We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day We are in the midst of a revolution in our understanding of sexual harassment and assault. We’re told, as we are often told in the midst of media-driven manias, that everything has really changed this time. As satisfying as this narrative might be for feminists on the warpath against “toxic masculinity” and conservatives who revile the sexual libertinism of the past half-century in America, it isn’t true. As long as men and women are thrown together in the workplace—and are placed in competition with each other—sex will, in part, be a means to achieve power, a weapon wielded by both men and women. The question is what we can do to mitigate the damage. The record so far—and by so far, I mean over the past four decades—is not encouraging.
– Christine Rosen, Commentary Magazine.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
“sex will, in part, be a means to achieve power, a weapon wielded by both men and women”
Sex will, in part, be a means to enjoy life. It will not go away. (though there are reports that it’s practice is in decline, at least in Japan).
“The question is what we can do to mitigate the damage.”
She means the damage done by the media-driven manias? That is indeed a problem.
If Al Franken stays in the Senate, as now seems likely, the whole sexual harassment business will necessarily collapse. The contradictions won’t be sustainable, at least the the man in the street. Do you remember the daycare child abuse panic of the 1980’s? It made Janet Reno Attorney General, just in time to oversee the mass murder of adults and children at Waco.
“We are in the midst of a revolution in our understanding of sexual harassment and assault.”
No, “we” are not.
They’ve overreached, and now the leftist media will try to rescue the situation by speaking about “moderation” and “common sense.” We merely need to keep throwing back at them their words from the past month.
As one of Franken’s unwilling constituents, I welcome his change of heart, if it does happen. He will be ineffectual for the rest of his term – he will be bitterer than he was before, and he will have a hatred of his erstwhile teammates – and he will be easier to beat when his term ends.
It is easy to dismiss Ms. Rosen’s comments. However, I’m not sure that Libertarianism really has a good solution to the problem of sexual misconduct in the work environment. Certainly there is the whole “business loses the benefits of female employees so would pass sexual harassment rules, which would solve the problem.” But that is unlikely to protect some young intern from Matt Lauer or Tiffany Starlett from Weinstein. Perhaps bad publicity?
I had a thought about this that I’m interested in a perspective on. I don’t know if your remember the Grisham novel “The Firm” or the movie by the same name. At one point Tom cruise is on a trip for business and the firm arranges an irresistible triste with a gorgeous lady on the beach. Their investigators capture this on film, and subsequently use the pics as a tool to keep Cruise’s character in line, threatening to send them to his wife if he doesn’t do as they say.
Now this is basically a form of blackmail. Blackmail is an interesting law from a libertarian perspective. Should it be illegal? After all, it is a voluntary trade between two people. It might not feel voluntary to Cruise, but he can also back out and suffer the consequences if he wants. So the legislature, in their wisdom, makes this kind of voluntary transaction illegal, and makes it a crime to even offer such an arrangement.
Are not the parallels with the sexual marketplace in the workplace not apparent? If Jennifer the young intern is offered the choice of sex with the boss or hit the streets, is this not a voluntary transaction? (The fact that there is an employer involved complicates matters, so lets say for simplicity that the boss is also the sole owner of the private business.) Is this also a transaction that should not be allowed in law, and to offer it be criminal in the same way blackmail is?
I’m interested in your thoughts on this.
I don’t think Libertarianism (or, for that matter, any other set of societal principles one may favor) should be about finding solutions to problems; although some problems can certainly be solved, I think that we would be better off focusing on preventing the creation of new problems and the exacerbation of existing ones.
Just segregate the sexes outside of the family unit after the age of 6. Separate schools, stores, transportation, businesses, work crews, etc. Government certified chaperones and mandated video/sound recording of all physical inter-gender interactions. Outlaw dating and mixed social functions. Arranged marriage or legal unions only. Call it the Social Justice for The Protection of Women Act. Then declare anyone who objects a willing tool of the Patriarchy and an Enemy of Women’s Rights.
It’s the only way to stamp out even the possibility of improper sexual behavior. It’s already happening on an informal basis. Might as well codify the arrangement.
That is not blackmail, Fraser, as no one is demanding anything from anyone that wasn’t originally theirs (like money). Saying ‘if you don’t do this, you can’t work for me’ hardly answers that description.
Just leave the people alone to be what they are and always will be: boys will be boys, girls will be girls, and idiots will or will not wise up one day.
@Alisa
I don’t think Libertarianism (or, for that matter, any other set of societal principles one may favor) should be about finding solutions to problems;
Libertarianism is about explaining how freedom deals with problems, most other political philosophies are specifically for what you describe. So I don’t find this point particularly compelling.
That is not blackmail, Fraser, as no one is demanding anything from anyone that wasn’t originally theirs (like money).
I don’t think I said it was blackmail, I said it was like blackmail, but let’s not get bogged down in arguing over the meaning of words. But I disagree with your point. The harassing party is demanding something that isn’t his — namely the use of her body for sexual gratification –in exchange for not doing something that would bring her great harm. That seems to fit pretty well with your definition.
Well, if you are correct, then there is another reason why I’m glad I’m not a libertarian 🙂
Sorry, I seem have missed that part in your hypothetical – but yes, that would be blackmail.
One potential common law approach to the issue of harassment in employment is the implied term (the English courts have found to be there in employment contracts) of the (two-way) duty to act in a manner that maintains trust and confidence, a breach of which would be committing harassment. That this term is implied as necessary means (or so it seems) that it cannot be excluded from employment, even by express written terms. But anyway, an employer could be liable in a libertarian world for harassment unless it had made it a term of employment ab initio that harassment was part of the deal in the contract, i.e. by advertising for employees willing to endure harrassment etc.
I suspect many libertarians would be fine with this and then wonder why people move away when they start enthusing about it.
Alisa is right that pursuing freedom is not about claiming to solve problems. It is about knowing that maximising freedom minimises problems. The left are the people who claim that they will solve all our problems – if we’ll only give them enough power over us.
I’d be happy to see the seemingly lost art of slapping restored. This requires that the culture be one in which men don’t hit back if women strike them (for normal environments, ordinary circumstances, and up to some level of communicative violence) – so it requires that cultures be recognised as unequal in that quality.
My absolutely first piece of advise to anyone who is the target of something impertinently physical is always to set yourself free by literally striking back immediately. Otherwise you are chained to the insult: you either swallow it – and so you are the person who can be treated like that – or you have to get someone else to listen to your case, make them care, maybe make them care about your case rather than their agenda, etc., and keep pushing all the way until there is some punishment, some vindication. You will sometimes be disappointed, sometimes betrayed – and sometimes used for an agenda not your own. And it can take a lot of time when your true wish (and right) is just to move promptly on, but with the feeling “I showed him!”
You can still make a complaint and pursue a disciplinary process after striking back with your hand, or down with your stiletto heel, or whatever, but you are no longer chained to it: no longer chained to the necessity of either making other people do something or accepting dishonour.
(It was ‘him’ not ‘her’ in Grotius, who was quoting an even older author, but I think the sentiment applies equally, and did for Grotius – and anyway I was quoting from memory, so I can remember with advantages. 🙂 )
Obviously all this is about stuff that is either not strictly illegal or else only very minor. Violent criminals need the attentions of the police and the law, as they always have. And it is about stuff that is physical or trying to be so.
Exactly, Niall.
A culture in which men don’t hit back at women who strike them is probably also a culture in which men don’t use power imbalances to sexually assault women.
So, good luck with that whole slapping thing. 🙁
And most men still don’t do either, so Niall’s suggestion is still valuable.
I should rephrase that, then.
A man who won’t hit back at a woman who strikes him is probably also a man who won’t use power imbalances to sexually assault a woman.
In any event, I wouldn’t look for niceties from a cad.
Alisa –
You are being entirely rational and reasonable in your approach. That is no longer an option under the current rules of engagement encouraged by social media and PC. I believe that it will take advocating the full end result to generate the “Wait, what? Not going there!” pushback to counter the current gender madness.
A return of the slapping culture? I hardly think that is the solution, in a sense I think it exacerbates the problem. The slap thing is a universal sign that someone has dishonored you. We are not talking about dishonoring someone, we are talking about coercing them into sexual situations they don’t want to participate in. To take the “dishonor” and “men don’t hit back” is to infanatalize women who should simply be expected to stand up for themselves, no violence required.
But what we are talking about is much more serious than a slight to a maiden’s virtue. For example, Megyn Kelly (for you Brits, she is a very well known TV journalist here who was at Fox News and now is at NBC) described her encounter with head of Fox, Roger Ailes. She was called into his office, and he locked the office door. He flirted with her, she joked it away, pretending not to notice to give him an easy out. He persisted, she persisted with her casual dismissal, and as he become more verbally forceful so did she. Then he tried to kiss her. She pushed him away and stepped toward his office door, he tried again, and she more forcefully pushed him away verbally indicating her disinterest, he tried a third time, and she pushed him away hard, unlocked the door and as she was backing out the office he asked her when her contract was up. She complained to HR about Ailes, and the did effectively nothing.
How would a slap have helped here? He was not dishonoring her he was trying to force her into a sexual situation and threatening her with the loss of her job if she refused. Of course this is her account, and Ailes is no longer around to defend himself, nonetheless it illustrates the situation these young women find themselves in. One wonders if the guys who are so ready to dismiss this would be quite so casual were Roger Ailes gay and was trying to coerce them into a homosexual triste.
This is a serious problem and deserves a serious solution. Had Ms. Kelly been held down and forcibly penetrated she would have criminal remedies. It seems to me that Ailes actions, assuming they are true, should similarly be criminal.
And to be clear, there is a huge difference between “OH Mary, your hair looks pretty today” and “Mary, I have tickets for the ball game, I was wondering if you’d like to come with?” which are perfectly legitimate and anyone who is offended by them needs to pull themselves together. It is qualitatively difference than “take off your dress and come over here or you are out of a job.”
Women hold a clear advantage in this conflict – a man who claims to have been sexually harassed by a woman would get only CONTEMPT from his fellow men (“what a wimp” – “does he not realise how lucky he was?”) whereas a woman will automatically be believed (the BBC will say “he is calling the victim a liar” if the man denies the charge). Sometimes the charges will be TRUE (yes indeed sometimes the charges will be TRUE), sometimes they will be false – but they will be equally damaging for the man whether they are true or false.
And the charges can stopped the moment they are no longer useful (say an election defeat has been created). With no consequence for the accusers. For example Roy Moore’s accusers waited till AFTER it was legally impossible to replace him as the Republican candidate for the United States from Alabama (if he was guilty why wait to make charges till AFTER it was legally impossible to replace him as the candidate?) and now have stopped making charges, because their job (getting the seat for the DemocratS) is done.
It appears that the “paranoid” Vice President Mike Pence is wise – never meet with someone without a witness, and record every word said. Although how Christian his unofficial motto of TRUST NO ONE is – is open to doubt.
Be that as it may, the Mike Pence approach is the future – no meetings without witnesses, and record all conversations. In both politics and business. TRUST NO ONE.
However, that does not guard against charges made about events some 40 years ago. “Where were you on 13 September 1977?” – “See he hesitated in his reply, the shifty BEAST, he hesitated because he was talking dirty to me on that date, it has scarred me for life and only now have I plucked up the courage to speak from terrible despair – BEAST! BEAST! BEAST!”
It is an effective method – from a tactical point of view it is hard not to admire the approach.
Only to some extent. Libertarianism is mostly just a critique about the limits and downsides of state power.
“Be that as it may, the Mike Pence approach is the future – no meetings without witnesses, and record all conversations. In both politics and business. TRUST NO ONE.”
Paul,
Why d’ya think dashboard cams are getting so popular? Pence has a point and I don’t think it is un-Christian to keep an accurate and verifiable record.
As to the whip hand (wrt sexual harrassment)… I dunno. You are probably right but I think it is changing. But slowly. In ’95 a guy who was a friend of friend of mine was utterly wrongly accused of rape. He spent six weeks in Lincoln jail before the case was thrown out with the prosecution having no evidence whatsoever other than her claim. An utter miscarriage of justice dismissed by the judge in minutes. Sound like a similar case recently? Except in this case no physical/sexual contact had occurred whatsoever. Also everyone who knew the lad and her knew she had been stalking him for months. What happened was he finally snapped and told her in front of people they both knew he wasn’t interested. She then invented a rape story. She wasn’t even medically examined so there was no evidence that sex whether consensual or otherwise had happened. Note here there were witnesses who were with the lad when the “rape” happened. He was let out and had to repeat a year of his medical degree. She was sectioned.
@Paul Marks
Women hold a clear advantage in this conflict
But I don’t agree. You are only looking at one side of the coin. Certainly what you describe is very problematic, an innocent men can get caught up in a new set of crimes that our society has created where innocence is no longer a defense.
But on the flip side it is a plain fact that young women, newly entering the workforce are subject to harassment and sometimes outright abuse and are left with some pretty stark choices — complain and become “one of those women” — or put up with it. Most of these women just want to get on with their jobs and advance their careers not become some poster girl for harassment law.
And let’s just be clear, based on what women tell me, nearly all women are subject to this kind of thing in the workplace, primarily in milder forms, and a disgraceful number suffer more significant abuse.
So certainly the unjust treatment of men deserves to be heard, but let’s not pretend that this is the sole, or even most common, injustice here.
It appears that the “paranoid” Vice President Mike Pence is wise
Perhaps, but this is obviously also extremely deteremental to women, just regular folks not seeking some sort of claim, just seeking to do their best and advance their careers. Moreover, if we allow this paranoia to sideline women in the workforce we loose the great an valuable contributions that half our people can offer, and that is a tragedy, in fact it is an outrage.
so rather than complaining about it, what is the solution? How can this significant problem be dealt with in a context of liberty and openness?
The manta from the feminists and the SJW types is “listen and believe”, which puts men in a box if we’re going to also say men must be willing to have private meetings with women. We have to decide, as a society, if we’re willing to tell women “Sorry, we can only act on accusations backed by evidence.” If not, the Mike Pence rules are just common sense self preservation.
I’m not sure that Libertarianism really has a good solution to the problem of…
Apart from a well-armed attractive intern?
At the low level I was talking about (which my last line stressed), that very much has been the case in the past. Here’s a WWI anecdote to gladden Patrick’s heart. Two soldiers (one a private, one a sergeant) were in a French cafe being served by a very poor young waitress (i.e. a girl of lowly social standing). As she walked by, the sergeant leant over and pinched her bottom on the side where the other soldier was sitting. Instantly, without even looking, she swung her tray to catch the other soldier a terrific clip. The sergeant was much amused – but the girl soon worked out what had really happened and, says the other soldier (who is the narrator), “She was furious. She had him down on the floor. She was kicking him.” The sergeant was a tough cookie, dangerous to the Germans when he went over the top. He would clearly fail a modern diversity department test (probably the whole WWI British Army would). But a girl of no standing could put him down on the floor and kick him with no fear, knowing the guy would just defend himself. (This incident is from Lyn MacDonald’s WWI history series.)
Some things have been known to be blatantly criminal for a long time – and criminals have been doing them for a long time. A certain kind of problem only arises when we’re far below that level. Some cultures ways of handling that are at least known to be possible, because approximations to them have existed. Building on the possible, not the all-new PC idea, seems wise to me.
I see your point, George. However, it seems that there is no need for “us” to do that job, as the SJW nutcases have been known to suggest just that sort of end results. I’ve definitely seen demands for the renewal of racial segregation by some blacks in the US, although as of yet I don’t recall seeing any such suggestions for the segregation of the sexes. But, give it some time.
With regards to solving problems etc.: for me the defining characteristic of a Leftist is someone looking for problems that are not his own, and then offering solutions the consequences of which he is not prepared to own either. YMMV.
Fraser, what would you think of a gun control advocate who said that urging women to arm themselves in dangerous neighbourhoods “is to infantalize women who should simply be expected to stand up for themselves, no violence required”?
A workplace situation in which men who use low-level physical agency can rely on women not responding physically is a very unequal situation.
A slap might have conveyed to Roger that Megan was dangerous – that his next and final step of pointedly asking about her contract was neither going to work for him nor something he could expect to intimidate her into keeping quiet about. Of course, it might not have had that effect – in which case the scenario would have developed as it anyway did. I submit it could not possibly have harmed her. In any aftermath, it would debunk any “I did not realise her true feelings” defence he tried later, whether in a court or merely in the court of public opinion.
WHAT!!!! He escalated his demand for sex to a point as subtle as “Nice contract you’ve got there. Shame if anything were to happen to it.” Though his locking the door probably gave the whole thing a yet more sinister air to Megan’s feelings, in the event she had the choice to submit or to leave – this was not a violent physical assault. For precisely that reason, the dishonour is great. He was saying to her, “You are the kind of woman who will screw a man for a good contract.”
The level of physical action he was using was one at which striking back was more than legitimate. However he was clearly relying not on any truly coercive physical force but on your second point – I submit the sentence above should read not “and threatening her” but “by threatening her”. Obviously, that means that a slap hardly suffices but it can help and cannot harm.
My original post was about one of the situations covered by the OP, not a reply specifically to your original comment.
>The question is what we can do to mitigate the damage.
We could start by prosecuting Alison Saunders and all the others in the police and the DPS who have deliberately had innocent men arrested and tried for non existent crimes, while hiding evidence that clears them.
Any smart employer is simply going to stop hiring women if their presence lowers productivity and results in a legal liability in waiting.
And face charges of sexual discrimination?
We both know that there are any number of ways that CV selection, interview panels and interview criteria can be used to give the appearance of being impartial, whilst being biased against whomever the interviewer feels like being prejudiced by.
For example, getting down to a “best of 3” (two females and one male) where the final male candidate is chosen on the basis of being “the best qualified candidate”, with the two female candidates chosen specifically because they look good on paper, but are actually flawed.
Another mechanism is to ‘clarify the role’ during the interview process by adding additional burdens (extended travel requirements, early start/late finish, etc.,) such that women withdraw themselves from the selection process.
Working for a specialised European energy consultancy, we were regularly chastised by the American HR team for our low female-to-male ratio, but in essence the requirement to travel out to some European destination Monday-to-Friday was a killer for most women, even those few that did take the roles rarely lasted more than a year without quitting.
@Eric
We have to decide, as a society, if we’re willing to tell women “Sorry, we can only act on accusations backed by evidence.” If not, the Mike Pence rules are just common sense self preservation.
“Women”? Which women? Your mother, your sister, your daughter your aunt? Perhaps instead we should tell “men” to keep their hands to themselves, and their pants zipped up.
The Pence solution while expeditious is hardly a good solution. What am I to tell my eight year old daughter? “Sorry honey, because a big bunch of male pigs can’t behave better than rutting donkeys, and because a small bunch of women want to take advantage of that to advance their agenda, then you cannot have the same career opportunities as your brothers.”
I’d much rather tell her that she has legal options if some pig corners her, and she can capture some supporting evidence.
As to the suggestion that a Glock is the solution, clearly that is true in some of these cases, such as actual physical assault and battery. But most of these cases are not like that, they are, as I said above, more akin to blackmail.
If someone puts a virus on your computer and says “Pay me two bitcoin or your files will be gone forever” you certainly have legal recourse against that person, however, it is not a situation that allows for a solution by Messrs Smith and Wesson. “Drop your pants or lose your job” is more akin to this than “stand and deliver”, and so a weapon is not a solution in most cases.
@Niall Kilmartin
Fraser, what would you think of a gun control advocate…
I’d think their comparison was unfair and inappropriate. A slap is not an actual self defense move, it is a symbol. If you had said “punch him in the throat and kick him in the nuts” then you might have a point.
“I did not realise her true feelings” defence he tried later, whether in a court or merely in the court of public opinion.
She pushed him away three times and clearly and loudly expressed her disinterest. How does a slap add to that at all? On the contrary, he might well argue that a slap was foreplay.
The first bunch is big, and the second is small? That’s not the impression I got, either from my own experience over many years, nor from the recent festival of accusations in the media. I would caution against seeing the entertainment (including journalism) industry as representative of humanity in general, and Western society in particular.
So what I’d tell my daughter/son is that most people out there are decent most of the time, both men and women. However, occasionally they may run into a rotten specimen, and so they should be prepared to use everything in their disposal to fight back. None of that means though that we should pass laws based on the notion that most men (or humans in general) are pigs.
I am using slap as a generic term. My comments also mentioned the stamped stiletto heel (capable of causing a degree of toe pain that can cool many a man’s ardour). And that hand that is where it shouldn’t be makes a great pivot point for the ‘grasp arm and rapidly rotate, thus throwing him into the wall’ manoeuvre. I called all this ‘a certain level of communicative violence’. A symbol may well sometimes be enough but that is to decide at the time.
By the time punching someone in the throat and kneeing him in the groin becomes appropriate we may be reaching the point where there is really no difficulty identifying the behaviour as criminal in a widely accepted and thoroughly old-fashioned sense, and the issue is not ‘how do I handle this low-level and/or ambiguous situation’ but ‘how do I survive this horribly unambiguous situation’. A quite different set of issues then comes to the fore – probably including the fact that, however strongly the local culture says that men shall not hit (back at) women, this particular man has stepped outside his local culture; it’s what criminals do and are.
In the USA, they’ve got us coming and going.
You can use whatever means you can devise to steer your hiring in your preferred direction, but thanks to the Disparate Impact doctrine, if your final numbers don’t reflect the proportions found in the general public, they still get you for discrimination.
The problem is false accusations. “Listen and believe” has so much potential for abuse men are simply acting rationally by avoiding them in the workplace. And yes, by “women” I mean all women. If that hurts their careers maybe they should think about doing something to change the legal environment.
@Alisa
So what I’d tell my daughter/son
But it isn’t son/daughter is it? The proposal here is the exclude women only from one on one meetings with other men on the basis that a very small number of women are bad actors. Perhaps, it is say, it is expeditious to do so, but it is not a solution. One might instead suggest not hiring men, since their groping and molesting (of a small number) is the proximate cause of the problem. If there were no men to accuse there would be no problem.
@Eric
The problem is false accusations.
No it really isn’t. The problem is that the accusations are believable because it is a pretty common experience for women. Of course when the accusations are false then the victims are the men who can be injured as much or more than the women. But ultimately the problem is that there are an embarrassingly large number of men who behave like pigs. All I am calling for is to extend the laws of blackmail so that these women have legal recourse in a court of law, where, of course, they have to meet traditional standards of evidence. But frankly, these men, thinking with their penises are careless enough and systematic enough in their abuse that an enterprising woman can surely collect enough evidence.
If that hurts their careers maybe they should think about doing something to change the legal environment.
Hold on. You claim it is men’s careers that are being hurt in the present legal environment. So why do you put the burden on women to fix the men’s problem? Can we perhaps all contribute to fixing it irrespective of gender?
@Fraser Orr
Yes really it is. The incentives are there for women to lie, since it can lead to a big payday. It doesn’t really matter that most of them aren’t lying. The very idea it’s fair to punish men purely on accusation is risible.
>Hold on. You claim it is men’s careers that are being hurt in the present legal environment. So why do you put the burden on women to fix the men’s problem?
It’s not men’s problem. As I said, they’re simply responding to incentives.
Here in Australia, we are ahead of the pack- we even allow men to compete in beauty contests!
In Australia, they frequently win.
(Running away now . . . 😀 )
Damn near impossible. If the guy has any brains, it’s a he said/she said situation.
Perfect solution: body cams. I have one that looks like a pen, and sits in my shirt pocket. Records bad video, good audio. Leave it on and it keeps the last three hours. Cost me about $50.00.
@Eric
Yes really it is. The incentives are there for women to lie, since it can lead to a big payday.
False accusations are certainly one of the problems. But there are plenty of real accusations, and plenty more things deserving of accusation swept under the carpet. It is terrible what they men go through. It is no less terrible what these women go through. And the Pence solution might work for some men, but it sure doesn’t work for women. And surely we want a solution fair to all the innocent parties here. After all, I could offer the distaff solution, which is that companies just don’t hire men anymore. That’d fix the women’s problem, and seems just as fair as the Pence solution.
It doesn’t really matter that most of them aren’t lying. The very idea it’s fair to punish men purely on accusation is risible.
Excuse my language, but who the f**k made that claim? Nobody on this thread.
It’s not men’s problem. As I said, they’re simply responding to incentives.
Two men: Roy Moore and Harvey Weinstein. Tell me it wasn’t a problem for them.
@bobby b
Damn near impossible. If the guy has any brains, it’s a he said/she said situation.
Curious Bobby, you claim it is impossible, then offer a perfectly possible solution in the next paragraph. Me? I think generally speaking men are not at their most rational and guarded when their wang is flapping around in front of a pretty girl. And truthfully, I think a lot of these guys get off on the risk of the thing anyway.
Good point. I should have said “in our current climate where the recording of interactions is seen as dishonorable . . .”
I got involved in quite a few of these sorts of situations back when I worked for an insurer, and figured out back then that the recording of every human transaction was the only possible solution, because some percentage of guys weren’t ever going to stop being jerks and some percentage of women weren’t going to stop trying for paydays. I figure it’s an impossible dream because there’s a huge societal prohibition against this sort of recording, but when you’re dealing with what happens between two people (usually) in private, it’s the only way to prove anything.
Personally, I think it’s better than the Pence solution, because everyone gets to participate, but it leads to a society in which everyone must always assume they’re being recorded. Of course, were I female, I might happily pay that price to clean up what we have now.
In any case, my daughter owns one of these recorders too, as a gift from me. It runs for about ten hours, you recharge it at night, and if anything ever happens, you hit “stop” and you have the last three hours of your life preserved. You just need to know your jurisdiction’s recording laws first.
@bobby b
In any case, my daughter owns one of these recorders too, as a gift from me.
Good tip, perhaps when my daughter (or come to that sons) are old enough I’ll buy them one too.
Bobby b., if the men hadn’t won, wouldn’t that have been lookist discrimination?
Late to this thread but it seems to me that much of the sex problems in the office are down to miscommunication. Men need to wise up (i.e. ‘get game’) and not think that every little flirt or kindness by a woman is an invitation. If you haven’t got the patience for this then the Pence method is your option.
I’m reminded of that lawyer who stupidly sent an email to a female colleague congratulating her (very innocently) on her official office photo, which she promptly copied and pasted onto twitter with a bit of a moan. Whilst I feel for the guy this was a pretty thick (not to mention pathetic – I might have done something like this when I was 14) thing to do, especially given that a small amount of research would have made clear that she was a card carrying SJW.
bobby b (December 21, 2017 at 3:55 am): “… but it leads to a society in which everyone must always assume they’re being recorded. …”
The argument is similar to that for guns. The ease of private recording today means that if the laws say “thou shalt not” then those who obey the laws will not have the protection of recording and those who do not will record and arrange to have surface only those recordings that are to their advantage.
I assume the ‘great and good’ have taxpayer-funded attempts to detect all recording devices targeting them, but I do not know how effective these are. Someone in Mike Pence position should probably assume they may be recorded, and that if they defensively record whenever it is technically illegal to do so then the PC media will make a big deal of it. But for the rest of us, then “I’d rather be tried by twelve than carried by six” translates naturally into “I’d rather be convicted of ‘illegal’ recording I did than of a truly shameful crime that I didn’t.” and equally, “than see a criminal walk free both from court and in the court of public opinion – especially if I were his victim.”
We both know that there are any number of ways that CV selection, interview panels and interview criteria can be used to give the appearance of being impartial, whilst being biased against whomever the interviewer feels like being prejudiced by.
Correct.
Sure, but at least in the US if your percentages don’t come out mirroring the applicant pool you’re going to get sued.
Yet another case in England where evidence was suppressed, leading to a wrongful conviction.