Tidal wave of sexual assault-misconduct allegations list

[_Kevin Graham]

Unfortunately there are no studies to answer my questions.

So your opinion is based on what, a gut feeling?

So let me just say it is possible. If it is very unlikely that 300 men on the entire country get unfairly fired for harassment claims please let me know why.

Because it is not in the employer's best interest to do so.

[_DoubtingThomas]

So your opinion is based on what, a gut feeling?

Well, it is something that I suspect, but I could be totally wrong. However, right or wrong doesn't affect someone else, it doesn't have real life consequences. Should an employee be fired for a gut feeling?

Because it is not in the employer's best interest to do so.

Okay, I hope you are right. I am just a guy asking questions, that is all. Can you please assure me that more than 99% of men fired for sexual harassment accusations are not innocent?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

DT,

The reason why you're confused is because postmodern ideology is garbage, and this issue is mired in subjectivism, emotionalism, and social activism. It's deliberately vague to ensure it remains unquestioned as a cudgel with which to lash out at the Patriarchy, which itself is a boogeyman used to cow normal people into submission to social Marxism.

3rd Wave Feminism wants to guarantee equal outcomes to those who can't provide equal input to the system, and needs to destroy the natural human order so it can be replaced with an unnatural economic state that has failed repeatedly, and will always fail, because producers will opt out when the price becomes too onerous. You're simply experiencing a natural revulsion to the inherent injustice of postmodernist mental illness.

- Doc

[_Chap]

Can you please assure me that more than 99% of men fired for sexual harassment accusations are not innocent?

Why pick on sexual harassment dismissals as a topic on which to issue this extraordinary demand? Why not stealing office stationery, turning up to work drunk, persistent lateness, or any of the other variety of work-related misbehaviours that can result in dismissal?

[Guest]

3rd Wave Feminism wants to guarantee equal outcomes to those who can't provide equal input to the system, and needs to destroy the natural human order so it can be replaced with an unnatural economic state that has failed repeatedly, and will always fail, because producers will opt out when the price becomes too onerous. You're simply experiencing a natural revulsion to the inherent injustice of postmodernist mental illness.

This thread is about the fact that large numbers of women have come out and said clearly that they are sick of men in the working environment groping them, propositioning them in demeaning ways, threatening their careers unless they provide sexual favors, and generally making them feel like walking sex toys rather than people.

This you call "the natural human order"?

EDITED TO ADD:

By the way, is this part of the "the natural human order"? (From the source referenced by DT)

Example: The bank worker who ejaculated into a co-workers drink bottle without her knowing, twice, and she drank it. After the second time, she assumed her water tasted strange for one reason, and had her boyfriend ejaculate into a water bottle to see if her suspicion was right.

The banker "admitted in a taped interview that he ejaculated into an 'attractive' co-worker’s water bottle because 'her lips had touched it.'"

[_Jersey Girl]

This thread is about the fact that large numbers of women have come out and said clearly that they are sick of men in the working environment groping them, propositioning them in demeaning ways, threatening their careers unless they provide sexual favors, and generally making them feel like walking sex toys rather than people.

This you call "the natural human order"?

This thread was actually about compiling a list. Just mentioning.

Sincerely,

The OP

[_DoubtingThomas]

I think I have misunderstood Doubting Thomas. He really is looking for a legally applicable definition of sexual harassment.

Well thanks again Chap for acknowledging it

[_Chap]

I think I have misunderstood Doubting Thomas. He really is looking for a legally applicable definition of sexual harassment.

Well thanks again Chap for acknowledging it

Thanks for acknowledging my acknowledgement. But did you not notice what I said about why I was reluctant to believe that this was your intention?

I considered the possibility that this might be what he was asking for, but dismissed it because that seemed to me to be an obviously foolish request, given the situation you (EAllusion) outlined.

EA had pointed out, in effect, that the operational legal boundaries of what constitutes sexual harassment sufficient to lead to dismissal (which result from a combination of written codes and the precedents set by previous decided cases) are so tight that a firm will in general prefer other grounds for dismissal if it can find any. If anything, there seems to be a potential problem in that sexual harassment is too difficult to prove as a ground for dismissal, not too easy.

And, to answer your question, although decent human beings do not stare in a sexually appraising way at co-workers who find this uncomfortable, 'elevator eyes' would clearly not be sufficient in itself to meet the definition set out by EA:

Sexual harassment is stating or implying that a person's advantages or disadvantages in employment are dependent on them returning sexual favor or creating a pervasive - meaning frequent and severe - hostile environment based on a person's gender or discriminating against them based on the same.

Do you have grounds for thinking that EA's statement of the legal position is incorrect?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

This is why it's virtually impossible to have any sort of reconciliation with a postmodernist social Marxist. You'll state plain and precious assertions and they immediately jump to some predisposed narrative they've created in their warped minds.

You don't like postmodernist social Marxism because it's value-less and nonsensical?

You support ejaculating into women's sippy cups.

3rd Wave Feminism wants to guarantee equal outcomes to those who can't provide equal input to the system, and needs to destroy the natural human order so it can be replaced with an unnatural economic state that has failed repeatedly, and will always fail, because producers will opt out when the price becomes too onerous. You're simply experiencing a natural revulsion to the inherent injustice of postmodernist mental illness.

This thread is about the fact that large numbers of women have come out and said clearly that they are sick of men in the working environment groping them, propositioning them in demeaning ways, threatening their careers unless they provide sexual favors, and generally making them feel like walking sex toys rather than people.

That's literally not what this thread is about. Literally.

This you call "the natural human order"?

I call the natural order the rule of law which is embodied by jurisprudence and law enforcement. You apparently are comfortable with witch hunts and innocent people going to prison, sacrificed on the altar of your mentally ill Marxist ideology. It's disgusting.

EDITED TO ADD:

By the way, is this part of the "the natural human order"? (From the source referenced by DoubtingThomas)

And here's the completely out-in-left-field mentally ill narrative that no one endorses, but a social Marxist thinks, apparently, men writ large do all the time. Christ almighty what is wrong with you?

Example: The bank worker who ejaculated into a co-workers drink bottle without her knowing, twice, and she drank it. After the second time, she assumed her water tasted strange for one reason, and had her boyfriend ejaculate into a water bottle to see if her suspicion was right.

The banker "admitted in a taped interview that he ejaculated into an 'attractive' co-worker’s water bottle because 'her lips had touched it.'"

I find it disturbing that DT is asking for a hard legally defined rule describing sexual harassment so he can figure out where the line is at work, and he's being virtually excoriated by people who can't be bothered to offer one, but instead provide examples of a man ejaculating into sippy cups as the 'standard' of behavior.

Anyway. I'm all for removing ambiguity. I think if you give a man a rule book he can at least figure out if he wants to participate. More importantly he has rules, policies, and guidelines to go back to if and when he stands accused by an ambitious, revengeful, or spiteful co-worker. This current situation where a man is guilty based off the accusations of a past associate is ridiculous.

- Doc

[_Chap]

3rd Wave Feminism wants to guarantee equal outcomes to those who can't provide equal input to the system, and needs to destroy the natural human order so it can be replaced with an unnatural economic state that has failed repeatedly, and will always fail, because producers will opt out when the price becomes too onerous.

Hmm. So women who demand equal pay for doing the same job as men are out to destroy the natural human order?

I call the natural order the rule of law which is embodied by jurisprudence and law enforcement. You apparently are comfortable with witch hunts and innocent people going to prison, sacrificed on the altar of your mentally ill Marxist ideology. It's disgusting.

That seems to be something rather different to the concept in your first post. by the way, I am not a Marxist. I'm not at all sure you know what Marxism actually means.

I find it disturbing that DoubtingThomas is asking for a hard legally defined rule describing sexual harassment so he can figure out where the line is at work, and he's being virtually excoriated by people who can't be bothered to offer one, but instead provide examples of a man ejaculating into sippy cups as the 'standard' of behavior.

Anyway. I'm all for removing ambiguity. I think if you give a man a rule book he can at least figure out if he wants to participate. More importantly he has rules, policies, and guidelines to go back to if and when he stands accused by an ambitious, revengeful, or spiteful co-worker. This current situation where a man is guilty based off the accusations of a past associate is ridiculous.

So EA's explanation of what legally constitutes dismissible sexual harassment is not clear enough for you?

Sexual harassment is stating or implying that a person's advantages or disadvantages in employment are dependent on them returning sexual favor or creating a pervasive - meaning frequent and severe - hostile environment based on a person's gender or discriminating against them based on the same.

Given that legal rules always require interpretation by a judge or jury in their application to any individual case, that seems to be pretty clear to me. The bolded bit, for instance, would seem to cover the behaviour that has been credibly alleged against Weinstein, does it not? And the text as a whole certainly excludes occasional leers or off-colour jokes, since the behaviour has to create a 'pervasive - meaning frequent and severe hostile environment based on a person's gender or discriminating against them based on the same.'

Can you give an example of behaviour that a decent and considerate person might engage in with a colleague, but about which you are in doubt as to which side of EA's definition it falls?