Sexual Harrassment - what is it and what isn't it?

[Aries]

You are the one providing the the examples of why women don’t belong in combat. That’s the only reason you’ve provide. Provide another and I’ll refute that too.

You havent refuted anything, dudete.

Your theory is women in combat is dangerous because it is detracting which can be dangerous. I listed other professions where it would be equally as dangerous. You haven’t said women shouldn’t be cops or firefights so I’ll take that as a win for me.

Next reason, please.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your theory is women in combat is dangerous because it is detracting which can be dangerous. I listed other professions where it would be equally as dangerous. You haven’t said women shouldn’t be cops or firefights so I’ll take that as a win for me.

Next reason, please.

Lol, and I did not say that it would be merely 'distracting'.

If you cannot even restate my argument accurately, how can you properly form a rebuttal?

 

[Aries]

Your theory is women in combat is dangerous because it is detracting which can be dangerous. I listed other professions where it would be equally as dangerous. You haven’t said women shouldn’t be cops or firefights so I’ll take that as a win for me.

Next reason, please.

Lol, and I did not say that it would be merely 'distracting'.

If you cannot even restate my argument accurately, how can you properly form a rebuttal?

I was paraphrasing, slippery. If you require a direct quote then here it is:
“Because the guys will be fighting over the few women in their unit“

Why make statements you cant back 10 minutes later (estimate time not exact)
How can one properly communicate, slippery?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I was paraphrasing, slippery. If you require a direct quote then here it is:
“Because the guys will be fighting over the few women in their unit“

Why make statements you cant back 10 minutes later (estimate time not exact)
How can one properly communicate, slippery?

I said that the men would be 'fighting' over the women in their unit, you know, TRAINED KILLERS, fighting over women. Men who handle explosives, live ammo and other deadly weapons on a regular basis and who have training on how to kill unarmed.

Show me a cop that has been trained to break a mans neck and I will concede that there is little difference between cops and infantrymen.

And most of these guys do not even see women for much of their day, if at all, day in and day out. I was so desperate in my short five years, and I feel no shame admitting to this, I actually hung out at hospital bus tops for one short period of my life looking for a girl that wanted some sympathy.

And you want to put athletic, toned young women into that mix?

Jeebus, think for yourself!

 

[Aries]

I was paraphrasing, slippery. If you require a direct quote then here it is:
“Because the guys will be fighting over the few women in their unit“

Why make statements you cant back 10 minutes later (estimate time not exact)
How can one properly communicate, slippery?

I said that the men would be 'fighting' over the women in their unit, you know, TRAINED KILLERS, fighting over women. Men who handle explosives, live ammo and other deadly weapons on a regular basis and who have training on how to kill unarmed.

Show me a cop that has been trained to break a mans neck and I will concede that there is little difference between cops and infantrymen.

Stop being slippery!
I never said one was more dangerous than the other, but that they both require clear judgement. We have already clarified that.
What you are now trying to weasel around is the distraction part. You said men will be fighting over women. In essence you are calling women soldiers a distraction, correct?
Yes or no, hold the slime.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I never said one was more dangerous than the other, but that they both require clear judgement. We have already clarified that.

Lol, no, *I* said that combat line units are more dangerous than being in the cops, roflmao.

What you are now trying to weasel around is the distraction part. You said men will be fighting over women. In essence you are calling women soldiers a distraction, correct?
Yes or no, hold the slime.

No, it is not a simple distraction any more than a cat5 Hurricane is simply a cyclone.

 

[Aries]

I never said one was more dangerous than the other, but that they both require clear judgement. We have already clarified that.

Lol, no, *I* said that combat line units are more dangerous than being in the cops, roflmao.

What you are now trying to weasel around is the distraction part. You said men will be fighting over women. In essence you are calling women soldiers a distraction, correct?
Yes or no, hold the slime.

No, it is not a simple distraction any more than a cat5 Hurricane is simply a cyclone.

I never denied one was more dangerous than the other so you repeatedly stating combat is more dangerous is irrelevant to the topic st hand.

Also why are women soldiers not fighting over the men? What woman doesn’t love a man in a uniform?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Also why are women soldiers not fighting over the men? What woman doesn’t love a man in a uniform?

In the IDF only 4% of women are in combat units. I am guessing that means out of a company of roughly 100 people only about two are female if there is a 2:1 ratio of men to women in the IDF.

So that puts about 1 woman to a platoon of 30 soldiers, assuming that they are fully staffed which is almost never true.

Were I a woman who was not a nymphomaniac, I would not be that one woman in 30.

But as a single soldier, waiting for sickly sad women coming out of the hospital was actually appealing for a time, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I was paraphrasing, slippery. If you require a direct quote then here it is:
“Because the guys will be fighting over the few women in their unit“

Why make statements you cant back 10 minutes later (estimate time not exact)
How can one properly communicate, slippery?

I said that the men would be 'fighting' over the women in their unit, you know, TRAINED KILLERS, fighting over women. Men who handle explosives, live ammo and other deadly weapons on a regular basis and who have training on how to kill unarmed.

Show me a cop that has been trained to break a mans neck and I will concede that there is little difference between cops and infantrymen.

And most of these guys do not even see women for much of their day, if at all, day in and day out. I was so desperate in my short five years, and I feel no shame admitting to this, I actually hung out at hospital bus tops for one short period of my life looking for a girl that wanted some sympathy.

And you want to put athletic, toned young women into that mix?

Jeebus, think for yourself!

Aries, do you thinking 'fragging' is a funny thing?

Shit happens, enough as it is, with fights over women, it might happen a whole lot more.

 

[Aries]

Also why are women soldiers not fighting over the men? What woman doesn’t love a man in a uniform?

In the IDF only 4% of women are in combat units. I am guessing that means out of a company of roughly 100 people only about two are female if there is a 2:1 ratio of men to women in the IDF.

So that puts about 1 woman to a platoon of 30 soldiers, assuming that they are fully staffed which is almost never true.

Were I a woman who was not a nymphomaniac, I would not be that one woman in 30.

But as a single soldier, waiting for sickly sad women coming out of the hospital was actually appealing for a time, lol.

Women soldiers are equally lonely and horny I assume. Why are they not distracted by the men? Why are they not raping the men? What do you think?

 

[Aries]

I was paraphrasing, slippery. If you require a direct quote then here it is:
“Because the guys will be fighting over the few women in their unit“

Why make statements you cant back 10 minutes later (estimate time not exact)
How can one properly communicate, slippery?

I said that the men would be 'fighting' over the women in their unit, you know, TRAINED KILLERS, fighting over women. Men who handle explosives, live ammo and other deadly weapons on a regular basis and who have training on how to kill unarmed.

Show me a cop that has been trained to break a mans neck and I will concede that there is little difference between cops and infantrymen.

And most of these guys do not even see women for much of their day, if at all, day in and day out. I was so desperate in my short five years, and I feel no shame admitting to this, I actually hung out at hospital bus tops for one short period of my life looking for a girl that wanted some sympathy.

And you want to put athletic, toned young women into that mix?

Jeebus, think for yourself!

Aries, do you thinking 'fragging' is a funny thing?

Shit happens, enough as it is, with fights over women, it might happen a whole lot more.

I don’t think men who would kill their fellow soldiers over a woman should be soldiers. Sufficient mental screening should take care of that.

 

[yiostheoy]

We've reached a rather dangerous tipping point...and I don't know where it will go or how we should handle it.

It's a fact that women endure a great deal of harrassment from men. Over Thanksgiving, my mother told me some of what she had to put up with as a professional woman scientists in a male dominated profession. I'm sure that is not unique.

It seems that Weinstein finally provided the tipping point for women to speak up about it. That for once they can without having their reputations trashed as sluts.

But it also seems that there is a rush - people are being fired rapidly, based on accusation, with little recourse to a defense. It's possible we simply don't hear the whole story...I'm not so sure about this rush to judgement.

I also think that people are lumping everything into the "sexual assault" category when it might not be.

There is a difference between a wolf whistle on the street corner and grabbing a woman's bum. There is a difference between grabbing a woman's bum and forceably kissing her. And there is a difference between forceably kissing her and raping her. They shouldn't all be treated the same.

There is the expectation of a certain professional code of conduct in the workplace - and there should be well established rules and a means of redress when boundaries are crossed. But I have to wonder - will men now be afraid to put a comforting arm around an upset woman? Provide a compliment on how she looks?

It's a bit of a Pandora's box...that needed to be opened, because women were silenced and shamed for so long...yet, there is more than we can handle there.

Well for openers, corporations only have their own interests in mind. So it is understandable that they are firing based on accusations alone, which is unjust, but corporations are not about justice, they are about profits, and about cutting their losses, and about avoiding responsibility, and about making it look like they did everything they could.

That's the corporate world.

This kind of world is easy meat for a false accuser.

However we have no way of knowing who is a false accuser and who else is a true accuser. Corporations don't care. They are firing all of the intended subjects of accusations.

 

[yiostheoy]

This is the way I see it.

"Sexual harassment" is defined not by actions, but by context.

Needless to say, what is appropriate behavior at home with your significant other is not necessarily appropriate at work - but what I mean by context is more inclusive.

Let's say you're at work, and you're hitting it off really well with one of your co-workers. One day after work, you both end up at a bar for a celebration of some kind, maybe a co-workers birthday, or a Christmas party or whatever. You spend the evening talking and flirting - she laughs heartily at your jokes and touches your hand. You guys stay till the bar closes, and when you guys are standing outside waiting for an uber, you lean in for a kiss.

Now, I'm going to re-work that hypothetical.

Let's say you're at work, and you've got a huge crush on one of your co-workers. Every time you see that person in the coffee room, you try to stroke up a conversation, but it never seems to work. Every time, she appears uncomfortable and awkward, and you feel the same way. One day, you hear about an office party after work, and think "there's my chance". You ask the girl if she s going to come - maybe even pressure her to come. When you guys are at the bar, you try to monopolize her time, keep buying her drinks and flirting with her. She laughs at some of your jokes, but it's a hollow laugh, and she keeps looking around, as if she's looking for someone. Finally, she says she has to go home. You offer to leave with her - and while you're both waiting for an uber, you lean over and stick your tongue down her throat.

Explicitly, both of the those narratives are the same. The same primary physical events occurred.

One is appropriate, one is not. I met my girlfriend of 8 years in essentailly that situation.

The difference is in the context - the implicit facts of the situation.

In our culture, it is generally the role of the man to make the first "move". Because of that, it's the responsibility of the man to read the situation correctly - and if you misread it, know how to extract yourself gracefully. With great power comes great responsibility.

Doc, I believe there is a bigger picture.

First is the question of the false accusation for profit versus a true accusation. Corporations don't care about the difference.

Second is the question about ordinary speech like in the case of Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill which is best exemplified as trivia like a pubic hair on a coke can where she was offended but he thought he was being funny. Just talk. But Hill made a really big deal out of it.

Then there is touching -- always inappropriate. This is true sexual molestation which is also called "harassment".

Then there is quid pro quo exploitation -- sex demanded in exchange for a job or job security etc.

It's all a really big picture.

 

[yiostheoy]

A few thoughts:

The workplace is not a criminal court and employees are not subject to presumption of innocence or any of the protections afforded a criminal defendant - because losing a job is in no way equivalent to losing liberty and being convicted for all time of a serious criminal offense.

Most employer/employee contracts include morals clauses, especially in the entertainment industry. If by a preponderance of evidence an employer finds an employee has violated that clause, the employee can be fired. Period. Please understand that these employers are being advised by very knowledgeable and experienced employment attorneys.

As to the what is and isn’t sexual harassment: fundamentally in terms of the workplace that’s a legal question and it runs the gamut from demands for sex to sexual comments and includes many other other manifestations of a hostile workplace.

But as to specifics raised in the OP; there is no need for a male coworker or supervisor to put an arm around a female coworker or subordinate in order to properly express compassion. There is no need to comment on the appearance of female coworkers or employees - certainly not unless you would do and say exactly the same toward a male coworker or supervisee, which is just about never the case.

People can twist it into making the workplace ‘no fun’ or ‘depersonalized,’ but I call bullshit; I’ve been in the professional workplace for 32 years now, a very wide range of jobs, and I’ve had both male and female supervisors and based on my experience it’s just not necessary to cry wolf about this because it’s VERY easy to behave appropriately - these men who are being outted behaved VERY inappropriately, there is no question about that, they’ve just gotten away with it because their victims were afraid of losing their jobs or careers by speaking up and I think it’s wonderful that the pendulum has swung such that now HR departments are more concerned about public backlash if they don’t hold offenders accountable than they used to be about protecting the offenders.

Like i said, corporations do not care about justice.

They only care about making profits and cutting losses.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don’t think men who would kill their fellow soldiers over a woman should be soldiers. Sufficient mental screening should take care of that.

Lol, it is not the mind that is the problem, it is the gonads, dear. The 'nads help the men fight, but also help to cause problems as well.

To 'fix' this, you have to 'fix' the men, get it?

Or are you one of those people who think the sexes are the same?

 

[yiostheoy]

But it has always been my feelings that men and women, and just people in general have different skill sets that can be utilized towards the same goal. If a woman can physically keep up with the training, why should they not be allowed?
There are plenty of women that are big and strong and plenty of men that are frail and weak. Gender is a social construct.

Because the guys will be fighting over the few women in their unit and this destroys 'unit cohesiveness' i.e. the guys willingness to bleed for each other in combat.

This is all very predictable and not the first time it has been done.

That doesn't seem to be what is happening though. The US military has been very cautious and careful in adding women into the ranks and things like "unit cohesiveness" were one of the things they were concerned about. Women in the military is not new. Israel has a top notch military and they've had women in combat roles for years.

Israel have women in their military.

China too.

N. and S. Korea.

The V.C. and NVA in Viet Nam also did.

The Russians during WW2 also did.

The Kurds in Syria now do as well -- Muslim women -- very unusual.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

There is a difference between a wolf whistle on the street corner and grabbing a woman's bum. There is a difference between grabbing a woman's bum and forceably kissing her. And there is a difference between forceably kissing her and raping her. They shouldn't all be treated the same.

I agree. Rape of course is against the law, but the big question is how harsh should the punishment be for anything less than that should there be a punishment at all?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[yiostheoy]

Yes there is a big danger here in that the law is so vague and puts so much power in the hands of the woman accuser. It almost reverses the 'Innocent until proven Guilty' paradigm.

My feelings are mixed on this as well.

Because women making those accusations are automatically assumed to be liars or worse if they speak up. So they don't.

Depends on whom you are speaking of.

I never azz-u-me anything. I always come at everything tabula rasa.

I acknowledge that there are all sorts of possibilities from the get-go, however as evidence is accumulated one side or the other should prevail or else it will end in a tie and no decision can be made in a legal forum.

Corporations will fire just about anybody however -- different universe.

 

[yiostheoy]

There is a difference between a wolf whistle on the street corner and grabbing a woman's bum. There is a difference between grabbing a woman's bum and forceably kissing her. And there is a difference between forceably kissing her and raping her. They shouldn't all be treated the same.

I agree. Rape of course is against the law, but the big question is how harsh should the punishment be for anything less than that should there be a punishment at all?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

With the battles being fought in the corporations everyone is a loser except for the false accusers.

Only the false accusers win.

And we cannot tell who they are.

 

[Alexandra]

It's not a new problem. I was coming of age in the late 80's, early 90's, and PC culture was already well-established when it came to sexual harassment. The Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings were the first manifestation of it.

I was just a high school kid working an evening job as a restaurant hostess back then, but I'll always remember one night in the break area when one of the prep cooks complimented my hairstyle. Even though I thanked him earnestly (I had worked on it, after all), his face quickly took on a haunted aspect, reflecting his inner thoughts. Then he looked at me cautiously and said he was sorry that he spoke without thinking, and that he didn't mean to make me uncomfortable if he had, indeed, done that.

I was horrified. For him. This poor guy, just another kid my age, had paid me a compliment, and then an instant later had been seized by dreadful visions of the manager firing him for making unwanted advances on a female co-worker.

That was the incident that made me realize I could no longer call myself a feminist - at least, not a feminist by contemporary standards. From its seat in the metropolitan bastions of social influence, the womens' movement wasn't promoting equality, it was threatening persecution and instilling fear... a very well-founded fear. If I'd had the mind to, I could have complained in melodramatic fashion about that boy's compliment and watched as he was fired.

It reminded me of The Crucible.

Something was really wrong.

And it still is. What's new is that it's coming back to haunt the left. They were fine with it up until now.