Sexual Harassment 101
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
-
Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
The problem here is not so much that sexual harassment rules are too strict when applied to small children, but that they are too strict in general. It's interesting, however, that we can only see how absurd they are when they are applied to children.
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
Did these laws stem from political correctness, by any chance? Technically, anyone can say anything about anyone so long as it's true... sure this sort of thing is inappropriate and rude, but some women *like* it. Swearing isn't illegal, calling someone 'short' isn't illegal (although in the workplace any form of discrimination is). Are these laws to protect people from being leered at? 'Some call it staring. The judge called it stalking' etc.
The precedent makes sense tho. Its a workplace, and using email is like putting it up on a sign in the guys toilets, and that sort of behaviour is inappropriate. *Saying* things, on the other hand... seems a bit much.
The precedent makes sense tho. Its a workplace, and using email is like putting it up on a sign in the guys toilets, and that sort of behaviour is inappropriate. *Saying* things, on the other hand... seems a bit much.
The flaws of the harrasment rules are so enormous that it isn't even funny.
It's disgusting that immoral and unethical individuals can use them as a shield to "protect" themselves from rebukes from others.
And add to the fact that attacking the character or actions of someone that screams harrasment is considered "attacking the victim."
How things that from any objective viewpoint aren't wrong at all suddenly become huge offenses because the accuser shows up very emotional and crying. If a womans crying and screaming about something a man has done, the man must have done something wrong, right?
The increasingly broad definition of harrasment, which basically says is something causes a woman to "feel harassed" then that action is harassment. Which is totally lame, because under that scheme anything could be considered harrasment.
The best solution would be to make the laws less strict but also tighten the definition of harrassment so that only behaviors that are specifically labelled as harrasing acts can be considered harrassment. So even if something causes someone to "feel harassed" if that behavior is not on the list, it is not harassment. Also adding in a cause and effect rule, that prevents someone from using the rules as a shield against a person that's "harrassing" them as a result of thier own immoral acts. Unfortunately the feminists will scream about how such a redefinition will destroy women's rights if it were instituted
It's disgusting that immoral and unethical individuals can use them as a shield to "protect" themselves from rebukes from others.
And add to the fact that attacking the character or actions of someone that screams harrasment is considered "attacking the victim."
How things that from any objective viewpoint aren't wrong at all suddenly become huge offenses because the accuser shows up very emotional and crying. If a womans crying and screaming about something a man has done, the man must have done something wrong, right?
The increasingly broad definition of harrasment, which basically says is something causes a woman to "feel harassed" then that action is harassment. Which is totally lame, because under that scheme anything could be considered harrasment.
The best solution would be to make the laws less strict but also tighten the definition of harrassment so that only behaviors that are specifically labelled as harrasing acts can be considered harrassment. So even if something causes someone to "feel harassed" if that behavior is not on the list, it is not harassment. Also adding in a cause and effect rule, that prevents someone from using the rules as a shield against a person that's "harrassing" them as a result of thier own immoral acts. Unfortunately the feminists will scream about how such a redefinition will destroy women's rights if it were instituted
Wait- you're saying that if I talk about a nice chick's tits to a friend, I can get in trouble if I'm overheard? I'm not even fucking harrassing her, I'm having a conversation with a friend! It's not like I'm chasing her around saying "show us yer tits!"
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
I dont think its that bad in Australia yet.Vympel wrote:Wait- you're saying that if I talk about a nice chick's tits to a friend, I can get in trouble if I'm overheard? I'm not even fucking harrassing her, I'm having a conversation with a friend! It's not like I'm chasing her around saying "show us yer tits!"
"Okay, I'll have the truth with a side order of clarity." ~ Dr. Daniel Jackson.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." ~ Stephen Colbert
"One Drive, One Partition, the One True Path" ~ ars technica forums - warrens - on hhd partitioning schemes.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." ~ Stephen Colbert
"One Drive, One Partition, the One True Path" ~ ars technica forums - warrens - on hhd partitioning schemes.
Don't jinx it or anything, ggs! The operative word in your post is "yet."ggs wrote:I dont think its that bad in Australia yet.Vympel wrote:Wait- you're saying that if I talk about a nice chick's tits to a friend, I can get in trouble if I'm overheard? I'm not even fucking harrassing her, I'm having a conversation with a friend! It's not like I'm chasing her around saying "show us yer tits!"
Thats true, but given the PMs comments about the Secondary schools being too "Politically Correct" it probable shouldnt be isnt going to be an overly PC government (let face it, John Horward probable will get another term).Stofsk wrote:Don't jinx it or anything, ggs! The operative word in your post is "yet."ggs wrote:I dont think its that bad in Australia yet.Vympel wrote:Wait- you're saying that if I talk about a nice chick's tits to a friend, I can get in trouble if I'm overheard? I'm not even fucking harrassing her, I'm having a conversation with a friend! It's not like I'm chasing her around saying "show us yer tits!"
But given how the NSW police responded to that stupid email going around in the police force (A fairly sad statement about the state of Aboriginal affairs, and to be fair is was fairly harsh about it) it isnt looking to promising.
"Okay, I'll have the truth with a side order of clarity." ~ Dr. Daniel Jackson.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." ~ Stephen Colbert
"One Drive, One Partition, the One True Path" ~ ars technica forums - warrens - on hhd partitioning schemes.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." ~ Stephen Colbert
"One Drive, One Partition, the One True Path" ~ ars technica forums - warrens - on hhd partitioning schemes.
Did he even explain by what he meant with that? How are schools politcally correct in his eyes?ggs wrote:Thats true, but given the PMs comments about the Secondary schools being too "Politically Correct" it probable shouldnt be isnt going to be an overly PC government (let face it, John Horward probable will get another term).
(And yes, Howard probably will get another term - given that the choice is Latham, I'm with Howard - no offence)
I'm not sure what you're referring to. What email? Something to do with aboriginies?But given how the NSW police responded to that stupid email going around in the police force (A fairly sad statement about the state of Aboriginal affairs, and to be fair is was fairly harsh about it) it isnt looking to promising.
But you talking is creating an enviornment of discomfort, and is thus harrassment - according to the established laws.Vympel wrote:Wait- you're saying that if I talk about a nice chick's tits to a friend, I can get in trouble if I'm overheard? I'm not even fucking harrassing her, I'm having a conversation with a friend! It's not like I'm chasing her around saying "show us yer tits!"
Something along the lines of:Stofsk wrote:Did he even explain by what he meant with that? How are schools politcally correct in his eyes?ggs wrote:Thats true, but given the PMs comments about the Secondary schools being too "Politically Correct" it probable shouldnt be isnt going to be an overly PC government (let face it, John Horward probable will get another term).
From the article(Note the article itself mainly covers the Teachers unions responce)Earlier, Mr Howard accused teachers' unions of being ``out of step'' with mainstream views, and backed the publication of national league tables ranking public schools by performance.
In an interview with The Australian, Mr Howard also called for consideration of an after-hours care program supervising homework, to provide parents with more quality time with their children. Parents now send almost 40per cent of teenagers to private secondary schools, and one in three Australian children overall do not attend public schools.
"They feel that government schools have become too politically correct and too values-neutral," Mr Howard said.
"It's a reflection of the extent to which political correctness overtook this country. Particularly through the teachers' unions, which I think are a bit out of step.
"Some schools think you offend people by having nativity plays. You know, the increasingly antiseptic view ... taken about a whole lot of things."
Non taken, Labor hasnt been a viable choice for a long time, and doesnt look to change anytime soon.(And yes, Howard probably will get another term - given that the choice is Latham, I'm with Howard - no offence)
Labor in WA looks to be on a crash & burn course after the last set of fuckups.
An email which was exposed to the public a few weeks after the aftermath of the a group of mostly aboriginals rioted in Redfern. It basicly makes fun of the Aboriginals ridiculously high crime rate by depeciting a bunch of criminal actions as parts of sometypes of Olympic games.I'm not sure what you're referring to. What email? Something to do with aboriginies?
Aboriginals are less than 2% of the total population, yet are more than 50% of the prison population.
The reaction to the said email is vastly out of scope with its actual significants as the NSW police forces tries to mend fences with the local Aboriginals after the riot in redfern. The biggest thing is they dont even know who sent it or if a policeman even sent it in the 1st place.
Racist email circulates among NSW police
"Okay, I'll have the truth with a side order of clarity." ~ Dr. Daniel Jackson.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." ~ Stephen Colbert
"One Drive, One Partition, the One True Path" ~ ars technica forums - warrens - on hhd partitioning schemes.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." ~ Stephen Colbert
"One Drive, One Partition, the One True Path" ~ ars technica forums - warrens - on hhd partitioning schemes.
ggs wrote:Racist email circulates among NSW police
bold mine, need I say any more? The issue that stems from this is that they were using corporate, and on top of it government E-mail to circulate this, if it was private I can't see that there would be any issue.The email has been received by 35 officers in four stations, including Bourke and Dubbo, in the state's west.