ex
Question:
So why *assume* you know where the line is? Err on the side of discretion.
Taking this to its logical extreme, then I should never open my mouth to a member of the opposite sex. To do so may convey some sexual connotation, which may be offensive. BTW, in polite society, it is always inappropriate to directly comment on someone’s clothing unless they are a close personal friend. The proper thing to say is "You’re looking very well today", or something to that effect.
And someone may not find this offensive? Its no more appropiate or inappropiate than "Gee, that’s a real nice skirt. Where did you buy it?" Why are such comments considered to be of a "sexual" nature when between members of the opposite sex, yet when between members of the like sex, are "okay"? Seems that the feminazis want to create a unisexual world, where there is no difference between men and women. Unfortunately, there are differences, whether biological or physical in nature. …and if you thought your job might be on the line? This is one time when silence cannot be assumed to mean consent.
If reasonable people begin to think every time they open their mouths that "their job might be on the line", then nobody is going to communicate with one another in the workplace. I find it interesting that the feminist movement is on the one hand crying "Women are capable of flying fighter aircraft!!!" yet, by the same token, these same independent, motivated women need protection from the evil men back at the base. MD — — Michael P. Deignan / Sex is hereditary. If your — UUCP: …!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / are you won’t either… — Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
Response:
Seems that the feminazis want to create a unisexual world, where there is no difference between men and women. Unfortunately, there are differences, whether biological or physical in nature.
How about this easy test: If it is ok for a gay man to say it to you, it is ok to say it to a woman in the office. If reasonable people begin to think every time they open their mouths that "their job might be on the line", then nobody is going to communicate with one another in the workplace.
Is it really that difficult to ask a person if something is offensive or not? /)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/)/) "I speak only for myself" -me ) "But if someone came for you one night _ _ _ _ ___ ) and dragged you away, do you really ( ` D L ( ` /_ | | ) think your neighbors would even care?" 7 | L 7 | | L_ | ) –Jello Biafra,
Response:
if I were to comment to my secretary that she is attractive in her new black leather miniskirt, and she doesn’t tell me "I believe your comment is inappropiate, sir", then how am I supposed to know where the line should be drawn between "acceptable" and "inacceptable" behaviour. This line does, after all, shift depending on the individual to whom you are speaking. So why *assume* you know where the line is? Err on the side of discretion. BTW, in polite society, it is always inappropriate to directly comment on someone’s clothing unless they are a close personal friend. The proper thing to say is "You’re looking very well today", or something to that effect.
Ohhh…I see…in "polite society" … And what if you didn’t attend an Ivy league college? What if you work at Hardies, for a boss that just barely got a high school GED? What do you do? What if he really meant it to be complimentary? What if the boss is a woman and the subordinate is a man and he says the same thing? Is *that* sexual harassment? If so, could she fire him for it? Should she say something? What if the same comment issued forth from a female subordinate? An individual cannot correct his or her behaviour without first knowing there is something bothersome about it. I’m a reasonable woman. If *Professor* Hill’s account is accurate, I call it sexual harassment. So would I, if she had conveyed her disapproval of such comments to Judge Thomas. …and if you thought your job might be on the line? This is one time when silence cannot be assumed to mean consent.
As Thelma and Louise said – You get what you settle for. Have a nice day! Jerry — UUCP: uunet!mimsy!jerrys University of Maryland Phone: (301)405-6735 Institute for Advanced Computer Studies College Park, Md 20742
Response:
So why *assume* you know where the line is? Err on the side of discretion. Taking this to its logical extreme, then I should never open my mouth to a member of the opposite sex. To do so may convey some sexual connotation, which may be offensive.
You’re missing an important point here, and that is that Clarence Thomas was Anita Hill’s boss, not just another co-worker. And, yes, if you are in a supervisory position, you *should* be aware of what you say and how you say it, to all the people who report to you, not just the women. BTW, in polite society, it is always inappropriate to directly comment on someone’s clothing unless they are a close personal friend. The proper thing to say is "You’re looking very well today", or something to that effect. And someone may not find this offensive? Its no more appropiate or inappropiate than "Gee, that’s a real nice skirt. Where did you buy it?" Why are such comments considered to be of a "sexual" nature when between members of the opposite sex, yet when between members of the like sex, are "okay"?
Not from a member of either sex. The quality of one’s clothes depends a great deal on one’s economic status. Commenting on someone’s clothes is like commenting on their income – or lack of it. I find it interesting that the feminist movement is on the one hand crying "Women are capable of flying fighter aircraft!!!" yet, by the same token, these same independent, motivated women need protection from the evil men back at the base.
Like I said before, it makes a big difference whether the man is an equal on the corporate (or military) hierarchy, in which case a woman can either politely turn him down or tell him to buzz off, or whether he is in a position of authority over the woman, in which case it’s much, much more difficult to decide to make a negative response. — /* These are my own Biased Personal Opinions ™ and no one else’s! */ /* "The minimum wage is $3.35 an hour and was last raised more than eight */ /* years ago. A woman trying to support two children by working full time */ /* for minimum wage is almost $2,000 below the poverty level. So, how long */ /* will it take for kinder, gentler to kick in?" */ /* - Molly Ivins in "Mother Jones", April 1989 */
Response:
# # What is sexual harassment? # # Sexual harassment is the act of creating a hostile work environment # by using sexually offensive language or actions. # I thought that there had to be an employer-employee relationship and the person had to fear the power of the other person. Recently it seems that the broader meaning given above is being used. Does anyone know when this started? Is that phrase taken from the law? Or is it coming out of the recent effort on the part of the religious right to install their morals as law? I do think that a ‘hostile environment’ is undesirable. But sometimes one person’s ‘hostile environment’ is another person’s morale booster. Is it getting to be the case that it is being LEGISLATED that we must always use good judgement in TALKING to each other? If so these netgroups don’t have much longer to live! Ginny
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – if I were to comment to my secretary that she is attractive in her new black leather miniskirt, and she doesn’t tell me "I believe your comment is inappropiate, sir", then how am I supposed to know where the line should be drawn between "acceptable" and "inacceptable" behaviour. This line does, after all, shift depending on the individual to whom you are speaking. So why *assume* you know where the line is? Err on the side of discretion. BTW, in polite society, it is always inappropriate to directly comment on someone’s clothing unless they are a close personal friend. The proper thing to say is "You’re looking very well today", or something to that effect. Ohhh…I see…in "polite society" … And what if you didn’t attend an Ivy league college? What if you work at Hardies, for a boss that just barely got a high school GED? What do you do? What if he really meant it to be complimentary?
Well, like the first writer said, the line is fuzzy, and can shift depending on who’s talking to whom. What if the boss is a woman and the subordinate is a man and he says the same thing? Is *that* sexual harassment?
No, it’s probably more like "buttering her up", as they used to say in the old days, before "Last Tango in Paris" changed the meaning of that phrase forever. If so, could she fire him for it?
Ah! There’s the rub! She has the authority to fire him, not vice versa. Should she say something?
Certainly, if it bothers her, or if it becomes a pattern. What if the same comment issued forth from a female subordinate?
Same comments as above. An individual cannot correct his or her behaviour without first knowing there is something bothersome about it.
I doubt there’s a boss in America – male or female – who is not now aware that there might be something "bothersome" about making sexually suggestive remarks to a subordinate. Have a nice day! Jerry
And you. — /* These are my own Biased Personal Opinions ™ and no one else’s! */ /* "The minimum wage is $3.35 an hour and was last raised more than eight */ /* years ago. A woman trying to support two children by working full time */ /* for minimum wage is almost $2,000 below the poverty level. So, how long */ /* will it take for kinder, gentler to kick in?" */ /* - Molly Ivins in "Mother Jones", April 1989 */
Response:
# # What is sexual harassment? # # It should not be a crime to be a sexually rude and # offensive person. # I HOPE that that is not what sexual harassment boils down to, as legislation simply can’t accomplish everything, and if sexual harassment is taken this far, it will mean that it can’t be reasonably enforced at all. # # The main argument used to support sexual harassment laws is the belief # that in the workplace the worker can be forced to put up with hostile # situations because the "boss" holds the right to fire them. This argument rests # on the belief that the relationship between employee and employer # is like that of a slave to master. From my experience the right to fire # an employee was effectively taken away a long time ago. Today, in order # to fire some one you must consult a lawyer and be damn sure you # can prove that the reason you fired an employee was not because of # discrimination of any kind. # I thought it was the case that, if an employee was not protected by some sort of termination notice requirement or tenure, employees’ rights had deteriorated over the past 10 years or so. Anyone have a reading on this? # CONSLUSION: # My parents used to tell me the following when I would come home from # school and cry because the kids laughed at me and created a hostile # kindergarden environment: # "Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." # Maybe we are closer in age than I would have thought. That’s what I was told too. Not true, of course, but the message was clear: One has to put up with a certain amount of obnoxious behavior in life; only worry when an effort to do actual harm comes along. Trouble is, by that time it may be too late. It is that kind of thinking that causes an abused woman to end up being killed by her husband with society just looking on, giving him a second, third, etc. chance. The problem with sexual harassment is quite similar to the problem with rape and child abuse and abusive treatment of others in general. One wants to make certain that both sides understand what the crime is and we want to make certain that women are able to meaningful pursue their rights when in a position in which they are powerless or intimidated. (Actually, some men also fall into this category of powerless and intimidated — I believe that all of these crimes should be genderless.) Child abuse perhaps doesn’t go in that group; I was thinking of the child as the powerless one. The problem there is a little different; parents are told that they must be responsible for how their children behave; then are what might to their way of thinking be hampered in dealing with it. If sexual harassment is really as broad as you stated it (and which I inadvertently deleted, but was in the previous post) I think it is going beyond what it is possible to legislate. I don’t mean to sound like (in previous posting and this one) that I am opposed to sexual harassment legislation. But legislation or regulations which are so broad that they are attempting to legislate behavior which goes beyond fair to MORAL is probably perilously close to violating freedom of speech. But who cares about constitutional rights any more? Now that women were about to get some, it looks like whole groups of people don’t believe in individualism or individual rights any more… The movement seems to have started on the right and is gaining ground. Ginny AeU
Response:
What is sexual harassment?
Sexual harassment is the act of creating a hostile work environment by using sexually offensive language or actions. There are several reasons why "Sexual Harassment" should not be a criminal offence. The most obvious one is: It should not be a crime to be a sexually rude and offensive person. As an employer I may chose to create a hostile environment for my employee’s. I may ask my employee’s to work hard and yell at them when they slack off. Is this in itself a crime? No. However when the work environment becomes hostile not because of the added pressures of having a tough job, but because of offensive sexual comments made by another person, this constitutes a crime? My question is this: Why does the offensive comments have to be sexual? What if my secretary was overly fat and every day when she came in I upset her by making a fat joke, or telling her that I hate fat people. etc… By what reasons is sexual harassment illegal, but not weight harassment? (I guess it is the same reason which allows for the censorship of pornography but not geography.) Most people are not threatened at their jobs because of issues such as sex or weight, but they are implicitly threatened if they do not produce. So should production harassment be made illegal? The main argument used to support sexual harassment laws is the belief that in the workplace the worker can be forced to put up with hostile situations because the "boss" holds the right to fire them. This argument rests on the belief that the relationship between employee and employer is like that of a slave to master. From my experience the right to fire an employee was effectively taken away a long time ago. Today, in order to fire some one you must consult a lawyer and be damn sure you can prove that the reason you fired an employee was not because of discrimination of any kind. CONSLUSION: My parents used to tell me the following when I would come home from school and cry because the kids laughed at me and created a hostile kindergarden environment: "Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Mabye some people should grow up. Ken Stauffer. — Ken Stauffer.
Response:
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the test of whether unwanted behavior constitutes harassment is no longer the opinion of a "reasonable man", or even a "reasonable person", but the opinion of a "reasonable woman".
The Feminazis would like to have everyone believe that the slightest comment, even remarking that you think your secretary’s dress is nice, constitutes "sexual harassment". However, I believe that before harassment must exist, a woman must convey to the "harassor" the she believes his comments are "inappropiate". For example, if I were to comment to my secretary that she is attractive in her new black leather miniskirt, and she doesn’t tell me "I believe your comment is inappropiate, sir", then how am I supposed to know where the line should be drawn between "acceptable" and "inacceptable" behaviour. This line does, after all, shift depending on the individual to whom you are speaking. An individual cannot correct his or her behaviour without first knowing there is something bothersome about it. I’m a reasonable woman. If *Professor* Hill’s account is accurate, I call it sexual harassment.
So would I, if she had conveyed her disapproval of such comments to Judge Thomas. MD — — Michael P. Deignan / Sex is hereditary. If your — UUCP: …!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / are you won’t either… — Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
Response:
However, I believe that before harassment must exist, a woman must convey to the "harassor" the she believes his comments are "inappropiate". For example, if I were to comment to my secretary that she is attractive in her new black leather miniskirt, and she doesn’t tell me "I believe your comment is inappropiate, sir", then how am I supposed to know where the line should be drawn between "acceptable" and "inacceptable" behaviour. This line does, after all, shift depending on the individual to whom you are speaking.
So why *assume* you know where the line is? Err on the side of discretion. BTW, in polite society, it is always inappropriate to directly comment on someone’s clothing unless they are a close personal friend. The proper thing to say is "You’re looking very well today", or something to that effect. An individual cannot correct his or her behaviour without first knowing there is something bothersome about it. I’m a reasonable woman. If *Professor* Hill’s account is accurate, I call it sexual harassment. So would I, if she had conveyed her disapproval of such comments to Judge Thomas.
…and if you thought your job might be on the line? This is one time when silence cannot be assumed to mean consent. — /* These are my own Biased Personal Opinions ™ and no one else’s! */ /* "The safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies */ /* involving not very nice people." – Justice Felix Frankfurter */
Response:
What is sexual harassment? Is it casual, albeit slightly offcolor jokes? Is it asking a co-worker out on a date? Is it friendly kidding of someone of the opposite sex? Obviously, what constitutes sexual harassment is subject to some debate. All I’ve got to say is that Ms. Hill had better come up with something alot more serious than the types of things listed above. If not, I think that she will have done tremendous harm to the cause of equal rights for women. It is certainly possibe to get so petty and nit-picky as to completely loose credibility. As if the reputation of one man isn’t enough, there’s a tremendous amount at stake when the hearings begin on Friday.
Response:
What is sexual harassment? Is it casual, albeit slightly offcolor jokes? Is it asking a co-worker out on a date? Is it friendly kidding of someone of the opposite sex? Obviously, what constitutes sexual harassment is subject to some debate. All I’ve got to say is that Ms. Hill had better come up with something alot more serious than the types of things listed above. If not, I think that she will have done tremendous harm to the cause of equal rights for women. It is certainly possibe to get so petty and nit-picky as to completely loose credibility. As if the reputation of one man isn’t enough, there’s a tremendous amount at stake when the hearings begin on Friday.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the test of whether unwanted behavior constitutes harassment is no longer the opinion of a "reasonable man", or even a "reasonable person", but the opinion of a "reasonable woman". I’m a reasonable woman. If *Professor* Hill’s account is accurate, I call it sexual harassment. — /* These are my own Biased Personal Opinions ™ and no one else’s! */ /* "The safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies */ /* involving not very nice people." – Justice Felix Frankfurter */
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is sexual harassment? Is it casual, albeit slightly offcolor jokes? Is it asking a co-worker out on a date? Is it friendly kidding of someone of the opposite sex? Obviously, what constitutes sexual harassment is subject to some debate. All I’ve got to say is that Ms. Hill had better come up with something alot more serious than the types of things listed above. If not, I think that she will have done tremendous harm to the cause of equal rights for women. It is certainly possibe to get so petty and nit-picky as to completely loose credibility. As if the reputation of one man isn’t enough, there’s a tremendous amount at stake when the hearings begin on Friday. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the test of whether unwanted behavior constitutes harassment is no longer the opinion of a "reasonable man", or even a "reasonable person", but the opinion of a "reasonable woman". I’m a reasonable woman. If *Professor* Hill’s account is accurate, I call it sexual harassment.
I’m a reasonable man. It no longer matters whether Ms. Hill’s account is accurate, no more than it matters that the alleged victim of W.K.Smith’s account is accurate, no more that it matters that Tawana Brawley’s account was proven NOT accurate. The male political figures that these charges were aimed at fell as surely as if they had assaulted these women on prime time national television. The electoral and political process has been totally circumvented in favor of a "government by smear". Any woman can remove any man whoes politics she does not agree with (as Hill has admitted that she does not agree with Thomas’ position on several issues) by making an unprovable accusation in the press. And if she has to go on TV in a Senate Hearing, then make sure you add some "sensational" claims (no matter that they weren’t in the original complaint) for the ratings. In the Time Magazine article on Date Rape, feminazi leaders went on record advocating false rape and harassment charges as valid tools of female empowerment, a position long promoted by Andrea Dworkin. It would appear that Ms. Hill has decided this is good advice. So, it doesn’t matter if the charges are true or not. Thomas will probably NOT be confirmed. The Feminists have turned rape and harassment into such evil omnipresent crimes that even innocence is not a defense. Senators who would have voted for Thomas will vote against him, figuring that this will make an "anti-harassment statement" for their constituents to remember during the next election. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< | I never let anyone play with my checkbook on the first date! | <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Response:
Filed under: Feminist
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.