Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Member Since: Fri Aug 21, 2015
Subj: Re: I disagree with this on several grounds...
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 at 09:04:48 am EST (Viewed 476 times)
Reply Subj: Re: I disagree with this on several grounds...
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 at 08:21:22 am EST (Viewed 448 times)


      I understand the distinction you are trying to make with severity. If it makes somebody uncomfortable than it is a problem. The legal standard for sexual harassment in particularly does not cover all forms of harassment.

    I think the problem starts when you put feelings above facts.

I am not sure what you are getting at here honestly. The definition of harassment always has an emotional context. There is no getting around that point.

What reaches the level of illegal and what qualifies as harrasment are not the same at all. Legal definitions are not THE end all be all.

    If we use the previous example, the woman raised a sexual harassment case against a man for saying (either jokingly or not?) "Men are better cooks than women." (another example that the left has no sense of humour but I digress).

I am not sure the issue with the woman have a problem with that. It is sexist.

    Now either that woman has severe mentally fragile anxiety (in which case she is not fit to be out working in the 'real world' ) or she's a con artist playing the victim to get attention and/or money for herself or get that man fired.

How was the comment in the example phrased? I am just saying that you are coming at this entirely from the angle that it is the fault of the person being offended. Meaning, taking this to the extreme (as you are) that we must be differential to the most offensive person. Until something becomes illegal.

    I know I wouldn't want to work or talk to such a woman, because basically ANYTHING could trigger her. In fact even NOT talking to her might trigger her.

Or you could just not be a jerk and say things that would be offensive.

    So when we allow feelings (which cannot be verified as true or not) to determine ACTUAL crime/harassment you run the twin problems that:

The example you gave was a poor one. He made the comment. That is a fact.

What if a guy walked by her in the haul and pulled a move of touching her breast and then blowing ito ff as an accident. She was offended, who cares? She should get a grip?

At one point would your scenario or logic make it not ok. The whole thing is merky but act professionally and be done with it. Do the job first and foremost in the work place.

People are mostly offended by stuff that is offensive. There is a counter movement by some that people are just offended by everything. Pick a group and they are offended by something but what is the reason for it. It is rarely that they are "snowflakes".

Individuals have varying tolerances to comments, but that still would only put the problem with them in a small minority. Actual harassment that goes unreported probably lacks what you would likely consider facts. Does not mean that it did not happen or was not worthy of being offended by.

    1. Mentally unstable people (or people suffering from temporary mental severe depression) could be triggered by literally ANYTHING being said.
    2. Insidious or deceitful people are going to willfully use that for their gain and others loss.

So, now mentally ill people should get out of the work force? I am just confused as to what would rise to harassment in your situation. And should everybody just get out of the work force except those who enjoy crude humor?


      For instance, I think the "guy talk" out is lazy and lacks context. Where is it being discussed and what is being discussed. If it is at work, than it is not ok. Even if it does not rise to the level of sexual harassment it is unprofessional and not ok. It creates a poor environment that can lead to worse and worse things. That is a fact.

    Partially agree with this. But if you totally outlaw 'Banter' at work then the staff become little more than automatons also a bit of banter helps prepare people for the 'real world'. If you mollycoddle people too much they just become big (cry)babies who get triggered by everything (case in point - micro-aggressions )

I am not saying not to banter, but don't be a jerk or unprofessional. There are many examples of a small group having their own sort of internal way of doing things and interacting. In many cases all male. Add a woman and she may be offended by the crude sexual sort of humor. So, the banter is no longer ok, if it ever was.

The whole banter thing is easily adjusted in the respect you are getting at with a simple know your audience and co-workers. It is going to be rare that anybody runs off to HR for something small. And if they do there will not be much done about it if it was only a comment like you implied earlier.

They take things of a sexual nature very seriously in the world. And for good reason. It is and was a big problem.


      Harmless flirting is not always harmless. I think that gets lost on some men and women. Depending on the context of the situation. Even at a bar. It is probably ok to go up to somebody and flirt and ask them out. But if they tell you to get lost than pushing the issue and getting more and more raunchy is not ok. By no stretch. And in a professional environment it is hard to imagine a situation where it is ok.

    Again, partially agree. I think its okay to ask someone out anywhere (I mean most people meet their partner AT work) and if you outlaw this you virtually destroy western civilization (which is of course the goal of some Far Leftists).

I do not understand this argument. I did not say anything like it. Do not make a pass at a co-worker in a professional setting. At the end of a day when there is no more work if somebody asks another person out for drinks. That is fine.

If they get a no and then become more and more forceful that is not ok. Asking someone out while working and so on. This may be a very case by case situation, depending on the person, but in many instances the male co-worker not leaving afemale worker alone can be common. The reverse is true too but not heard as often (in my limited exposure).

There is nothing wrong with having relationships, romantic or otherwise, with co-workers. However, one has to respect boundaries and be a decent person.

If you would be married to a co-worker it is not ok to just go make out in the closet either. There are different expectations.

    But I agree once the other person says 'no' or 'not interested' anything after that CAN be the beginning of sexual harassment. I say 'can', because it still might just be a harmless conversation or chatting-up if done in a friendly manner.

I did not say that the asking out was harassment in and of itself. Merely that what one person considers "harmless flirting" is not harmless flirting to another person. This happens even outside of work.

And harassment does not really even require a relationship to occur, outside of work that is.


      With some of these ideas it may seem to be splitting hairs, but it is better than trying to make non existent distinctions at times. People in power abuse things all of the time in all manner of ways.

    I agree with this but don't see any immediate solution. Some people will always abuse their power/wealth just as some will always suck up to people with power/wealth.

Make a culture and situation open to everybody reporting problems that they have. If people are afraid they will not report anything and it goes under the rug.

That is the easiest solution. One can argue it swings too far the other way at times, but however many decades most of those doing the abusing got away with pretty much everything. Bringing things to light and making sure everybody knows where to go wit hthese problems. And a system in place to address these in a reasonable way.

That is a first step that needs to be done and to varying degrees is. At least in most corporate culture. Some do not like it, but it is better than the reverse in most cases.


      A man, and more often woman, has a right to be without unwanted advances. And in many of these cases these are serial problems. And often saying get lost is not enough to drive off such people. Pending the example it may not be illegal but it is still not ok.

    I think the key here (as regards conversation) is whether its a serial problem or not because otherwise I doubt its grounds for action. In the workplace I'd go along with the following guidelines.

One incident could still be harassment. It just may not be that actionable unless it was pretty severe.

    1. Person A 'feels' harrassed, reports Person B to management. Management go over the details and if its justified* warn Person B to stop whatever they were doing.
    2. Second Offence (with verifiable witnesses and/or camera evidence), Person B is suspended.
    3. Third offence (again with evidence), Person B is dismissed/sacked from work.

Maybe, I am not sure one needs that much for a second offense. One could include multiple offenses reported, witness, other evidence and so on.

I could easily imagine scenarios where harassment occurs and it never makes it into step 2 based on your grounds. Repeated complaints alone should be grounds for action.

A suspension may also be too severe depending on the nature of the event. Things should be as proportional as possible. It may be something as simple as separating two people at first (if just minor things that the HR group things are being taken wrong). If complaints would come up with the same person in a different group than more harsh actions would be considered.

A warning is important to start with, there are just probably other sorts of evidence that comes to the same end without needing to be CSI level.

It also would need to be clear that these rules apply to everybody. As one of the things that has made harassment tricky is that people are afraid of people in power. They still will be but with a change of culture and some actions the workplace can be better.

Or really any location. Not every situation is as simple as work.

    *If its 'he said men are better cooks than women' then frankly I would give the warning to Person A instead.

Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software