Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Well put. I walked into that.

I’m struggling to find an objective line. I guess reasonableness works. If it’s generally unreasonable to feel harassed at something, you can’t make a claim for it.

A good analogue might be Jesus Freaks. They get offended at everything and apply extreme standards to behavior.* And they’re rightly ignored. If you’re citing Andrea Dworkin in establishing that you’ve been harassed because your co-worker constantly talks to other men about how hot he thinks Taylor Swift is, no claim for you.

—
* Except in cases of preserving Senate majorities?

If 2017 teaches us nothing, it's that we really need a period in this country when white men sit down and shut up and let women and people of color make more of the calls on this issue and every other one.

With that, I'll stop.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Observation from a friend on Facebook on Franken:

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

your co-worker constantly talks to other men about how hot he thinks Taylor Swift is, no claim for you.

Maybe I'm whiffing, but you would certainly get written up for doing that. Are you in a sole shop now? Because you seem way off. Of course some of it is bullshit, but it is baked into today's workplace.

The only time I ever got in trouble:

20 years ago we are doing a seminar to in-house patent counsel. Senior male GP, mid-level male GP, a young female GP, me, as a youngish GP and firm's female marketing director. We are in a meeting prepping for the seminar. Marketing director says "we got two more attorneys signed up!" Senior GP says, "who?" Meaning "what company." Marketing director says "i forget, two women." Senior GP goes, "Oh," and moves on to something else. Now here's a fact about Hank. My practice is built from a single in-house female attorney that I was a kid lawyer with. She bounced from job to job and brought me in at each. As you can imagine once I'm in, people love me so I kept the work after she would move on. But, important point: without this one woman and the work she sent me I would not be able to waste all my work days posting on the internet. I'd have to actually work for senior GP. And everyone knows my practice came from her.

So after senior GP dismisses the news of two women showing up, I say "yeah, who needs chick lawyers." Which everyone, including senior GP, had to recognize was making fun of senior GP's (flower, is that irony?) reaction. Then I stepped out of the room and came back two minutes later. Apparently while I was gone Senior and mid-level GPs started goofing about what female lawyers could do for them- not sexual, but like maybe they can bake snacks.

Later that day marketing director and youngish female GP stepped into my office and explained how wrong what I said was. In fact our firm's labor department has a training film that shows basically that scenario as an example.

I said my practice is built upon a woman attorney and I just wanted to deflect senior GP's stupid dismissal, but then I apologized unconditionally.

The next day I was talking to marketing director and something came up and she made a double entendre joke. And I looked at her and said, "in this environment I cannot even respond to that." She said, "you're right I shouldn't have said that." And I said, "or we can both act as adults and take context into account?"

But, the point is, we work in a country where a high percentage of the country voted for a corrupt insane man or a third party candidate. Americans are stupid and you cannot count on people seeing nuance, or understanding reality.

I get you post to argue but what you are saying about the current "okay behavior" is way off.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Observation from a friend on Facebook on Franken:

Serious question, do you think the photo normalized the behavior? I do. And it empowers other men to do something similar because, a champion of women, Al fucking F did it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Observation from a friend on Facebook on Franken:

Maybe, but it took another 6 women making accusations before he resigned.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Experience is subjective. There has to be some objective threshold where reasonable people agree harassment starts. A sort of “know it when I see it” thing, as SCOTUS defined pornography. Otherwise, almost anything can form the basis for a complaint because it made someone feel a certain way.

This is a weird thing to say.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There has to be some objective criteria, so we might weed out ludicrous claims by noting, “No reasonable person could have felt harassed here. You are not reasonable, and you do not have a claim.”

It may surprise you, but people don't make crazy ass ludicrous claims, because why the fuck would they? There isn't a huge pot of gold at the end of the only-the-accuser-thinks-they-were-harassed rainbow. Almost everyone has gone through training and everyone understands what crosses the line. When someone does make a claim that doesn't meet any sort of established standard, they are almost always shut down. There is always an investigation. No sexual harassment policy is used as a hammer (unless the accuser is flat-out lying and that's a completely different story).

If you're going to say, "But what about Franken?" Well, we didn't have an investigation and there was no punishment through any workplace channels.

How do you function knowing that a lot of the law is based on what a reasonable person would do? You must be drowning in creative hypotheticals.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Using that, anything can form the basis of a harassment claim.

Courts already apply some objective criteria. Otherwise, some screwball could claim harassment because her boss had his bookshelf adorned with pictures of his daughter, a hot competitive swimmer, or track star, in form-fitting outfits.

“Other males looked at those photos, and it made me feel harassed as a woman.”

Sounds implausible, right? Well, that’s the kooky crap you’ll see filed if we apply an exclusively subjective “feel” test.

What are you talking about with this nonsense? This is the current standard and none of this bullshit happens.

Also, who the hell puts up an offensive amount of photos of their daughter in form-fitting clothes?

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Using that, anything can form the basis of a harassment claim.

"Women can experience anything as harassment." Uh, no.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Serious question, do you think the photo normalized the behavior? I do. And it empowers other men to do something similar because, a champion of women, Al fucking F did it.

No more than Roy Moore has normalized grown men signing high-school yearbooks.

[Icky Thump]

Being that the only person hurt was the bomber, a 27 year old Pakistani (who drove for Uber, by the way) and I am not a 27 year old Pakistani who drives for Uber, yah, I am ok.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Being that the only person hurt was the bomber, a 27 year old Pakistani (who drove for Uber, by the way) and I am not a 27 year old Pakistani who drives for Uber, yah, I am ok.

More people died snowboarding into fences today at Tahoe, but that doesn't have the same frisson of danger.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

More people died snowboarding into fences today at Tahoe, but that doesn't have the same frisson of danger.

No one has to go snowboarding at Tahoe tomorrow. Some people do have to get on NYC trains, and I have to run on the bike path.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Laws govern discrimination in hiring, not just discrimination in the workplace. Do you really think what you suggest is legal?

But a person's sensitivity is not a classification protected by laws. Thyere must be some sort of waiver, "assumption of the risk" or "coming to the nuisance" doctrine. Otherwise, how can strip clubs operate?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

But a person's sensitivity is not a classification protected by laws. Thyere must be some sort of waiver, "assumption of the risk" or "coming to the nuisance" doctrine. Otherwise, how can strip clubs operate?

Uber, but for hiring.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Maybe I'm whiffing, but you would certainly get written up for doing that. Are you in a sole shop now? Because you seem way off. Of course some of it is bullshit, but it is baked into today's workplace.

The only time I ever got in trouble:

20 years ago we are doing a seminar to in-house patent counsel. Senior male GP, mid-level male GP, a young female GP, me, as a youngish GP and firm's female marketing director. We are in a meeting prepping for the seminar. Marketing director says "we got two more attorneys signed up!" Senior GP says, "who?" Meaning "what company." Marketing director says "i forget, two women." Senior GP goes, "Oh," and moves on to something else. Now here's a fact about Hank. My practice is built from a single in-house female attorney that I was a kid lawyer with. She bounced from job to job and brought me in at each. As you can imagine once I'm in, people love me so I kept the work after she would move on. But, important point: without this one woman and the work she sent me I would not be able to waste all my work days posting on the internet. I'd have to actually work for senior GP. And everyone knows my practice came from her.

So after senior GP dismisses the news of two women showing up, I say "yeah, who needs chick lawyers." Which everyone, including senior GP, had to recognize was making fun of senior GP's (flower, is that irony?) reaction. Then I stepped out of the room and came back two minutes later. Apparently while I was gone Senior and mid-level GPs started goofing about what female lawyers could do for them- not sexual, but like maybe they can bake snacks.

Later that day marketing director and youngish female GP stepped into my office and explained how wrong what I said was. In fact our firm's labor department has a training film that shows basically that scenario as an example.

I said my practice is built upon a woman attorney and I just wanted to deflect senior GP's stupid dismissal, but then I apologized unconditionally.

The next day I was talking to marketing director and something came up and she made a double entendre joke. And I looked at her and said, "in this environment I cannot even respond to that." She said, "you're right I shouldn't have said that." And I said, "or we can both act as adults and take context into account?"

But, the point is, we work in a country where a high percentage of the country voted for a corrupt insane man or a third party candidate. Americans are stupid and you cannot count on people seeing nuance, or understanding reality.

I get you post to argue but what you are saying about the current "okay behavior" is way off.

I'm presently exiting a side gig dealing with way more HR than I'd like. (I have to fake it through most of it, as I find the stuff really tawdry, and most people involved in those controversies a mix of stunningly stupid and clinically delusional.)

Still, nobody gets fired for talking up his or her love for Taylor Swift. You could scream it in the hallways -- "I think Taylor Swift is the hot-hot-hottiest hottie of them all!" -- and it's not a firing matter. (At least for harassment reasons.)