PM.pngReplies: @216, @res, @LoutishAngloQuebecker, @AKAHorace
Does “hookup” only refer to PIV or can it mean blowjob, make out, hands getting busy etc?
Maybe one person might be overly sensitive or got the wrong idea, but if there is a pattern of independent complaints, then there is certainly a basis for action.Replies: @res, @dfordoom
That is a lot of power to give someone. Do you expect ALL young women to use that power in a reasonable fashion? Is there any recourse in the approach you are proposing?
I have a husband who works around young women, and I have not the slightest concern about sexual harassment allegations. His colleagues have known him for decades, and noone would believe such allegations.
You seem to think that despite his exemplary track record of professionalism, he's just one rumor away from ruin. By the time you're important enough to be intimidating to young women, you're a known quantity.
Now, I will admit that it is possible that I have this entirely wrong, but if that is the case, then there's a problem with workplace disciplinary procedures, not anything intrinsic to sexual harassment as an issue. Sexual harassment should be dealt with progressively like any other disciplinary issue.
I would have no problem with men advocating for workplace due process at all. It's when you attack sexual harassment rules, as such, by claiming that they are inherently unenforceable. I don't think they are.
Certainly, for a first allegation, a man is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Women's perceptions aren't infallible, after all. If there is a second incident, some training might be in order to make sure he understands what he is doing that is being misconstrued and why. But what about the third time? Maybe that's still not enough, but I'm sure we can agree that, at some point, you've got to deal with the issue. We can argue about how much smoke is needed to determine that there is probably fire, but eventually it will come to that.Replies: @dfordoom
To quote a sports commenter:
“red-haired farting old women, the lowest peasant dregs of this country…”
Marx was right.
The fact that anyone would even discuss this topic is just playing into manifold modernist heresies. It isn’t something that exists outside of the capitalist framework.
In the state of nature, there is no sexual harassment. You take what you can get, however you can get it—by force if necessary. This is life and sex is life. Among human beings, however, there are also questions of morality to consider, of honoring the marriage vow (others’ as well as your own), of treating people as brothers and sisters in Christ, of not violating others’ property, not disturbing settled economic arrangements, etc. But morality, while ostensibly and justifiably safeguarded by the edicts of law, is essentially beyond the law. The state seeks only to regulate actions not hearts, and it punishes only the deeds not the desires of the flesh. Workplace codes of conduct, considered in this discussion to minor branches of law, can do no better in this regard than the actual public law and, due to the lack of effective means of enforcement as well as the intractable nature of the subject, invariably do considerably worse.
From the capitalist’s point of view, any sex in the workplace is undesirable because it interferes with productivity. You’re supposed to be working, not thinking about sex. But the capitalist also cannot restrain himself from throwing the maximum number of bodies—men, women, and also children if he could—into the clanking, smoke-belching machinery of his means of production. Sexual harassment policies are a side effect of this; they are the capitalist’s attempt to optimize a problem with two constraints, that of employing as many bodies as possible and of keeping those bodies productive in spite of the attractions of nature. They are, in other words, an artifact of “bourgeois perception.”
A non-bourgeois perception would simply take care of the problem at the expense of capital. If labor must be employeed in the production of capital, it should take every pain to employ only men, or to employ men and women in separate occupations or separate rooms. All talk of sexual harassment just validates the capitalist’s idea that human beings are merely interchangeable pieces of machinery that should be made to labor as efficiently as possible in his own service.
It's okay, the current crop of 18-40 somethings will end up just as dis-illusioned and used as the 40+ group. Gotta take as many dicks as possible ("Have fun") before "marriage" AKA dying alone as a crazy cat lady.
White men who bitch about the state of the white race but then sleep around (think SilvioSilver) - look yourselves in the mirror and realize that the problem is YOU - our women are just modelling the behavior that the majority of white men desire from them. White men are always addicted to something that takes precedence over their Nation and their People. Pussy, Whiskey, Sportsball, Trucks - our high T redneck white men need to reconsider their priorities. Nothing wrong with any of the aforementioned things (in fact I like all of them) but just put them down the list a bit okay.Replies: @216, @anon, @Rich, @Thomm
Yes, I suppose it would be nice if men behaved more chastely towards women, but, alas, it has never been thus. Men have, since the beginning of recorded history, pursued, while maidens were supposed to avoid. A girl’s reputation mattered, pregnancy and poverty a real possibility. A lass’s father was well within his rights to thrash anyone who acted untoward towards his daughter and most girl’s were married while still teenagers. And all of this wasn’t that long ago.
The Whitest of White men, the Vikings, raped their way through Europe, and I’m told, they might have been a wee bit race conscious.
You have, probably without knowing it, illustrated perfectly why men and women shouldn’t be in the work place together at all. Imagine a work place with no sexual harassment (a definition that has expanded exponentially over the years): no affairs, no inter-sex (as in gender) competition for attention from the other sex, no “misunderstandings,” and no unexpected pregnancies. That is the sex segregated workplace.
Imagine how much more efficient and productive a workplace would be without any of those things. Think about how much money a business spends on dealing with sexual harassment incidents, investigations, lawsuits, consultants, seminars, meetings, firing, rehiring, and training. Ultimately, these costs of doing business are passed down to the consumer.
Placing men and women in the same work space imposes an impossible standard upon both. They must become androgynous and consciously and continually resist every natural inclination they have regarding the opposite sex, everyday of their working lives. What abject misery.
As long as you have both sexes in the work place, you will have what’s referred to as “sexual harassment”.
The second method is driven by an another important evolutionary action called envy. Envy justifies any action against a competitor for favor and position. To date men and women have largely been on separate pyramids, competing on their own ways. Now with men and women on the same pyramid in the workplace where accusation alone (envy driven) can ruin a man's life there is a new day that probably won't long survive because men simply cannot compete in this environment. We will see.
People see things on TV, and they get ridiculously hysterical and paranoid about very remote possibilities.Replies: @Mike Tre
Imagine how much more efficient and productive a workplace would be without any of those things. Think about how much money a business spends on dealing with sexual harassment incidents, investigations, lawsuits, consultants, seminars, meetings, firing, rehiring, and training. Ultimately, these costs of doing business are passed down to the consumer.
Placing men and women in the same work space imposes an impossible standard upon both. They must become androgynous and consciously and continually resist every natural inclination they have regarding the opposite sex, everyday of their working lives. What abject misery.
As long as you have both sexes in the work place, you will have what's referred to as "sexual harassment".Replies: @Jim, @Rosie
I believe you are correct for an evolutionary reason. One of the most powerful of our instincts, if not the most powerful, is to group. As relatively weak animals, prehumans needed to form groups for protection. Once formed, the natural shape of groups is pyramidal, the young and weak are at the bottom of the pyramid with middling strong, intelligent, vicious, etc. nearer or at the top. There is, of course, constant jockeying for position as those on lower rungs try to replace those on higher rungs. This replacement can be done in two main ways, by competition of strength, skills, etc. or through backstabbing, whispering and various accusations of wrongdoing.
The second method is driven by an another important evolutionary action called envy. Envy justifies any action against a competitor for favor and position. To date men and women have largely been on separate pyramids, competing on their own ways. Now with men and women on the same pyramid in the workplace where accusation alone (envy driven) can ruin a man’s life there is a new day that probably won’t long survive because men simply cannot compete in this environment. We will see.
I don’t really think it’s all that much power.
I have a husband who works around young women, and I have not the slightest concern about sexual harassment allegations. His colleagues have known him for decades, and noone would believe such allegations.
You seem to think that despite his exemplary track record of professionalism, he’s just one rumor away from ruin. By the time you’re important enough to be intimidating to young women, you’re a known quantity.
Now, I will admit that it is possible that I have this entirely wrong, but if that is the case, then there’s a problem with workplace disciplinary procedures, not anything intrinsic to sexual harassment as an issue. Sexual harassment should be dealt with progressively like any other disciplinary issue.
I would have no problem with men advocating for workplace due process at all. It’s when you attack sexual harassment rules, as such, by claiming that they are inherently unenforceable. I don’t think they are.
Certainly, for a first allegation, a man is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Women’s perceptions aren’t infallible, after all. If there is a second incident, some training might be in order to make sure he understands what he is doing that is being misconstrued and why. But what about the third time? Maybe that’s still not enough, but I’m sure we can agree that, at some point, you’ve got to deal with the issue. We can argue about how much smoke is needed to determine that there is probably fire, but eventually it will come to that.
Problems of misunderstandings or "uncomfortable" feelings between men and women should be worked out by the men and women concerned.
You cannot have men and women working together without emotional entanglements, romantic dramas, sexual game-playing, dating, flirtation, office romances, sexual relationships, canoodling and all the other normal natural things that men and women do.
Because we're not units of production. We're people.
I used to work in an all-male workplace. Then it was announced that a New Dawn of Equality had arrived. Women would be working beside us. What happened? The men and women started to pair up. Dates were arranged. Romantic dramas blossomed. Work took second place to flirtation. The men and women started to have sex (not actually in the office but there was certainly some of what used to be charmingly called "heavy petting" going on in the office). Some of the men and women ended up getting married. There were outbreaks of uncontrolled giggling. Boobs got stared at. And, shockingly, there were even occasions of bottoms getting admired. And even fondled. Some of the women started to wear alarmingly short skirts.
How did the women react? With considerable enthusiasm I'm afraid to say.Replies: @Rosie
Imagine how much more efficient and productive a workplace would be without any of those things. Think about how much money a business spends on dealing with sexual harassment incidents, investigations, lawsuits, consultants, seminars, meetings, firing, rehiring, and training. Ultimately, these costs of doing business are passed down to the consumer.
Placing men and women in the same work space imposes an impossible standard upon both. They must become androgynous and consciously and continually resist every natural inclination they have regarding the opposite sex, everyday of their working lives. What abject misery.
As long as you have both sexes in the work place, you will have what's referred to as "sexual harassment".Replies: @Jim, @Rosie
And yet the vast majority of men go through their entire careers without ever sexually harassing anyone. I worked for years, and never once experienced anything that I would class as anything even remotely close to sexual harassment. (Okay, there was one time, but it was far too petty to make an issue of.)
People see things on TV, and they get ridiculously hysterical and paranoid about very remote possibilities.
The Whitest of White men, the Vikings, raped their way through Europe, and I'm told, they might have been a wee bit race conscious.Replies: @Rosie
Those days are over, and we’re not going back.
Probably not, but there have been times in history when the people have fallen into deviancy and somehow, have returned to morality. So who knows?
People see things on TV, and they get ridiculously hysterical and paranoid about very remote possibilities.Replies: @Mike Tre
“And yet the vast majority of men go through their entire careers without ever sexually harassing anyone.”
Yeah, it’s called fear of consequences. That 99% of men have been subjected to and castigated with decades of sexual harassment training in the work place. Are you saying that it’s justified to punish those 99% with constant reminders of how every man is a potential rapist due to the behavior of 1% of the male workforce? You beat people over the head their entire career and then wonder why they want nothing to do with you, or resent the hell out of you. Even so, it’s largely irrelevant to the point, but you know that.
“People see things on TV, and they get ridiculously hysterical and paranoid about very remote possibilities.”
Projection. Your pussy hat sisters are the ones hysterical and paranoid about those remote possibilities.
Looking at a woman’s breasts is flattering if you’re alpha, harassment if you’re beta. Thus it has always been, and ever shall be.
The same woman will give different answers to this question depending on how she’s primed for the question and the status of the men she’s around on a regular basis. Which is why women in tech report such high levels of harassment, despite men in tech being the least likely to make aggressive moves. Or rather, because of that, not in spite of it.
It's okay, the current crop of 18-40 somethings will end up just as dis-illusioned and used as the 40+ group. Gotta take as many dicks as possible ("Have fun") before "marriage" AKA dying alone as a crazy cat lady.
White men who bitch about the state of the white race but then sleep around (think SilvioSilver) - look yourselves in the mirror and realize that the problem is YOU - our women are just modelling the behavior that the majority of white men desire from them. White men are always addicted to something that takes precedence over their Nation and their People. Pussy, Whiskey, Sportsball, Trucks - our high T redneck white men need to reconsider their priorities. Nothing wrong with any of the aforementioned things (in fact I like all of them) but just put them down the list a bit okay.Replies: @216, @anon, @Rich, @Thomm
Cuckservative detected.
No accountability for women, it is men who made them do everything, as per the whiteknight cuckservative.
This proves that :
i) Cuckservatives are the anvil to the feminist hammer.
ii) White T*****ionalism is a goddess cult, which is to say, just another form of feminism.
Maybe one person might be overly sensitive or got the wrong idea, but if there is a pattern of independent complaints, then there is certainly a basis for action.Replies: @res, @dfordoom
“Uncomfortable” – a totally subjective judgment. You’re simply confirming my point that there are no objective grounds on which to base such sanctions.
What if Trump voters make me uncomfortable and refuse to adjust their behaviours by voting Democrat? I want them to be shown the door.
What if fat people make me uncomfortable and refuse to adjust their behaviours by dieting? I want them to be shown the door.
What if white people make me uncomfortable and refuse to adjust their behaviours by going extinct? I want them to be shown the door.
What if Christians make me uncomfortable and refuse to adjust their behaviours by becoming atheists? I want them to be shown the door.
There are lots of behaviours that make me personally uncomfortable. Part of learning to live in society is learning to deal with those things.
I fact, if a particular person is constantly causing trouble and disruption in the workplace, that is a perfectly legitimate reason to get rid of them. I'd they're so valuable that they're worth the trouble, you have to segregate them from others.
Unless you have some sort of legal disability, your employer is not required to accommodate your terrible personality. And even if you do have such a disability, they are required only to make reasonable accommodations.Offensive behavior is determined, at least in part, by community standards, so I suppose you are correct that it is somewhat subjective. The question is whether we want to live in the kind of society where it is considered normal for wealthy and powerful men to use their power to get sexual services from subordinate women, even other men's wives. Suppose your boss asks if you're into "wife swappin'"?
https://youtu.be/5sehZQ9JsBM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneurReplies: @dfordoom
The fact that anyone would even discuss this topic is just playing into manifold modernist heresies. It isn't something that exists outside of the capitalist framework.
In the state of nature, there is no sexual harassment. You take what you can get, however you can get it---by force if necessary. This is life and sex is life. Among human beings, however, there are also questions of morality to consider, of honoring the marriage vow (others' as well as your own), of treating people as brothers and sisters in Christ, of not violating others' property, not disturbing settled economic arrangements, etc. But morality, while ostensibly and justifiably safeguarded by the edicts of law, is essentially beyond the law. The state seeks only to regulate actions not hearts, and it punishes only the deeds not the desires of the flesh. Workplace codes of conduct, considered in this discussion to minor branches of law, can do no better in this regard than the actual public law and, due to the lack of effective means of enforcement as well as the intractable nature of the subject, invariably do considerably worse.
From the capitalist's point of view, any sex in the workplace is undesirable because it interferes with productivity. You're supposed to be working, not thinking about sex. But the capitalist also cannot restrain himself from throwing the maximum number of bodies---men, women, and also children if he could---into the clanking, smoke-belching machinery of his means of production. Sexual harassment policies are a side effect of this; they are the capitalist's attempt to optimize a problem with two constraints, that of employing as many bodies as possible and of keeping those bodies productive in spite of the attractions of nature. They are, in other words, an artifact of "bourgeois perception."
A non-bourgeois perception would simply take care of the problem at the expense of capital. If labor must be employeed in the production of capital, it should take every pain to employ only men, or to employ men and women in separate occupations or separate rooms. All talk of sexual harassment just validates the capitalist's idea that human beings are merely interchangeable pieces of machinery that should be made to labor as efficiently as possible in his own service.Replies: @dfordoom
That’s actually quite a good point.
And while it's possible that 99% of men are never accused of sexual harassment it's also likely that about 90% of men suffer the anxiety of knowing that they can be accused at any time of crossing that very poorly defined and totally subjective line.
And do women in the workplace have any responsibilities in this matter? Are they for example expected not to wear low-cut blouses or short skirts designed specifically to attract male attention? Is there a code of conduct for women in the workplace?Replies: @Rosie, @Daniel Williams
The late, great Lawrence Auster had an interesting take on this:
I have a husband who works around young women, and I have not the slightest concern about sexual harassment allegations. His colleagues have known him for decades, and noone would believe such allegations.
You seem to think that despite his exemplary track record of professionalism, he's just one rumor away from ruin. By the time you're important enough to be intimidating to young women, you're a known quantity.
Now, I will admit that it is possible that I have this entirely wrong, but if that is the case, then there's a problem with workplace disciplinary procedures, not anything intrinsic to sexual harassment as an issue. Sexual harassment should be dealt with progressively like any other disciplinary issue.
I would have no problem with men advocating for workplace due process at all. It's when you attack sexual harassment rules, as such, by claiming that they are inherently unenforceable. I don't think they are.
Certainly, for a first allegation, a man is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Women's perceptions aren't infallible, after all. If there is a second incident, some training might be in order to make sure he understands what he is doing that is being misconstrued and why. But what about the third time? Maybe that's still not enough, but I'm sure we can agree that, at some point, you've got to deal with the issue. We can argue about how much smoke is needed to determine that there is probably fire, but eventually it will come to that.Replies: @dfordoom
No, I’m afraid we can’t agree on that. The issue doesn’t have to be dealt with officially at all.
Problems of misunderstandings or “uncomfortable” feelings between men and women should be worked out by the men and women concerned.
You cannot have men and women working together without emotional entanglements, romantic dramas, sexual game-playing, dating, flirtation, office romances, sexual relationships, canoodling and all the other normal natural things that men and women do.
Because we’re not units of production. We’re people.
I used to work in an all-male workplace. Then it was announced that a New Dawn of Equality had arrived. Women would be working beside us. What happened? The men and women started to pair up. Dates were arranged. Romantic dramas blossomed. Work took second place to flirtation. The men and women started to have sex (not actually in the office but there was certainly some of what used to be charmingly called “heavy petting” going on in the office). Some of the men and women ended up getting married. There were outbreaks of uncontrolled giggling. Boobs got stared at. And, shockingly, there were even occasions of bottoms getting admired. And even fondled. Some of the women started to wear alarmingly short skirts.
How did the women react? With considerable enthusiasm I’m afraid to say.
In other words, you cannot be reasoned with.One of the most important points that Elizabeth Warren made in Two-income Trap was that homemakers could go into the workforce and earn money if her husband was unemployed. Would you want your wife to have to deal with lewdness in the workplace if you ever had to deal with a situation like that?The manosphere is always stumping for the interests of rich old men.Replies: @dfordoom
I have no interest in NE Asian women after seven years there and I speak Japanese. I am married to a white Kiwi. And I did not even need to buy her with the promise of a passport. I wonder what the women thought of the quality of the sex.
The idea that NE Asian women can’t be bitchy means YOU have very limited experience with them.
“Those days are over, and we’re not going back.”
We haven’t left and despite the hoopla . . . it’s not going away.
Intelligent Dasein:
“Questions of morality” only apply to Christians, then?
I agree, Gentlemen; let’s kill “white” once and forever and replace it, permanently, and everywhere with “parchment-ness:”
https://louisem.com/29880/color-thesaurus-infographic
97% of boobglance scientists agree that this level is the minimum required to maintain life on Earth: the science is settled.
Bear in mind that there are a bunch of heteromales who live in backward societies where visual boobage is scarce (e.g., societies who take bad fiction seriously: Muzzies, OrthoHeebs, etc).
Single heteromales in those shitholes could go a week without seeing funbags, so we ought to try to do at least an extra couple every day. Just to be safe.Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @nokangaroos
We must #believeallwomen when they claim they feel harassed by the male gaze.
Just ask Alyssa “Don’t Look at My Boobs, you Pig” Milano.
(except for BB having her neigh(heh)bor´s donkey castrated for molesting hers :D )
But the things you've listed as inappropriate for men are just as hopelessly vague and subjective and impossibly to clearly define.
What sexual harassment rules amount to is trying to enforce politeness and social decorum, and trying to outlaw boorishness and social ineptitude. Now I happen to think that politeness and social decorum do matter, and I dislike boorishness and social ineptitude, but these things can't be enforced by rules because they're entirely subjective.
Even worse, they amount to trying to police perfectly normal behaviour like flirtation. If you have a workplace with men and women then those men and women are going to flirt and they're going to take a sexual and romantic interest in workers of the opposite sex. The women are going to try to attract male attention. The men are going to trying to persuade the women to date them. That's what happens when you put men and women together. Sometimes the male efforts to get women to date them will be clumsy. Sometimes the female efforts to attract male attention will be crude. Not everyone has great social skills. But you can't enforce good social skills.
Men shouldn't stare at women's boobs in the middle of a sales conference. Women shouldn't wear skirts so short that they barely cover their nether regions (as a female friend of mine used to do at work). But to make these things disciplinary offences is silly and unworkable.Replies: @Anon
Perhaps some of these offenders secretly want to be disciplined. Maybe a spanking for being a naughty girl. I mean, I don’t recommend that as an official HR policy. But, I’m just sayin’, you never know.
Just ask Alyssa "Don't Look at My Boobs, you Pig" Milano.
https://bestofcomicbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Alyssa-Milano-cleavages-awesome.jpg
https://bestofcomicbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Alyssa-Milano-hot-pictures-2.jpgReplies: @dfordoom, @Dissident, @nokangaroos
In that second picture she’s clearly in the middle of filing a sexual harassment complaint. She’s saying. “And then he looked at my boobs. And here they are.”
The other day I met a young guy who had gone out of his way to help me with something in the lobby of his workplace and in thanking him I said, “If there’s anything I can do for you, just ask,” and he responded without really thinking, “Oh, just send nudes.”
But as soon as he had uttered the words, he looked quite stricken, realizing what a ghastly blunder he had made. But I knew that’s simply a common phrase these days that doesn’t really mean anything, so I just smiled and said, “Sure, I’ll send you some lit ones!” with, of course, no intention of actually doing so. We were merely exchanging verbal Styrofoam. He looked relieved and smiled back at me.
But, as I got up to go, I saw an older women who looked somewhat like an angry toad scowling at us. I resisted the urge to stick my tongue out at her.
I think all this sexual harassment business will be worked out by this generation or the next fairly naturally, as younger individuals mock and laugh at, or simply ignore, the outrage binges of older generations. People get tired of being browbeaten and intimidated over nothing.
The other morning, I bought some coffee from a kiosk, and as he handed me my cup the young man working there said that he hoped my day would be as fine as my ass. No man over 40, maybe over 30, would likely risk saying something that. But in my experience, the younger the man, the less he cares about being politically correct. Maybe he figures society doesn’t want him to have much of a future anyway, so to hell with society and its taboos. I know there are still plenty of young guys who wouldn’t dare say something like that to a woman but, at least in my interactions with them, I see signs that political correctness is beginning to show some cracks.
Of course there's also flirtation that might lead to something. But it doesn't have to, and it doesn't have to be intended to.
It's normal human behaviour. My generation used to do it all the time. I'm surprised that anyone under 40 would dare to do so.
Of course the important question we all want answered is - did you think he was kinda cute? I'm not having a go at you, but it is an issue. Feminists are fond of claiming that men get everything they want. In actual fact people who are cute, male or female, tend to get everything they want. The non-cute don't. Unless the guy is rich, which cancels out non-cuteness. Like I said, I'm not having a go at you. It's normal to prefer getting some kind of attention from someone who is cute.Replies: @Anonymous, @Audacious Epigone
There is actually a lot to unpack from this pity comment.
Sexual harassment is different from other crimes. In other crimes, like say killing for example, there is something inherent to the very act itself that warrants a response. If a person was killed in self defence, it isn’t murder. If someone was killed by a drunk driver, again not murder. The very act of taking human life warrants a response to determine intent and other circumstances.
I could say the same for arson and/or vandalism. If a building was slated to be torn down (so that another could be constructed in its place), then it isn’t vandalism. Eitherway, the very act of destruction triggers a response to determine surrounding circumstances, which are usually quite easy to determine. Regardless of whether the victim chooses to press charges, it is easy to determine when vandalism or destruction has occurred.
Theft – easy to determine circumstances as it is very simple nowadays to prove ownership and whether something was taken with the consent of the owner or not. Regardless of whether the victim chooses to press charges, it is easy to determine when theft has occurred.
Sexual harassment – the act in question is flirting. There is nothing inherently wrong with flirting and certainly nobody gets hurt or suffers any material loss of any kind. The only way to determine if wrongdoing has taken place depends solely on the victim. Since intent is in the eye of the beholder, a woman is free to hurl all and any kinds of accusations with serious consequences for the accused. Since attractive men get a free pass for flirting around the office, one can only conclude that the purpose of sexual harassment is sexual zoning – ie giving alphas a free pass while betas remain dutifully invisible. That is the ideal world for women – one where alphas are freely accessible to women while betas only become available if something breaks down or needs repairing. Then they are supposed to be invisible again.
Having been sexually harassed in school, there most certainly is concrete harm. It makes you dread going to school and incapable of learning once you're there. It was considered normal then. Fortunately, it's not anymore.
School is different, because you actually can segregate children without limiting them. That is not so in the adult workforce. Of course, noone here cares. Draconian, and certain, injustices against women are considered a fair price to pay for mens' convenience and securityReplies: @dfordoom
Maybe guys in the office should be issued with armbands identifying them as dorks or hot guys, so everyone knows which guys are allowed to flirt and which guys aren't. It would save a lot of confusion. And rich guys would be issued with armbands identifying them as rich so everyone understands that even if they're dorky they have special dispensation to flirt.
Just ask Alyssa "Don't Look at My Boobs, you Pig" Milano.
https://bestofcomicbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Alyssa-Milano-cleavages-awesome.jpg
https://bestofcomicbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Alyssa-Milano-hot-pictures-2.jpgReplies: @dfordoom, @Dissident, @nokangaroos
It would be courteous, if posting such risque images, to at least hide them behind a “MORE” tag with an appropriate warning.
The cartoon contains truth.
Women make rules for Betas and break rules for Alphas.
97% of boobglance scientists agree that this level is the minimum required to maintain life on Earth: the science is settled.
Bear in mind that there are a bunch of heteromales who live in backward societies where visual boobage is scarce (e.g., societies who take bad fiction seriously: Muzzies, OrthoHeebs, etc).
Single heteromales in those shitholes could go a week without seeing funbags, so we ought to try to do at least an extra couple every day. Just to be safe.Replies: @Hypnotoad666, @nokangaroos
That said boobglancedeprived societies have the highest reproduction rates somewhat nixes your point, don´t it.
Ain´t science grand? 😛
Just ask Alyssa "Don't Look at My Boobs, you Pig" Milano.
https://bestofcomicbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Alyssa-Milano-cleavages-awesome.jpg
https://bestofcomicbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Alyssa-Milano-hot-pictures-2.jpgReplies: @dfordoom, @Dissident, @nokangaroos
Romy Schneider and Brigitte Bardot also grossly overcompensated for having been cute once, but at least they did it in style
(except for BB having her neigh(heh)bor´s donkey castrated for molesting hers 😀 )
What if Trump voters make me uncomfortable and refuse to adjust their behaviours by voting Democrat? I want them to be shown the door.
What if fat people make me uncomfortable and refuse to adjust their behaviours by dieting? I want them to be shown the door.
What if white people make me uncomfortable and refuse to adjust their behaviours by going extinct? I want them to be shown the door.
What if Christians make me uncomfortable and refuse to adjust their behaviours by becoming atheists? I want them to be shown the door.
There are lots of behaviours that make me personally uncomfortable. Part of learning to live in society is learning to deal with those things.Replies: @Rosie
Are you American, because you seem to have a European concept of the employment relationship, not that that’s a bad thing.
I fact, if a particular person is constantly causing trouble and disruption in the workplace, that is a perfectly legitimate reason to get rid of them. I’d they’re so valuable that they’re worth the trouble, you have to segregate them from others.
Unless you have some sort of legal disability, your employer is not required to accommodate your terrible personality. And even if you do have such a disability, they are required only to make reasonable accommodations.
Offensive behavior is determined, at least in part, by community standards, so I suppose you are correct that it is somewhat subjective. The question is whether we want to live in the kind of society where it is considered normal for wealthy and powerful men to use their power to get sexual services from subordinate women, even other men’s wives. Suppose your boss asks if you’re into “wife swappin’”?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur
You're digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole by trying to buttress your argument with increasingly vague totally subjective terms. You haven't come up with a single objective measure of this supposed offence. The conclusion has to be that this offence doesn't actually exist. If it's not definable and it's not measurable then in terms of determining a person's legal position or employment status it doesn't exist.
By the way, "appropriate" is also a meaningless entirely subjective term.
I can decide that voting for Trump is "inappropriate" - can I fire someone for being a Trump voter? I can decide that publicly proclaiming one's faith in Jesus is "inappropriate" - can I fire someone for that? I can decide that being irritating is "inappropriate" - can I fire someone for being irritating?Those first two offences are actually less subjective than sexual harassment.
And what if I decide that being a feminist is "inappropriate" - can I have that person fired?Replies: @Rosie
Problems of misunderstandings or "uncomfortable" feelings between men and women should be worked out by the men and women concerned.
You cannot have men and women working together without emotional entanglements, romantic dramas, sexual game-playing, dating, flirtation, office romances, sexual relationships, canoodling and all the other normal natural things that men and women do.
Because we're not units of production. We're people.
I used to work in an all-male workplace. Then it was announced that a New Dawn of Equality had arrived. Women would be working beside us. What happened? The men and women started to pair up. Dates were arranged. Romantic dramas blossomed. Work took second place to flirtation. The men and women started to have sex (not actually in the office but there was certainly some of what used to be charmingly called "heavy petting" going on in the office). Some of the men and women ended up getting married. There were outbreaks of uncontrolled giggling. Boobs got stared at. And, shockingly, there were even occasions of bottoms getting admired. And even fondled. Some of the women started to wear alarmingly short skirts.
How did the women react? With considerable enthusiasm I'm afraid to say.Replies: @Rosie
It’s easy to see from this remark as well as this entire thread, that empathy is at least as important as reason.
Without empathy, you can be rational, but you cannot be reasonable. Without a share of power, people feel threatened and vulnerable. Your response is to insist that men should have all the power so they don’t have to cope with anxiety. You are willing even to go so far as total exclusion of women to prevent even the slightest inconvenience to men, because you don’t consider women’s interests to be legitimate, or at the very least, not as important as men’s, so naturally, you’re not interested in seeking a balanced compromise. You are dug into an extreme, absolutist position.
In other words, you cannot be reasoned with.
One of the most important points that Elizabeth Warren made in Two-income Trap was that homemakers could go into the workforce and earn money if her husband was unemployed. Would you want your wife to have to deal with lewdness in the workplace if you ever had to deal with a situation like that?
The manosphere is always stumping for the interests of rich old men.
I think mixed workplaces are fine, as long as you don't have the Volunteer Auxiliary Thought Police trying to regulate every interaction within that workplace. If you're going to work in a mixed-sex workplace you have to learn to deal with the opposite sex.If you believe I fall into that category then you clearly haven't read many of my comments. I'm a socialist. I favour taking the wealth and power away from rich old men.
And I certainly don't belong to the manosphere.Replies: @Liberty Mike, @Rosie
I can only assume that anyone who actually thinks this has a very cynical view of women. The assump6is that weare petty, vindictive, and histrionic tattle tales who like to make trouble for others over nothing.
Having been sexually harassed in school, there most certainly is concrete harm. It makes you dread going to school and incapable of learning once you’re there. It was considered normal then. Fortunately, it’s not anymore.
School is different, because you actually can segregate children without limiting them. That is not so in the adult workforce. Of course, noone here cares. Draconian, and certain, injustices against women are considered a fair price to pay for mens’ convenience and security
https://contexts.org/files/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-11-at-7.41.10-PM.pngReplies: @216, @res, @LoutishAngloQuebecker, @AKAHorace
Rosie, I am not sure how reliable these results are. For four of five races the men claim to be having more hookups than the women. The only women who say that they are getting more sex than their men are the east asians, this is not by a large margin and there are not a lot of east asians in the states compared to blacks, whites and latinos.
Either male university students are having a lot of sex with non students or some groups or all groups are lying. Perhaps white women are unusually honest about their sexual histories, perhaps white and black men tend to boast.
The college scene is unique, though, in that it is approaching a 40%M/6o%F split. The white male and female hookup numbers are actually pretty reasonable given this reality.
But as soon as he had uttered the words, he looked quite stricken, realizing what a ghastly blunder he had made. But I knew that's simply a common phrase these days that doesn't really mean anything, so I just smiled and said, "Sure, I'll send you some lit ones!" with, of course, no intention of actually doing so. We were merely exchanging verbal Styrofoam. He looked relieved and smiled back at me.
But, as I got up to go, I saw an older women who looked somewhat like an angry toad scowling at us. I resisted the urge to stick my tongue out at her.
I think all this sexual harassment business will be worked out by this generation or the next fairly naturally, as younger individuals mock and laugh at, or simply ignore, the outrage binges of older generations. People get tired of being browbeaten and intimidated over nothing.
The other morning, I bought some coffee from a kiosk, and as he handed me my cup the young man working there said that he hoped my day would be as fine as my ass. No man over 40, maybe over 30, would likely risk saying something that. But in my experience, the younger the man, the less he cares about being politically correct. Maybe he figures society doesn't want him to have much of a future anyway, so to hell with society and its taboos. I know there are still plenty of young guys who wouldn't dare say something like that to a woman but, at least in my interactions with them, I see signs that political correctness is beginning to show some cracks.Replies: @dfordoom
It’s called flirtation. Flirtation can occur between a man and a woman who both know that it is absolutely certainly not going to lead to anything. They flirt for the sheer pleasure of it. It’s one of life’s harmless pleasures.
Of course there’s also flirtation that might lead to something. But it doesn’t have to, and it doesn’t have to be intended to.
It’s normal human behaviour. My generation used to do it all the time. I’m surprised that anyone under 40 would dare to do so.
Of course the important question we all want answered is – did you think he was kinda cute? I’m not having a go at you, but it is an issue. Feminists are fond of claiming that men get everything they want. In actual fact people who are cute, male or female, tend to get everything they want. The non-cute don’t. Unless the guy is rich, which cancels out non-cuteness. Like I said, I’m not having a go at you. It’s normal to prefer getting some kind of attention from someone who is cute.
The coffee guy I mentioned was definitely flirting with me and I enjoyed it and should I happen by his kiosk again, I'll stop and have another coffee, maybe drop a sugar packet on the floor and bend over to pick it up to prolong the fun. But he's not my type either.
Personally, I am not interested in cuteness in a male (actually, it repels me), or even money, as long as he is not a jobless bum. I like rugged, masculine guys with rugged masculine interests and jobs. The aroma of fresh testosterone makes me giddy. Marine 0311s definitely get my attention and an 0372.... None of those guys are cute and none of them have much money, but they are my type.
I guess I'm kind of like the girl described in the old Bowling for Soup song "She's the Girl All the Bad Guys Want" (except that I love my dad!). I've always been tongue-lashed by frumps and scolds, control freaks and religious nut jobs because I like men, enjoy their attention and am not offended by them just being men.
Like I care.
https://youtu.be/qT9S7VpxTR0
Yep.
Maybe guys in the office should be issued with armbands identifying them as dorks or hot guys, so everyone knows which guys are allowed to flirt and which guys aren’t. It would save a lot of confusion. And rich guys would be issued with armbands identifying them as rich so everyone understands that even if they’re dorky they have special dispensation to flirt.
I fact, if a particular person is constantly causing trouble and disruption in the workplace, that is a perfectly legitimate reason to get rid of them. I'd they're so valuable that they're worth the trouble, you have to segregate them from others.
Unless you have some sort of legal disability, your employer is not required to accommodate your terrible personality. And even if you do have such a disability, they are required only to make reasonable accommodations.Offensive behavior is determined, at least in part, by community standards, so I suppose you are correct that it is somewhat subjective. The question is whether we want to live in the kind of society where it is considered normal for wealthy and powerful men to use their power to get sexual services from subordinate women, even other men's wives. Suppose your boss asks if you're into "wife swappin'"?
https://youtu.be/5sehZQ9JsBM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneurReplies: @dfordoom
“Community standards” is another entirely meaningless term. In practice it means whatever those with the power in a particular place decide it means at a particular time.
You’re digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole by trying to buttress your argument with increasingly vague totally subjective terms. You haven’t come up with a single objective measure of this supposed offence. The conclusion has to be that this offence doesn’t actually exist. If it’s not definable and it’s not measurable then in terms of determining a person’s legal position or employment status it doesn’t exist.
By the way, “appropriate” is also a meaningless entirely subjective term.
I can decide that voting for Trump is “inappropriate” – can I fire someone for being a Trump voter? I can decide that publicly proclaiming one’s faith in Jesus is “inappropriate” – can I fire someone for that? I can decide that being irritating is “inappropriate” – can I fire someone for being irritating?Those first two offences are actually less subjective than sexual harassment.
And what if I decide that being a feminist is “inappropriate” – can I have that person fired?
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/reasonableperson.aspx
The reasonable person standard was not invented for sexual harassment allegations. It is a long-standing concept in numerous areas of the law.
Here it is in connection with Miranda rights. When are you "in custody"? You are in custody when a reasonable person, considering the totality of the circumstances, would believe they are not free to leave.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/miranda-the-meaning-custodial-interrogation.html
You are out of your depth on your issue.Replies: @Rosie
Rosie, I am not sure how reliable these results are. For four of five races the men claim to be having more hookups than the women. The only women who say that they are getting more sex than their men are the east asians, this is not by a large margin and there are not a lot of east asians in the states compared to blacks, whites and latinos.
Either male university students are having a lot of sex with non students or some groups or all groups are lying. Perhaps white women are unusually honest about their sexual histories, perhaps white and black men tend to boast.Replies: @Rosie, @Audacious Epigone
If you notice, the figures are median, not mean, which suggests the possibility of a small number of women getting around. Just a speculation.
You're digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole by trying to buttress your argument with increasingly vague totally subjective terms. You haven't come up with a single objective measure of this supposed offence. The conclusion has to be that this offence doesn't actually exist. If it's not definable and it's not measurable then in terms of determining a person's legal position or employment status it doesn't exist.
By the way, "appropriate" is also a meaningless entirely subjective term.
I can decide that voting for Trump is "inappropriate" - can I fire someone for being a Trump voter? I can decide that publicly proclaiming one's faith in Jesus is "inappropriate" - can I fire someone for that? I can decide that being irritating is "inappropriate" - can I fire someone for being irritating?Those first two offences are actually less subjective than sexual harassment.
And what if I decide that being a feminist is "inappropriate" - can I have that person fired?Replies: @Rosie
Groans.
Sorry, but there is no need for any subjective standard of the sort you demand. The question is not whether a person did X, Y, or Z. The question is whether whatever they did do would be offensive to “a reasonable person.”
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/reasonableperson.aspx
The reasonable person standard was not invented for sexual harassment allegations. It is a long-standing concept in numerous areas of the law.
Here it is in connection with Miranda rights. When are you “in custody”? You are in custody when a reasonable person, considering the totality of the circumstances, would believe they are not free to leave.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/miranda-the-meaning-custodial-interrogation.html
You are out of your depth on your issue.
The strength of this standard is precisely its flexibility. Demands for objective criteria in the context of custodial interrogations would amount to a demand to tell police officers how to circumvent Miranda. "If I don't do X, Y, or Z, and it's not technically a custodial interrogation, so I don't have to inform the suspect of his rights." The same applies to sexual harassment.What you have to understand about sexual harassment law is that it is designed to prevent discrimination as well as forced prostitution. The right to nondisciminatory hiring would be meaningless if territorial men were allowed to simply bully women out of the workplace by making their lives miserable. Hence, the requirement that sexual harassment be sufficiently "severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment" to the victim's detriment.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/reasonableperson.aspx
The reasonable person standard was not invented for sexual harassment allegations. It is a long-standing concept in numerous areas of the law.
Here it is in connection with Miranda rights. When are you "in custody"? You are in custody when a reasonable person, considering the totality of the circumstances, would believe they are not free to leave.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/miranda-the-meaning-custodial-interrogation.html
You are out of your depth on your issue.Replies: @Rosie
For some reason, I can’t edit this post. The link above doesn’t work.
Here is more on the reasonable person standard.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/in-search-of-the-reasonable-person-87787/
The strength of this standard is precisely its flexibility. Demands for objective criteria in the context of custodial interrogations would amount to a demand to tell police officers how to circumvent Miranda. “If I don’t do X, Y, or Z, and it’s not technically a custodial interrogation, so I don’t have to inform the suspect of his rights.” The same applies to sexual harassment.
What you have to understand about sexual harassment law is that it is designed to prevent discrimination as well as forced prostitution. The right to nondisciminatory hiring would be meaningless if territorial men were allowed to simply bully women out of the workplace by making their lives miserable. Hence, the requirement that sexual harassment be sufficiently “severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment” to the victim’s detriment.
In other words, you cannot be reasoned with.One of the most important points that Elizabeth Warren made in Two-income Trap was that homemakers could go into the workforce and earn money if her husband was unemployed. Would you want your wife to have to deal with lewdness in the workplace if you ever had to deal with a situation like that?The manosphere is always stumping for the interests of rich old men.Replies: @dfordoom
No, I’m not. But you seem to be happy with a situation whereby men can be fired for causing the slightest inconvenience to women.
I think mixed workplaces are fine, as long as you don’t have the Volunteer Auxiliary Thought Police trying to regulate every interaction within that workplace. If you’re going to work in a mixed-sex workplace you have to learn to deal with the opposite sex.
If you believe I fall into that category then you clearly haven’t read many of my comments. I’m a socialist. I favour taking the wealth and power away from rich old men.
And I certainly don’t belong to the manosphere.
Underpinning the entire sexual harassment regime is the proposition that the state is better able to arbitrate and resolve gender-related workplace brouhahas. In turn, therefore, the means of resolving such disputes must be appropriated by the state, and forced upon private actors.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for the entrepreneur who must retain employment counsel, sexual harassment investigators, and sexual harassment consultants all of whom add nothing to the bottom-line as they do not make or produce anything of value.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for those individuals who will not be employed by a small company because the latter has to devote capital to complying with the sexual harassment regime.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for all those who would have benefitted from the improvements made to a product the capital for which was not invested as the same was consumed by the cost of complying with the sexual harassment regime.
Sexual harassment is the proverbial tempest in a teapot - a socialist's wet dream of finding and imposing solutions to a non-existent problem.Replies: @I'm Tyrone, @dfordoom, @Rosie
Now, I clearly stated that I believe men are entitled to fair procedures, but sexual harassment law is not about "inconvenience" or "flirting."Then quit parroting their nonsense.Replies: @res
Of course there's also flirtation that might lead to something. But it doesn't have to, and it doesn't have to be intended to.
It's normal human behaviour. My generation used to do it all the time. I'm surprised that anyone under 40 would dare to do so.
Of course the important question we all want answered is - did you think he was kinda cute? I'm not having a go at you, but it is an issue. Feminists are fond of claiming that men get everything they want. In actual fact people who are cute, male or female, tend to get everything they want. The non-cute don't. Unless the guy is rich, which cancels out non-cuteness. Like I said, I'm not having a go at you. It's normal to prefer getting some kind of attention from someone who is cute.Replies: @Anonymous, @Audacious Epigone
No, he wasn’t flirting with me. He just made a mistake, a potentially career-ending one in today’s anti-male environment, and I tried to reassure him that he needn’t worry. The biddy observing us probably thought we were flirting, though.
Yeah, there seems to be an age window roughly 20 to 40, where office-worker type men, worker bees, cubicle drones…that sort… have been cowed into asexual behavior. But I notice more and more younger guys just don’t GAF.
I didn’t really notice, I had other things on my mind at the time.
I don’t know what that means.
If you are asking if I was attracted to him, the answer is no. He was in the normal range physically, not fat, ugly, disagreeable, etc. Just a regular nice guy. But he wasn’t my type, so it would have never crossed my mind to flirt with him, and if he had actually flirted with me, I wouldn’t have shot him down, but enjoyed the banter even though it wasn’t going to go anywhere.
The coffee guy I mentioned was definitely flirting with me and I enjoyed it and should I happen by his kiosk again, I’ll stop and have another coffee, maybe drop a sugar packet on the floor and bend over to pick it up to prolong the fun. But he’s not my type either.
Personally, I am not interested in cuteness in a male (actually, it repels me), or even money, as long as he is not a jobless bum. I like rugged, masculine guys with rugged masculine interests and jobs. The aroma of fresh testosterone makes me giddy. Marine 0311s definitely get my attention and an 0372…. None of those guys are cute and none of them have much money, but they are my type.
I guess I’m kind of like the girl described in the old Bowling for Soup song “She’s the Girl All the Bad Guys Want” (except that I love my dad!). I’ve always been tongue-lashed by frumps and scolds, control freaks and religious nut jobs because I like men, enjoy their attention and am not offended by them just being men.
Like I care.
Having been sexually harassed in school, there most certainly is concrete harm. It makes you dread going to school and incapable of learning once you're there. It was considered normal then. Fortunately, it's not anymore.
School is different, because you actually can segregate children without limiting them. That is not so in the adult workforce. Of course, noone here cares. Draconian, and certain, injustices against women are considered a fair price to pay for mens' convenience and securityReplies: @dfordoom
Women need to stop complaining all the time and learn to deal with things like adults. Women need to decide if they want to be treated like children, with Daddy or Teacher watching over them every minute of the day, or if they want to be treated like grown-ups.
I think mixed workplaces are fine, as long as you don't have the Volunteer Auxiliary Thought Police trying to regulate every interaction within that workplace. If you're going to work in a mixed-sex workplace you have to learn to deal with the opposite sex.If you believe I fall into that category then you clearly haven't read many of my comments. I'm a socialist. I favour taking the wealth and power away from rich old men.
And I certainly don't belong to the manosphere.Replies: @Liberty Mike, @Rosie
The sexual harassment regime is itself a socialist construct.
Underpinning the entire sexual harassment regime is the proposition that the state is better able to arbitrate and resolve gender-related workplace brouhahas. In turn, therefore, the means of resolving such disputes must be appropriated by the state, and forced upon private actors.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for the entrepreneur who must retain employment counsel, sexual harassment investigators, and sexual harassment consultants all of whom add nothing to the bottom-line as they do not make or produce anything of value.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for those individuals who will not be employed by a small company because the latter has to devote capital to complying with the sexual harassment regime.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for all those who would have benefitted from the improvements made to a product the capital for which was not invested as the same was consumed by the cost of complying with the sexual harassment regime.
Sexual harassment is the proverbial tempest in a teapot – a socialist’s wet dream of finding and imposing solutions to a non-existent problem.
Just take a look at female programmers for example. Studies (brain scans) show that women have poorer abstract thinking than men (although the same studies also show that women are better multi taskers). This would explain why women generally suck at STEM. To push women into fields like programming there would have to be massive effort that begins in school. Extra school programs, affirmative action at universities, affirmative action in HR etc... Oxford even started giving female students an extra 15 minutes to complete their papers (https://nypost.com/2018/01/23/oxford-university-let-women-take-more-time-on-math-tests/). All of this effort and resources could be spared by simply just hiring men. I'm not saying that talented women should be barred from male domains, only that feminist stupidity pertaining to equal outcomes should be resisted. That's what India and China are doing.
The West otoh, over saturated with resources, can spare some of those resources in indulging women's penis envy and other follies.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Feminism was pushed right from the start by the corporate sector as a way to weaken the Left, and to keep the populace divided.
https://www.history.com/news/sexual-exploitation-was-the-norm-for-19th-century-ballerinasReplies: @res
Underpinning the entire sexual harassment regime is the proposition that the state is better able to arbitrate and resolve gender-related workplace brouhahas. In turn, therefore, the means of resolving such disputes must be appropriated by the state, and forced upon private actors.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for the entrepreneur who must retain employment counsel, sexual harassment investigators, and sexual harassment consultants all of whom add nothing to the bottom-line as they do not make or produce anything of value.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for those individuals who will not be employed by a small company because the latter has to devote capital to complying with the sexual harassment regime.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for all those who would have benefitted from the improvements made to a product the capital for which was not invested as the same was consumed by the cost of complying with the sexual harassment regime.
Sexual harassment is the proverbial tempest in a teapot - a socialist's wet dream of finding and imposing solutions to a non-existent problem.Replies: @I'm Tyrone, @dfordoom, @Rosie
I was wondering when someone would bring this point up – the cost of feminist stupidity. The reason why many feminist policies endure in the west is because feminism is the type of virus that affects affluent countries.
Just take a look at female programmers for example. Studies (brain scans) show that women have poorer abstract thinking than men (although the same studies also show that women are better multi taskers). This would explain why women generally suck at STEM. To push women into fields like programming there would have to be massive effort that begins in school. Extra school programs, affirmative action at universities, affirmative action in HR etc… Oxford even started giving female students an extra 15 minutes to complete their papers (https://nypost.com/2018/01/23/oxford-university-let-women-take-more-time-on-math-tests/). All of this effort and resources could be spared by simply just hiring men. I’m not saying that talented women should be barred from male domains, only that feminist stupidity pertaining to equal outcomes should be resisted. That’s what India and China are doing.
The West otoh, over saturated with resources, can spare some of those resources in indulging women’s penis envy and other follies.
Underpinning the entire sexual harassment regime is the proposition that the state is better able to arbitrate and resolve gender-related workplace brouhahas. In turn, therefore, the means of resolving such disputes must be appropriated by the state, and forced upon private actors.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for the entrepreneur who must retain employment counsel, sexual harassment investigators, and sexual harassment consultants all of whom add nothing to the bottom-line as they do not make or produce anything of value.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for those individuals who will not be employed by a small company because the latter has to devote capital to complying with the sexual harassment regime.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for all those who would have benefitted from the improvements made to a product the capital for which was not invested as the same was consumed by the cost of complying with the sexual harassment regime.
Sexual harassment is the proverbial tempest in a teapot - a socialist's wet dream of finding and imposing solutions to a non-existent problem.Replies: @I'm Tyrone, @dfordoom, @Rosie
It suits Big Capital very nicely. They can afford it. It makes doing business difficult for small businesses. It helps to destroy any competition to Big Capital.
Feminism was pushed right from the start by the corporate sector as a way to weaken the Left, and to keep the populace divided.
Lol...who has more cultural influence over a 20 year old girl, some guy of any age or Taylor Swift?
If your conscience is bothering you, Boomer, deal with it in private. Don't project your past onto everyone else.
It's not the 20th century anymore .
https://nypost.com/2020/01/11/why-todays-young-men-are-terrified-of-sex/
Just for AE: GSS data sighted.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Inexplicably–or, more depressingly, because people like doctrine more than data–the GSS is rarely utilized by mainstream media sources. Good for our humble abode here, I guess.
I had this lesbian radical feminist friend. One day when she was walking past a construction site the guys working there whistled at her and made some admiring remarks about her posterior. She was absolutely delighted. She was on Cloud Nine for the rest of the day.
Remember, the only thing worse than being ogled by men is not being ogled by men.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Remember, the only thing worse than being ogled by men is not being ogled by men.
Pure gold.
The yes/no involving Bill Clinton inverts the standard here.
The Mike Pence strategy is the obvious response to this. It drives the pussyhatters crazy. Logically, it should make them happy but it does the opposite.
Pence's strategy eliminates the possibility of women controlling the situation or its aftermath. The harpies hate the idea of never potentially being able to metoo him.Replies: @I'm Tyrone
Rosie, I am not sure how reliable these results are. For four of five races the men claim to be having more hookups than the women. The only women who say that they are getting more sex than their men are the east asians, this is not by a large margin and there are not a lot of east asians in the states compared to blacks, whites and latinos.
Either male university students are having a lot of sex with non students or some groups or all groups are lying. Perhaps white women are unusually honest about their sexual histories, perhaps white and black men tend to boast.Replies: @Rosie, @Audacious Epigone
This is a perpetual problem with self-reported sexual data. Men overreport, women underreport. By how much in each direction is a matter of dispute.
The college scene is unique, though, in that it is approaching a 40%M/6o%F split. The white male and female hookup numbers are actually pretty reasonable given this reality.
Of course there's also flirtation that might lead to something. But it doesn't have to, and it doesn't have to be intended to.
It's normal human behaviour. My generation used to do it all the time. I'm surprised that anyone under 40 would dare to do so.
Of course the important question we all want answered is - did you think he was kinda cute? I'm not having a go at you, but it is an issue. Feminists are fond of claiming that men get everything they want. In actual fact people who are cute, male or female, tend to get everything they want. The non-cute don't. Unless the guy is rich, which cancels out non-cuteness. Like I said, I'm not having a go at you. It's normal to prefer getting some kind of attention from someone who is cute.Replies: @Anonymous, @Audacious Epigone
Huxley is way ahead of you!
Just take a look at female programmers for example. Studies (brain scans) show that women have poorer abstract thinking than men (although the same studies also show that women are better multi taskers). This would explain why women generally suck at STEM. To push women into fields like programming there would have to be massive effort that begins in school. Extra school programs, affirmative action at universities, affirmative action in HR etc... Oxford even started giving female students an extra 15 minutes to complete their papers (https://nypost.com/2018/01/23/oxford-university-let-women-take-more-time-on-math-tests/). All of this effort and resources could be spared by simply just hiring men. I'm not saying that talented women should be barred from male domains, only that feminist stupidity pertaining to equal outcomes should be resisted. That's what India and China are doing.
The West otoh, over saturated with resources, can spare some of those resources in indulging women's penis envy and other follies.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Careful, this kind of thinking can get you fired from Google.
I think mixed workplaces are fine, as long as you don't have the Volunteer Auxiliary Thought Police trying to regulate every interaction within that workplace. If you're going to work in a mixed-sex workplace you have to learn to deal with the opposite sex.If you believe I fall into that category then you clearly haven't read many of my comments. I'm a socialist. I favour taking the wealth and power away from rich old men.
And I certainly don't belong to the manosphere.Replies: @Liberty Mike, @Rosie
Good. I must have confused you with someone else.
Now, I clearly stated that I believe men are entitled to fair procedures, but sexual harassment law is not about “inconvenience” or “flirting.”
Then quit parroting their nonsense.
That’s because this is an issue of power, and nothing else. That’s why women aren’t fighting for equal representation in the port-a-john servicing industry. They want equal or greater representation in law, medicine, media, politics, celebrity, education, and so on, because that’s where the power is. It has nothing to do with protecting women from harassment or other such nonsense. Feminists can’t wait for the next women to be assaulted because it ensures their control of the discussion. If all the sexual assault ended tomorrow, most if not all of Feminism, Inc would be out of business.
Pence’s strategy eliminates the possibility of women controlling the situation or its aftermath. The harpies hate the idea of never potentially being able to metoo him.
I don’t know all the details of his strategy, but keeping the door open when chatting with a junior female colleague seems like common sense to me.
Underpinning the entire sexual harassment regime is the proposition that the state is better able to arbitrate and resolve gender-related workplace brouhahas. In turn, therefore, the means of resolving such disputes must be appropriated by the state, and forced upon private actors.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for the entrepreneur who must retain employment counsel, sexual harassment investigators, and sexual harassment consultants all of whom add nothing to the bottom-line as they do not make or produce anything of value.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for those individuals who will not be employed by a small company because the latter has to devote capital to complying with the sexual harassment regime.
Rosie appears to lack empathy for all those who would have benefitted from the improvements made to a product the capital for which was not invested as the same was consumed by the cost of complying with the sexual harassment regime.
Sexual harassment is the proverbial tempest in a teapot - a socialist's wet dream of finding and imposing solutions to a non-existent problem.Replies: @I'm Tyrone, @dfordoom, @Rosie
This is just the problem with people like you: Your very narrow concept of what is and is not “of value.”
The problem with your attempt to paint men as impeccable saints is that men have a long, documented history of doing really shitty things to women.
https://www.history.com/news/sexual-exploitation-was-the-norm-for-19th-century-ballerinas
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-revenue-center-expense-center-37418.htmlDid Liberty Mike actually do that? If so, please supply a quote and link.
This is a great example of my comment to you above about slotting people here into stereotypes in your head. If you want to have meaningful, less hostile conversations with people here you really need to do less of that. But I think you like the arguing and hostility.
Pence's strategy eliminates the possibility of women controlling the situation or its aftermath. The harpies hate the idea of never potentially being able to metoo him.Replies: @I'm Tyrone
Which is why they keep expanding the definition of violence and abuse.
Now, I clearly stated that I believe men are entitled to fair procedures, but sexual harassment law is not about "inconvenience" or "flirting."Then quit parroting their nonsense.Replies: @res
You do that a lot. I think it would be more accurate to say you confused him with some stereotype you have in your head. It might help if you pondered how annoying and sterotypically female that is.
Sexual harassment conversations are full of false equivalencies being used in a motte and bailey fashion. And that seems to be bleeding over to the law. Are you honestly saying that there are not sexual harassment legal cases (not to mention the even looser standards of corporate HR actions) which are best interpreted as “flirting gone wrong” or “flirting taken badly”?
https://www.history.com/news/sexual-exploitation-was-the-norm-for-19th-century-ballerinasReplies: @res
Given his reference to “bottom line” his concept of value appears clear (also narrow). Is your concept of value clear? If we want to have a real conversation about corporate value production this page might provide a useful frame:
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-revenue-center-expense-center-37418.html
Did Liberty Mike actually do that? If so, please supply a quote and link.
This is a great example of my comment to you above about slotting people here into stereotypes in your head. If you want to have meaningful, less hostile conversations with people here you really need to do less of that. But I think you like the arguing and hostility.