What about the MEN.???

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by cluelusshusbund, Dec 3, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,433
    I've wondered if some approaches actually work, or whether it is more a matter of stroking one's own ego.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,746
    Yeah thats somptin to wonder about.!!!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    Of course some approaches work; with any crime, a certain percentage of criminals are going to get what they want. (Which is the impetus for the crime in the first place.)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,433
    I suppose so...
     
  8. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,285
    Yeah, I've always been rather confused by this notion of "mixed messages"--what, precisely, are people talking about here? I honestly cannot tell whether people are genuinely unclear about what constitutes harassment, or if it's some sort of knee-jerk defensiveness; though I'm leaning towards the latter.

    The idea that sexual harassment can somehow be an "accidental" or "unintentional" is an absurdity, and the instances where a person mistakes an actual accidental instance, i.e., brushing against someone in passing, are so infrequent and typically easy to parse that they're not really even worth discussing.
     
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  9. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,439
    See, here's the thing - people like Bells keep going on and on about "how can groping someone who doesn't want to be groped" be "accidental". It's classic reductio ad absurdum fallacy. Physical touching isn't the only thing claimed to be sexual harassment - hell, Bells pulled in "leering", yet at the same time, we are to completely ignore the intent of the "perpetrator".

    Well, what about someone who is sitting in a cafeteria, staring into space as he contemplates a particularly challenging issue he is working on, and just happens to be looking in the general direction of a woman who decided to wear a somewhat low-cut shirt that day, and she takes offense to it, thinking he is "leering" at her breasts? She goes to HR and files a complaint - poor guy gets called into the HR office for sexual harassment, and hasn't the foggiest idea what is going on.

    A silly example? Of course it is - but stupid shit happens, and people take things both out of context and in the wrong way all the time. If we are going to make the rules and laws absolute, we have to be certain that there is no room for error; otherwise, not only do we risk ruining the lives of people who haven't done anything wrong, but we also risk having those laws challenged and overturned in a court of law due to how generalized they are.

    EDIT to add: For what it is worth, when writing laws, it should be noted that for every situation you can think of in which the law may have to apply, one should account for the numerous situations that simply haven't been thought of and the weird extenuating circumstances they can bring with them.
     
  10. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,746
    I must say... you'r the only one so far who realy understands the OP an has posted on topic

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,285
    From what I have read, Bells has neither said--nor implied--any such thing.

    Yeah, mistakes happen-though I'd venture that "mistakes" of the sort you describe are pretty damn rare. In fact, I'd even posit that more (in numbers, or as a percentage) innocent people have been executed for crimes that they did not commit, than have people been terminated from a position for a mistaken claim of sexual harassment.

    Perfection and infallibility would be nice, but... you know.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    That's not true at all. People come from different backgrounds, cultures, societies and families, and what is OK in one culture/society will often be considered harassment in another. Even keeping to one society you are going to see changes over time, and what was OK 100 years ago is not OK today.

    That's why education to prevent sexual harassment works, and that's why it's required in so many places today. There are managers (I've met some) who honestly think that regularly complimenting a female subordinate about her hair, or her dress, or her figure, is just being polite. These people are generally not out to oppress women, or to assert their dominance over them. They are just clueless as to how their behavior is perceived.

    With sexual harassment, as with so many other things, Hanlon's Razor often applies.
     
  13. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,439
    She continually circulates back to it in the other thread.

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

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

    I guess, ultimately, we have a simple choice to make -
    Do we prefer to risk utterly destroying the lives of innocents (and potentially having the law completely defeated/overturned in court), or do we take the time to do it right.

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

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

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

    Messages:
    2,285
    Ignorance doesn't mitigate culpability. The perpetrator may not fully comprehend the significance or magnitude of their actions, but whatever their action, they still acted with intent.

    Consider the Bush Sr. incidents. At photoshops, he would pat a woman's ass and tell her his idiotic "David Cop-a-feel" joke to, apparently, set her at ease. This may, in fact, genuinely been his intentions--but did he ever do it to a man?
     
  15. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,285
    Nothing can be "proven" with absolute certainty, outside of mathematics (and crappy music). Yet we can't simply not prosecute, or take action, as a consequence.
     
  16. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,390
    If it is stupid, why make a hypothetical argument?

    :EDIT:

    Well, if you admit your argument was stupid from the get go, what does that say about the people wanting to agree with you?
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2017
  17. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,285
    Also, consider your example. Suppose this manager does this and one day he is called out on it--either formally, by a higher-up, or informally. As far as "consequences" are concerned, what's really gonna happen to this guy? Probably pretty much nothing: he will be informed that his actions are inappropriate and that's about it. Supposing he continues to act in this manner? Then, he might get some sort of formal reprimand--or, in the most extreme of instances, he might lose his job (though highly doubtful). Or, he will learn that such behavior is inappropriate, and even threatening, and will change his ways.

    Point being (also, this isn't directed towards you, specifically, as you've not talked of consequences), this talk of "ruining (people's) lives" is kind of a strawman. The guy who compliments women on their appearance constantly isn't gonna become a social pariah, he's highly unlikely to lose his job, and there won't be any legal consequences. The people whose lives are being "ruined" have repeatedly--and with much deliberation--preyed upon women (and girls (Moore) and boys (Spacey)).

    And, insofar as "ruining lives" is concerned, none of those guys--the Moores, the Weinsteins, and the Spaceys--is likely to experience any legal repercussions.
     
  18. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,285
    Further, on this matter of "ruining lives":

    Roy Moore, who knowingly and with much deliberation, sexually assaulted a minor and preyed upon countless others. He is going to "suffer" absolutely NO legal consequences, for a number of ridiculous reasons (statutes of limitation among them). Social consequences? He might become a Senator.

    Trump, who raped his first wife, sexually assaulted at least a couple dozen women, and has likely harassed hundreds or even thousands of women--again, with knowledge and deliberation, will likely remain President for the next seven years. Or possibly, for the remainder of his lifetime. (Does anyone really believe he will willingly leave office?)

    Yet, in most matters, ignorance of the law does not exonerate a person. Plenty of people in prison who did not know that they were committing a crime.

    And genuine accidents? There are legal consequences for those--lesser severity, of course, bit still actual legal consequences.
     
  19. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,439
    I'm sure, at one time, the same was said about people wrongfully convicted of crimes who spent time in prison - yet many of them find their professional lives effectively ruined.

    I just want to advise caution - lets not hastily attempt to solve something and make a bigger clusterfuck of it in the process.
     
  20. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,439
    Stupid mistakes don't equate to malice.
     
  21. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,439
    And these kinds of things are why I was making the point about the current ruling party - we can say, with a fair degree of certainty, that the GOP is not going to pass laws that would hold their colleagues accountable for this kind of behavior.
     
  22. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,390
    If your talking about a stupid mistake as your post, I didn't go looking for malice in it.

    But maybe since the dawn of, Mesopotamia, women have gotten the short end of the stick and it seems you want to play the victim.

    :EDIT:

    Your country elected Trump over Hillary. And Alabama is about to elect a child molester.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2017
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,753

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Get out of the way: Suou offers an unmistakable signal, since simply saying so failed to communicate.

    Vested interest and blame. Note the construction in the topic post; it's easier to say that men should stop sending mixed messages by offering women employment when what the men really want is to rape them, but far more difficult to focus the larger discourse on this aspect because, well, right.

    To borrow a springboard, then, the idea of accidental or unintentional harassment requires extraordinary caution for its hazardous pathology. Some complain that the marketplace is presently not parsing enough between valences of predatory behavior, and this is at least as telling as it is a problematic. There are multiple elements, but the most obvious driver is a mix of ignorance, distrust, and fear: Comprehending neither boundaries nor formulation thereof, refusing to ever trust a woman, some are thereby absolutely terrified for their own sake.

    ... worked at Seattle's public electric utility, part-time and eventually full-time, since 2009. She says she dealt with inappropriate touching and remarks from men. For years, she had never filed a formal complaint. Never complained about the time, she claims, a male coworker brushed his hand against her ass, or all the times men made comments about her appearance. Never complained about when, she says, a colleague asked her if she ever considered "jumping on the pole" at a strip joint or about the time she says a supervisor asked her what color panties she was wearing.

    But staring at the last question on the online employee satisfaction survey, Jasmine decided to say something.

    "Training plans for employees, promotional opportunities, clear path for career progression," she first wrote carefully.

    But then she kept writing.

    "There are many male workers who could use intensive training on gender bias, subtle sexism, and explicit sexism in the workplace," Jasmine wrote. "Personally, I work with many men around the age of my father. The generation gap is huge, and their construct of women in the workplace is from a different time (generalization, but true for many). Current awareness doesn't mean current practice."

    She wrote that she personally experienced the sexism, as well as harassment, naming some examples. And as Jasmine continued to write, she began to get scared. This was her first time speaking out in any public way.

    "This is how it goes," she continued writing. You ignore it and try to be "cool." Or you tell the guy what he did wrong, which carries the risk of being labeled a "bitch" in the office. Or you never speak to your coworker again. Or if your coworker realizes what he did was wrong, you're expected to say, "No problem." But of course it's a problem.


    (Brownstone↱)

    It's an interesting article, one of Brownstone's most meandering and, in the end, seemingly anticlimactic, but that is also, well, the way it goes, as the whole piece is a reflection on, "How Sexism and Harassment Allegations at Seattle City Light Get Lost in the Dark".

    But we also find here something about this chatter regarding accidental or unintentional harassment; naturally, there is more than one thing going on.

    • Consider the lines about jumping on the pole, or the color of her underwear.

    • There are certain statistics about other behaviors, such as drunk driving, suggesting serial offense before one is finally caught; same thing with domestic violence and sex crime. Is there any reason to believe this is the first time a man (ahem!) accidentally harassed someone?

    • But therein lies the hook. There he was, just being a friendly coworker and then, bam! some evil, stupid, or otherwise untrustworthy woman is destroying his life for an accident; that seems to be the underlying implication, at least.

    ↳ What such arguments presuppose is that these "accidents" and failures to guard against them are somehow acceptable.​

    Thus, to circle 'round—

    —'tis a dangerous absurdity these notions promote, because they reserve a right to harass and oblige others to inform and advise them in a manner satisfactory to the harassers.

    Meanwhile, I'm uncertain how to go about addressing the intricacies of totemizing women; the pointed objectification of any given woman in our proximity as symbol of absolution is the desperation of #NotAllMan begging, #JustNotMe. To the other, the people who need to understand this are already having trouble comprehending the problem with any pretense of accidental or unintentional harassment. Clearly, a prior attempt↑ achieved mixed results at best; sometimes it's hard to figure how to adjust, given the mixed signals coming from that bloc.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Brownstone, Sydney. "How Sexism and Harassment Allegations at Seattle City Light Get Lost in the Dark". The Stranger. 8 November 2017. TheStranger.com. 4 December 2017. http://bit.ly/2hRzfAM
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page