Why Now is it ok for Women (and the occasional man) to talk abut sexual abuse?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Oh, another thing that hasn't been mentioned, Taylor Swift winning her $1 court case. That was really high profile, and a decisive victory. Of course, it's only saying "the system works" with "if you happen to be have the advantages Taylor Swift has" stuck on the end, but it was still something of a big deal.

Gorfias:
Is it ever OK today to pursue sex at work? Can we separate pursuit of a potential relationship at work and a pursuit of sex? Should this "dating scene" of the 1980s be shut down: that any such attentions are forbidden now as, could any authority be able to justly maintain such a separation? And if we shut it down, will normal people with normal interests in the opposite sex be able to just 100% turn it off at work?

EDIT: Heck, there are same sex people with the same conflicts to worry about in the workplace. Same issue: should the pursuit of sex at work be shut down? Potential relationships ?

The issue is not so much pursuing a relationship/sex at work, but an imbalance of power, something you are going to see in the workplace. Someone on the same level as you, shouldn't be an issue (or at least, not that issue), but if you have the power to fire or otherwise affect someone's career, there is a problem there.

Thaluikhain:

The issue is not so much pursuing a relationship/sex at work, but an imbalance of power, something you are going to see in the workplace. Someone on the same level as you, shouldn't be an issue (or at least, not that issue), but if you have the power to fire or otherwise affect someone's career, there is a problem there.

I dunno. ML, as stated, telling a woman that she provides a great view when she bends over...suppose they are equal in power. What he said was still creeper grotesque.

I'm a sexist. I can believe that the attention of a powerful, wealthy, still physically attractive man as he was in the 2000s may be welcome. But to a girl, even if on equal status with him, hearing that might find such a statement out of line, inappropriate at work.. I can buy that too. He was out of line. Way out of line.

I am honestly confused as to how we should handle this topic at work.

Gorfias:

Thaluikhain:

The issue is not so much pursuing a relationship/sex at work, but an imbalance of power, something you are going to see in the workplace. Someone on the same level as you, shouldn't be an issue (or at least, not that issue), but if you have the power to fire or otherwise affect someone's career, there is a problem there.

I dunno. ML, as stated, telling a woman that she provides a great view when she bends over...suppose they are equal in power. What he said was still creeper grotesque.

I'm a sexist. I can believe that the attention of a powerful, wealthy, still physically attractive man as he was in the 2000s may be welcome. But to a girl, even if on equal status with him, hearing that might find such a statement out of line, inappropriate at work.. I can buy that too. He was out of line. Way out of line.

I am honestly confused as to how we should handle this topic at work.

Sure, but that's sexual harassment, that should be banned everywhere. That's not quite the same issue as relationships at work.

Thaluikhain:

Sure, but that's sexual harassment, that should be banned everywhere. That's not quite the same issue as relationships at work.

I think that if Tom Brady was inappropriate at work and told a girl she was all that and a bag of chips, she'd love it, even if all he wanted was sex rather than a relationship.

So, a Barney Fife type says the exact same thing to a woman at work... he is screwed.

Should we warn a Fife. Is a Brady bound to the same rules?

Gorfias:

Thaluikhain:

Sure, but that's sexual harassment, that should be banned everywhere. That's not quite the same issue as relationships at work.

I think that if Tom Brady was inappropriate at work and told a girl she was all that and a bag of chips, she'd love it, even if all he wanted was sex rather than a relationship.

So, a Barney Fife type says the exact same thing to a woman at work... he is screwed.

Should we warn a Fife. Is a Brady bound to the same rules?

It's not harassment if it's not unwanted.

Thaluikhain:

It's not harassment if it's not unwanted.

But, especially because how clueless a horny man can be, I worry that it is unfair for most men, in most situations, to know the enough about the difference.

An unwanted comment by them can result in the destruction of their entire life under today's rules.

I think what Lauer did was depiscable. But I worry that there are too many out there that will not be able to know ahead of time that they are out of bounds.

We may need to come up with a red line that is much more visible; one that tells some "high sexual marketplace guys" that they are in danger of crossing that line even though, for them invididually, they aren't there. They'll be frurstrerated but, better that than have others cross that line and endanger themselves.

Gorfias:
But, especially because how clueless a horny man can be, I worry that it is unfair for most men, in most situations, to know the enough about the difference.

Ignorance should be corrected, not coddled. If a man is afraid of getting slapped with sexual harassment charges for soliciting a co-worker, he really should stop and ask, "Is it me?"

Gorfias:

Thaluikhain:

It's not harassment if it's not unwanted.

But, especially because how clueless a horny man can be, I worry that it is unfair for most men, in most situations, to know the enough about the difference.

An unwanted comment by them can result in the destruction of their entire life under today's rules.

I think what Lauer did was depiscable. But I worry that there are too many out there that will not be able to know ahead of time that they are out of bounds.

We may need to come up with a red line that is much more visible; one that tells some "high sexual marketplace guys" that they are in danger of crossing that line even though, for them invididually, they aren't there. They'll be frurstrerated but, better that than have others cross that line and endanger themselves.

So men are an inferior sex that must be coddled to prevent their innate tendency to sexual harass others? And you say that others look down on men....

BeetleManiac:

Ignorance should be corrected, not coddled.

There may be no other reasonable alternative. Unfortunate as such ignorance is not necessarily born of a hostile intent. But we'll have to react with hostility.

Avnger:

So men are an inferior sex that must be coddled to prevent their innate tendency to sexual harass others? And you say that others look down on men....

I do not understand your statement.

But to add detail to my thoughts:

Matt Lauer, for instance, was a "high market place value" male. There was a time when he could make a vulgar statements that, most of the time, got him sex (but would have resulted in a low market value male like myself being disemboweled in a public square). I think that would impact his behavior resulting in increasingly vulgar behavior. Eventually, this was his undoing (especially as he aged out of that top market value). By nature, his behavior was actually rewarded. That impacted it.

In the past, the work place was the dating zone: again, it is how I met my wife. Given what is happening, I'm thinking we have to have a redline: no display of sex or even dating interest in the workplace. Sure, it will make the workplace a more hostile environment but I think it has to happen. You?

Gorfias:
But, especially because how clueless a horny man can be, I worry that it is unfair for most men, in most situations, to know the enough about the difference.

What an odd outlook. I don't think people should be absolved of responsibility for their own actions just because they have an erection. The erection itself they may not be able to do much about, though if that's still happening once they get into the workplace they should see a doctor, but they can at least not run around rubbing people with it.

Gorfias:

Thaluikhain:

It's not harassment if it's not unwanted.

But, especially because how clueless a horny man can be, I worry that it is unfair for most men, in most situations, to know the enough about the difference.

An unwanted comment by them can result in the destruction of their entire life under today's rules.

I think what Lauer did was depiscable. But I worry that there are too many out there that will not be able to know ahead of time that they are out of bounds.

We may need to come up with a red line that is much more visible; one that tells some "high sexual marketplace guys" that they are in danger of crossing that line even though, for them invididually, they aren't there. They'll be frurstrerated but, better that than have others cross that line and endanger themselves.

Clueless? Come on man. Cut our gender some slack. Higher thinking and motor control don't go out the windows just because we pop a boner. Yeesh. And the implication of your post implies that men just don't know better. If that's true, well, we got a freaking problem, don't we?

Baffle2:

What an odd outlook. I don't think people should be absolved of responsibility for their own actions just because they have an erection. The erection itself they may not be able to do much about, though if that's still happening once they get into the workplace they should see a doctor, but they can at least not run around rubbing people with it.

Neither do I.
Do you support the idea that it is OK to seek sex at work? Can we expect men to typically show the proper judgement to know when it is OK and when it isn't? Or should there be a hard and fast rule: no seeking such attention in the work place?

erttheking:

Clueless? Come on man. Cut our gender some slack. Higher thinking and motor control don't go out the windows just because we pop a boner. Yeesh. And the implication of your post implies that men just don't know better. If that's true, well, we got a freaking problem, don't we?

Worse than not knowing better: conditioned to think such conduct is OK.

If I pulled the stuff Lauer did, I'd get the full Brave Heart treatment. And I wouldn't be able to shout Freedom while it happened.

But we can believe when he did it when he was younger, he got positive responses. He appears to not have known when it was time to knock that conduct off.

Should there be a fast and hard, consistent rule: no pursuing sex (and/or relationships at all?) in the work place? Be better, more fair now than in my day. There are all sorts of apps and internet services to help one meet people.

Your thoughts?

Gorfias:

saint of m:
snip

Too bad I do not think you can add a poll.

Back in the 80s, there were articles about how the work place had become the fallback dating pool of the age. It is where I met the woman that would become my wife and mother to my kids.

Then I see footage of Matt Lauer saying to a woman, on a hot mike in 2006, that her sweater is pretty, "keep on bending over like that,it's a nice view".

Is it ever OK today to pursue sex at work? Can we separate pursuit of a potential relationship at work and a pursuit of sex? Should this "dating scene" of the 1980s be shut down: that any such attentions are forbidden now as, could any authority be able to justly maintain such a separation? And if we shut it down, will normal people with normal interests in the opposite sex be able to just 100% turn it off at work?

EDIT: Heck, there are same sex people with the same conflicts to worry about in the workplace. Same issue: should the pursuit of sex at work be shut down? Potential relationships ?

Considering what a relationship between co-workers, or worse, a bad break-up, can do to a team or even a company if high up enough, could make it into a bigger issue than it's supposed to be, and that's not considering if the relationship was between two people of unequal status.

Generally speaking, you probably shouldn't looking to sleep or date your co-workers if you plan to stay around long-term.

NemotheElvenPanda:

Considering what a relationship between co-workers, or worse, a bad break-up, can do to a team or even a company if high up enough, could make it into a bigger issue than it's supposed to be, and that's not considering if the relationship was between two people of unequal status.

Generally speaking, you probably shouldn't looking to sleep or date your co-workers if you plan to stay around long-term.

I think you are right.

I did just re-watch Lauer clip again and, man, he is creepy. I have to wonder if such rules would have stopped him.

And more...

So odd. I cannot imagine what makes this guy tick.

Gorfias:

NemotheElvenPanda:

Considering what a relationship between co-workers, or worse, a bad break-up, can do to a team or even a company if high up enough, could make it into a bigger issue than it's supposed to be, and that's not considering if the relationship was between two people of unequal status.

Generally speaking, you probably shouldn't looking to sleep or date your co-workers if you plan to stay around long-term.

I think you are right.

I did just re-watch Lauer clip again and, man, he is creepy. I have to wonder if such rules would have stopped him.

And more...

So odd. I cannot imagine what makes this guy tick.

I think we can all agree that trying to score or date someone on the clock is just straight up unprofessional at least or possibly illegal at worst.

Gorfias:

Baffle2:

What an odd outlook. I don't think people should be absolved of responsibility for their own actions just because they have an erection. The erection itself they may not be able to do much about, though if that's still happening once they get into the workplace they should see a doctor, but they can at least not run around rubbing people with it.

Neither do I.
Do you support the idea that it is OK to seek sex at work? Can we expect men to typically show the proper judgement to know when it is OK and when it isn't? Or should there be a hard and fast rule: no seeking such attention in the work place?

erttheking:

Clueless? Come on man. Cut our gender some slack. Higher thinking and motor control don't go out the windows just because we pop a boner. Yeesh. And the implication of your post implies that men just don't know better. If that's true, well, we got a freaking problem, don't we?

Worse than not knowing better: conditioned to think such conduct is OK.

If I pulled the stuff Lauer did, I'd get the full Brave Heart treatment. And I wouldn't be able to shout Freedom while it happened.

But we can believe when he did it when he was younger, he got positive responses. He appears to not have known when it was time to knock that conduct off.

Should there be a fast and hard, consistent rule: no pursuing sex (and/or relationships at all?) in the work place? Be better, more fair now than in my day. There are all sorts of apps and internet services to help one meet people.

Your thoughts?

How about this. Keep your hands to yourself, don't make compliments creepy and conduct yourself with some class when you don't know what the other person is comfortable with? Ask if they want to get a drink after work.

I mean geez. Men being that oblivious are why people talk about rape culture. Like I said. If this is widespread to any degree, we have a problem.

NemotheElvenPanda:

I think we can all agree that trying to score or date someone on the clock is just straight up unprofessional at least or possibly illegal at worst.

Rules against inappropriate sexual conduct already exist and have at least since the 1990s. Dating is more problematic. You work with each other, become friends and end up going on dates. Even today, there are some places with rules I don't see enforced against that(if the relationship goes south, the business will suffer). Didn't stop two of my coworkers from marrying (and divorcing) within the last five years. Luckily, they still work OK together.

erttheking:

How about this. Keep your hands to yourself, don't make compliments creepy and conduct yourself with some class when you don't know what the other person is comfortable with? Ask if they want to get a drink after work.

I mean geez. Men being that oblivious are why people talk about rape culture. Like I said. If this is widespread to any degree, we have a problem.

Watching the creepy Matt Lauer videos have me asking if any rule short of ending a guy's career would stop something like this. The guy seems truly disturbed.

Gorfias:
But, especially because how clueless a horny man can be, I worry that it is unfair for most men, in most situations, to know the enough about the difference.

No. It's not unfair to expect men to be able to live in society without harassing others.

Gorfias:
An unwanted comment by them can result in the destruction of their entire life under today's rules.

Firstly, no, doesn't work like that. But if a man is incapable of realising he shouldn't commit crimes...yeah, he's not a functional member of society and shouldn't be treated as such.

EDIT: Actually, might have misread you there. I was reading that as you saying that men are inherently prone to that, they are, by nature, going to harass women. Or did you mean that men, in the current culture, are brought up with bad ideas about consent, that they are being made, by nurture, into people that will harass and enable harassment?

Thaluikhain:

No. It's not unfair to expect men to be able to live in society without harassing others.

So, I'm asking: Do you think flirting, trying to get sex, asking for dates, that sort of thing would be OK at work? I used to think the answer was yes, just be cool about it.

Now I'm thinking some guys can't be cool or cannot figure out the difference between what is and is not appropriate. And, at least nowadays, there are new ways to meet people (dating apps, Internet services).

Might be time to just say, nope. Keep it all professional in the workplace. Even if you think you can be cool, it's no longer allowed to do, what in the 1980 was considered a norm: the workplace is where you met people.

EDIT: Actually, might have misread you there. I was reading that as you saying that men are inherently prone to that, they are, by nature, going to harass women. Or did you mean that men, in the current culture, are brought up with bad ideas about consent, that they are being made, by nurture, into people that will harass and enable harassment?

While women will sometimes take initiative, it's usually up to men to initiate dating/sex etc. Matt Lauer, at one point in his life, was at the peak of his sexual market value.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/matt-lauer-willie-geist-people-sexiest-man-alive_n_2128969.html
I think that at some point, what would be deemed creepy behavior in any normal person got him laid. He got positive reinforcement. End allowing workplace relations completely and maybe... maybe he even he would have known not to do what he did. I do wonder if he went from 0-60. From mild flirtations to telling women he likes to look at them bent over.

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
But, especially because how clueless a horny man can be, I worry that it is unfair for most men, in most situations, to know the enough about the difference.

No. It's not unfair to expect men to be able to live in society without harassing others.

Gorfias:
An unwanted comment by them can result in the destruction of their entire life under today's rules.

Firstly, no, doesn't work like that. But if a man is incapable of realising he shouldn't commit crimes...yeah, he's not a functional member of society and shouldn't be treated as such.

EDIT: Actually, might have misread you there. I was reading that as you saying that men are inherently prone to that, they are, by nature, going to harass women. Or did you mean that men, in the current culture, are brought up with bad ideas about consent, that they are being made, by nurture, into people that will harass and enable harassment?

I thought the point he was trying to make was that the line between harmless flirting and sexual harassment can be blurry and where that line is drawn can vary greatly depending on the individuals involved. I don't think he was trying to suggest that men are either inherently or learned serial harassers, but complaining that the difference between behavior that is appropriate or even welcomed on the dating scene and behavior that is life destroying or even criminal is not better defined, That the same behavior could fall on either side of that line depending on the attractiveness of the perpetuator or the receptiveness of the receiver. He used some strange phrasing so I'm not sure but that's what I thought he was getting at

Gorfias:

Thaluikhain:

It's not harassment if it's not unwanted.

But, especially because how clueless a horny man can be, I worry that it is unfair for most men, in most situations, to know the enough about the difference.

An unwanted comment by them can result in the destruction of their entire life under today's rules.

I think what Lauer did was depiscable. But I worry that there are too many out there that will not be able to know ahead of time that they are out of bounds.

We may need to come up with a red line that is much more visible; one that tells some "high sexual marketplace guys" that they are in danger of crossing that line even though, for them invididually, they aren't there. They'll be frurstrerated but, better that than have others cross that line and endanger themselves.

Yeah, this is true but there is a problem with the logic with that.

Namly, with as much information out there unless you don't understand social cues (like with my autism), and other developmental issiues such as with most of the people I played with in Special Olympics, I don't think that can fly so well. Heck, even with me being young and stupid till my mid 20's, I wasn't that big a creep (enough of one to deserve getting slapped I am sure from time to time, but not that).

Heck, even when looking at my fellow Special Olympians, most were as horny as the next person but most could tell were the line was drawn.

Silent Protagonist:
I thought the point he was trying to make was that the line between harmless flirting and sexual harassment can be blurry and where that line is drawn can vary greatly depending on the individuals involved. I don't think he was trying to suggest that men are either inherently or learned serial harassers, but complaining that the difference between behavior that is appropriate or even welcomed on the dating scene and behavior that is life destroying or even criminal is not better defined, That the same behavior could fall on either side of that line depending on the attractiveness of the perpetrator or the receptiveness of the receiver. He used some strange phrasing so I'm not sure but that's what I thought he was getting at

You wrote it better than I did. And a little more on this...
Say Tom Brady, at work, solicits a woman at work. She swoons and he gets lucky. Now, 20 years later, he does exactly the same thing (At about age 60). It used to work. He used to get positive feedback (getting lucky). Now, fairly, it gets him fired. I wrote earlier, in the 1980s, the work place was the dating center of social life. (previously Church or bars: many wanted neither). Today, you have other new avenues. I think we can have a hard and fast rule: don't engage in this kind of behavior at work. Find dates and sex elsewhere or else. Period. Could be very hard to enforce (I met my wife at work in the 1980s: we were friends first. That happens in such extended, close quarters. It (friendship) SHOULD happen. And that can easily lead to resentment of the employer if two such people want to date. And rule breaking. Might make things worse.

saint of m:

... with as much information out there unless you don't understand social cues (like with my autism), and other developmental issues such as with most of the people I played with in Special Olympics, I don't think that can fly so well. Heck, even with me being young and stupid till my mid 20's, I wasn't that big a creep (enough of one to deserve getting slapped I am sure from time to time, but not that).

Heck, even when looking at my fellow Special Olympians, most were as horny as the next person but most could tell were the line was drawn.

Do you think it is OK to seek sex and dates at work? That we can expect people to know where the line is drawn? And as I wrote above, if we make a hard and fast rule forbidding it, will that simply lead to more rule breaking?

Gorfias:
But we can believe when he did it when he was younger, he got positive responses. He appears to not have known when it was time to knock that conduct off.

I can't. You're making a lot of assumptions.

BeetleManiac:

Gorfias:
But we can believe when he did it when he was younger, he got positive responses. He appears to not have known when it was time to knock that conduct off.

I can't. You're making a lot of assumptions.

You cannot believe a guy, who, only about 5 years ago, got the "sexiest man alive" award, was able to do things that got him laid that a lesser guy would find himself in front of a firing squad over?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/matt-lauer-willie-geist-people-sexiest-man-alive_n_2128969.html

I'm not even writing that he did: just that understanding female Hypergamy, it is completely within the bounds of credibility.

EDIT: To be fair, he was nominated and included in a issue of People Magazine on the subject. He lost to Channing Tatum.

image
You'd be surprised what women will put up with if they find a man physically and socially attractive (he is worth about $60 million).

Gorfias:
I think we can have a hard and fast rule: don't engage in this kind of behavior at work. Find dates and sex elsewhere or else. Period. Could be very hard to enforce (I met my wife at work in the 1980s: we were friends first. That happens in such extended, close quarters. It (friendship) SHOULD happen. And that can easily lead to resentment of the employer if two such people want to date. And rule breaking. Might make things worse.

Well, if someone is uncertain is their advances would be welcome or harassment, the should not do it, yes.

But I don't see why this should lead to a rule banned everything at workplaces. Or why outside of the work environment isn't an issue.

Gorfias:
You cannot believe a guy, who, only about 5 years ago, got the "sexiest man alive" award, was able to do things that got him laid that a lesser guy would find himself in front of a firing squad over?

Ignoring the usual hyperbole, there is a big difference between being found attractive and not knowing sexual harassment is wrong. Even if some women found (or find) him attractive, he (or anyone else) cannot assume that all women find him attractive, and that his advances would automatically be welcome if they did.

(Also, putting aside the accusations of locking women in his office and raping them, which is sexual assault, not sexual harassment)

Thaluikhain:

But I don't see why this should lead to a rule banned everything at workplaces. Or why outside of the work environment isn't an issue.

Allowing this sort of thing in the work place can lead to abuses that might otherwise have been avoided. And this is less a thing in the private sphere due to power differences. Guy says something objectionable at a bar, the woman can walk away. He is nothing to her. At work? Not as easily done. (and I'm including this an injunction vs. hooking up with co workers even outside of work.) Course, like I wrote above, could lead to even bigger problems. Resentment of the employer, freedom of association issues and more rule breaking.

There is a big difference between being found attractive and not knowing sexual harassment is wrong. Even if some women found (or find) him attractive, he (or anyone else) cannot assume that all women find him attractive, and that his advances would automatically be welcome if they did.

(Also, putting aside the accusations of locking women in his office and raping them, which is sexual assault, not sexual harassment)

Sure, but that doesn't answer my question. Is it credible that a physically attractive $60 million man can do things that get him laid that would get someone like me in HR trouble? Not definitely, but credible?

That clip I showed has him saying to a coworker that its a nice view when she bends over. I think that alone should have gotten him fired. But believe it, there are women out there that would think, "this attractive $60 million man has signaled interest. I will reciprocate". And when that happens, the guy gets rewarded for bad behavior. That positive reinforcement is going to make it that much harder to police things in the workplace.

Not that I have an answer to the question. Just spit balling with y'all.

Gorfias:
You cannot believe a guy, who, only about 5 years ago, got the "sexiest man alive" award, was able to do things that got him laid that a lesser guy would find himself in front of a firing squad over?

Sure I can. Because having nice pecs is not a blank check for douchebaggery.

I'm not even writing that he did: just that understanding female Hypergamy, it is completely within the bounds of credibility.

Oh Jesus... Okay, let's back up for a minute. Do you believe that hypergamy is a biological or cultural construct? What motivates it? What is the origin of this behavior?

Gorfias:

Or should there be a hard and fast rule: no seeking such attention in the work place?

Yes, there should. In fact, I feel so strongly about this that I think we should apply it retroactively. Couples that met in the workplace should be forced to split up/divorce and meet again in a different setting, like a bookshop or a posh cafe. Their assets will be divided evenly, but of course she gets to keep the penis.

BeetleManiac:

Gorfias:
You cannot believe a guy, who, only about 5 years ago, got the "sexiest man alive" award, was able to do things that got him laid that a lesser guy would find himself in front of a firing squad over?

Sure I can. Because having nice pecs is not a blank check for douchebaggery.

I do not understand your response as written.
Do you mean, yes, you can believe a very high status male can get sex in a vulgar manner that would not get a lesser status man sex BUT that does not excuse douchebaggery? That I can agree with.

Oh Jesus... Okay, let's back up for a minute. Do you believe that hypergamy is a biological or cultural construct? What motivates it? What is the origin of this behavior?

Irrelevant and I have no opinion on the matter. It is there. It has an impact on relationships and behaviorism.

I do think we can end it through the right combination of authoritarian rule, torture and eugenics. I personally do not want to go down that road.

Baffle2:

Gorfias:

Or should there be a hard and fast rule: no seeking such attention in the work place?

Yes, there should. In fact, I feel so strongly about this that I think we should apply it retroactively. Couples that met in the workplace should be forced to split up/divorce and meet again in a different setting, like a bookshop or a posh cafe. Their assets will be divided evenly, but of course she gets to keep the penis.

I'll take that as a sarcastic "no".

I'd point out again: there are ways to meet people for sex and/or relationships that didn't even exist 30 years ago, at least in the current form (matchmaking is an old custom though: but through the Internet, it has changed).

But, what I think is your answer is a point taken.

Gorfias:
I do not understand your response as written.
Do you mean, yes, you can believe a very high status male can get sex in a vulgar manner that would not get a lesser status man sex BUT that does not excuse douchebaggery? That I can agree with.

Good looks only get you so far. A good-looking creeper is still a creeper and there are a lot of women out there who can tell.

Irrelevant and I have no opinion on the matter.

You're asserting that it is irrelevant to know the causality of this phenomenon because you never bothered to ask? If someone has a compound fracture in their leg, do you offer to treat it with some aspirin and chicken soup? If the plumbing is fucked up in your house, do you call an electrician?

Your lack of an opinion does not mean the causality is irrelevant. That's a really arrogant thing to say. How can you expect to fix a problem if you don't know what causes it? If you've not thought about it before, now's a good time to start. Why is this a thing? How did it originate? What are the causal elements?

BeetleManiac:

You're asserting that it is irrelevant to know the causality of this phenomenon because you never bothered to ask? If someone has a compound fracture in their leg, do you offer to treat it with some aspirin and chicken soup? If the plumbing is fucked up in your house, do you call an electrician?

Your lack of an opinion does not mean the causality is irrelevant. That's a really arrogant thing to say. How can you expect to fix a problem if you don't know what causes it? If you've not thought about it before, now's a good time to start. Why is this a thing? How did it originate? What are the causal elements?

I didn't say I want to fix it: I just note that it exists.

I have noted with the right combo of totalitarian-authoritarianism, torture, eugenics, forced re-education camps, surgery and chemical treatments, we might be able to force a change if we wanted one. Not something I want to do.

Gorfias:
I have noted with the right combo of totalitarian-authoritarianism, torture, eugenics, forced re-education camps, surgery and chemical treatments, we might be able to force a change if we wanted one. Not something I want to do.

That's not what I asked you. You said that female hypergamy is one of the variables in this problem. I want to know what you think hypergamy is a symptom of. What are the root causes of it? Is it possible that those causative features are also directly tied to the culture of workplace sexual harassment?

BeetleManiac:
Is it possible that those causative features [of hypergamy] are also directly tied to the culture of workplace sexual harassment?

EDIT:
About as much as a man's sex drive is... less but a partial explanation (as without his sex drive I don't think you could have sexual harassment issues... anywhere.. not a lot of sex either). I don't want to end men's sex drives to avoid a problem.

And I don't want to lobotomize women to get rid of hypergamy, even if that would do the trick.

Gorfias:
-snip-

Again, you're not answering the question. I'm not asking what extremist, strawman solutions you disapprove of. You're an MRA by your own admission. Do you believe that hypergamy is a biological drive or is it a construct of human culture? The answer matters because it will influence the course of action that you take on workplace sexual harassment.

BeetleManiac:

Again, you're not answering the question. I'm not asking what extremist, strawman solutions you disapprove of. You're an MRA by your own admission. Do you believe that hypergamy is a biological drive or is it a construct of human culture? The answer matters because it will influence the course of action that you take on workplace sexual harassment.

I did answer this already... see below.

BeetleManiac:
snip

Irrelevant and I have no opinion on the matter.

And who says it has to be one or the other? Biology or environment: They both impact one another.

I have suggested a change to environment that I don't think is extreme but has been noted by others in this thread to be unacceptable.

Have a hard and fast rule against sex and/or relationships at work between employees of an organization.

Now, do you have an opinion on the matter?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here