Enough is enough, what's up with all the Sexual Harassment?

Advan046 said:

In reply to z31maniac :

My point of view is that it is within almost everyone's ability to act professionally at 18 years old. The choice not to do so isn't an acceptable excuse for behavior on the job that could be close to harrassment. Being 18 doesn't give a legal right to ignore the laws of the country or the policies of your employer. If they employer sold a shock, edgy service (comedy, theme bar, strip club)then there is more room to allow behavior abnormal to most businesses, if they inform job applicants of the environment.

A judge teaches a social legal course for 5th graders and 8th graders at my kids school. He says the number one thing he hears in juvenile court is "It was an accident.." Second is " I didn't know...." In the IDK cases he says he will walk through the history of the accused and point out where they were told things that made it clear they were told it was wrong. On accidents. That if sexual assault was accidental then it means anyone at any age can accidentally commit the crime. That despite any effort to avoid it you could still commit the crime. 

We have control of our minds and bodies. I have never felt my body uncontrollably lunge towards a woman I found attractive. Or uncontrollably attack them with words.

I accidentally insulted someone by using and engineering acronym commonly used in my workplace. She wasn't in engineering and in her culture that acronym is a serious sexual slur. She recoiled from the meeting table. But didn't say anything. Luckily she talked to a woman engineer who explained our internal use of the acronym. She asked me if we could use a different acronym. We changed all of our future communications to use a different acronym. NP everyone got on board. Using an acronym isn't near important relative to someone's workplace comfort. 

I figured since you won't read my post, I won't read yours.

There is a difference between people who know each other and are joking around, again what was described by another poster, and intimidation or harrassment. 

What's that 3 times now? I can see you also prefer to take the faux high ground instead of accept what I'm trying to say. 

This thread will be locked soon, I'm out.

I think you two need to get a room

I think toebra's comment has sexually harassed me.

In reply to mtn :

Yes. NPR didn’t fire him for one incident. Just like Laurer 

tuna55 said:

In reply to Erich :

I know of three. I know of one firing which was justified outside of those three which was not.

So let's take this to its logical conclusion.  Research says that 25% of women have been sexually harassed. Let's call bullE36 M3 on that number and say it is 10%.  Do you honestly think that 10% of the working male population is being fired yearly for sexual harassment claims in total regardless of truth?  Your anecdotal evidence indicates that 75% of harassment claims are false.  If we apply that number to the 10% reduced assumption from earlier we get 2.5% which we should throw out and call it 0.5%.  Is it really true that even 0.25% of the male population is being fired every year due to sexual harassment claims in total?  Sounds like bullE36 M3 to me.  This problem is way bigger than us males "see" or comprehend.  We should stop crying like little children about this and teach the next generation that this wasn't and isn't acceptable.  

Here is a gut check for you parents; Are you more concerned about your son being falsely accused or your daughter being assaulted.  Which outcome do you think is more likely?

In reply to mattm :

Neither is acceptable.

Why the vast extremes?  Is it really wrong to want fairness and justice for all?

I am completely ready to accept we have a big problem and address it.  Why does it have to be an either/or?

It's not a statistical analysis.  It's a matter of human rights.  We have a big problem with harrassment against women, and we need to address it right now in a manner that is balanced and fair to everyone.  

Firing people over allegations is not fair.  Suspending them pending the outcome of an investigation is.

And firing them is absolutely not enough if a crime has been committed.  Charges should be filed.

SVreX said:

In reply to mattm :

Neither is acceptable.

Why the vast extremes?  Is it really wrong to want fairness and justice for all?

I am completely ready to accept we have a big problem and address it.  Why does it have to be an either/or?

It's not a statistical analysis.  It's a matter of human rights.  We have a big problem with harrassment against women, and we need to address it right now in a manner that is balanced and fair to everyone.  

Firing people over allegations is not fair.  Suspending them pending the outcome of an investigation is.

And firing them is absolutely not enough if a crime has been committed.  Charges should be filed.

 

While I agree that neither is acceptable, one is far more likely than the other.  Your son is far more likely to Assault my daughter than he is to be accused of harassment.  Remember that sexual assault CAN result in jail time.  Sexual Harassment is not a criminal offense.  You can be fired, but you won't spend time in jail.  Statistically your son is far more dangerous to my daughter than anything she could claim against him.

I have a son as well, and I am fairly certain what I need to tell him to avoid jail time.  A false accusation can have an impact and we will have further conversations around situational awareness.  These conversations will be different and difficult but also fundamentally different to the conversations around situational awareness I must have with my daughter. And those differences will be beneficial to my male child vs my female child.

It is not my intent to say that innocent men or boys must hang for their offenses.  I don't want false accusations, but we have to be real about the percentages.  What response do you have to the statistics in my post?  I have given every benefit of the doubt to men in the stats and it is evident that the math doesn't add up. Not even close.

In reply to mattm :

Again, this is not a statistical analysis. 

If you had said your daughter is statistically more likely to be assaulted then my son is statistically likely to be accused of harrassment, you'd be right. 

But you said my son is more likely to assault your daughter. Sorry, that's not true. It's a COMPLETELY false statement. That is what happens when you try to use statistics to justify imbalances in human rights. 

Do we actually want equal rights, or would we rather unequal rights to try to make up for historical imbalances?

My cousin fired a very popular famous person last week. He committed no crime, but got crucified in the court of public opinion. My cousin had to do it- simple business decision. But the guy's career is ruined. He assaulted no one. 

Its not an either/or question. We need to do what is right, in BOTH situations. 

In reply to z31maniac :

I guess my point was missed. Z31maniac, I was trying to get to the point that a group of people who know each other and choose to behave in an unprofessional way at work that is wrong. If you think otherwise then we agree to disagree.

If a new hire joins the work shift of that group and at some point that new hire was tested to see if they can join in with the group. If that new hire feels that if they don't play along they might lose their job..it has turned into a hostile environment for them. 

But let's say that, as you stated, this group would be able to switch on and off when someone outside the club entered the room. If that was successful then great. If the aggressive fun talk was overheard by those that didn't want to be around it and the "fun" group got fired great too. You can be unprofessional off the job when you all hangout at the 7 Eleven parking lot. 

Not saying your scenario can't work but it is a higher risk one if the "fun" group wanted to keep their jobs stable. 

"Enough is enough, what's up with all the Sexual Harassment?"

You know, in that font you look kinda hot...