Post: #26

(05-19-2015 03:03 PM)Gringuito Wrote:  It's been like this in corporate america for a very long time. I remember when I hired my first HR director many years ago. At the end of our first meeting she opened my office door to leave and said:

This will be the last time you're in your office with one women with the door closed. Understand?

Women have known the drill for a very long time. It's just now gotten to a point where women are getting frustrated in the downsides of the environment they've created. They want the Alpha boss that doesn't give a shit about being alone with them. They also want to be able to sue the shit out of their boss if he pisses them off.

This is why I don't work in government anymore. I missed the glory days of dudes calling up the state pilot and using the department plane to go fishing up north or driving firetrucks to the backwoods titty bar after putting out a forest fire.

I don't know if I would have been able to resist responding to that HR lady with "your job is to advise, not dictate. If I am in here doing shots off of a stippers belly button your job is to advise me thats its not a good idea, not to kick the stripper out"

Same goes for lawyers, sometimes they need to be reminded that they are advisors, not owners or decision makers....but especially HR bitches that think they are actually "in charge" of anything.

Post: #27

(05-18-2015 03:46 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  It's because of the Lawmaking Patriarchy.

"This is what happens when appearances are put ahead of substance. Sexual harassment shouldn’t be reduced to the appearance of impropriety. Sexual harassment is an active choice that the harasser makes, and the way to fight it is to hold men who harass accountable, not to act like life on the Hill is taking place within a Victorian novel. Instead, because some powerful men mistreat women, the solution is to deprive women of opportunities for career advancement."
- Amanjaw Mancunt.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...burger_bar

The cognitive dissonance is overflowing here. Feminism is all about putting appearances ahead of substance. Feminists are the ones who have reduced sexual harassment to an appearance of impropriety. They are the ones who think we live in Victorian times such that a mere attempt to talk to a random woman in the street should be a crime. And then they turn around and get mad when men, assessing the facts the cold light of day, react in a logical manner to avoid the newly manufactured risks.

Post: #28

(05-19-2015 08:27 PM)Dismal Operator Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 03:46 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  It's because of the Lawmaking Patriarchy.

"This is what happens when appearances are put ahead of substance. Sexual harassment shouldn’t be reduced to the appearance of impropriety. Sexual harassment is an active choice that the harasser makes, and the way to fight it is to hold men who harass accountable, not to act like life on the Hill is taking place within a Victorian novel. Instead, because some powerful men mistreat women, the solution is to deprive women of opportunities for career advancement."
- Amanjaw Mancunt.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...burger_bar

The cognitive dissonance is overflowing here. Feminism is all about putting appearances ahead of substance. Feminists are the ones who have reduced sexual harassment to an appearance of impropriety. They are the ones who think we live in Victorian times such that a mere attempt to talk to a random woman in the street should be a crime. And then they turn around and get mad when men, assessing the facts the cold light of day, react in a logical manner to avoid the newly manufactured risks.

In the Lyle V. WB case (a chick who worked on the staff @ Friends, got fired after 4 months, she said there was sexual harassment because the workers/writers talked about sex a lot)

Court ruled unanimously for Warner Bros.

" We simply recognize that, like Title VII, the FEHA is “not a ‘civility code’ and [is] not designed to rid the workplace of vulgarity.”