‘Whistling’ considered sexual harassment under university policy

Submitted by Mastodon on Sat, 2017-12-09 20:17

Article here. Excerpt:

'Tennessee State University warns against “whistling in a suggestive manner” on the grounds that it may constitute sexual harassment, a policy that has helped earn it a “red light” rating from one of the nation’s premier college watchdog groups.

The public university in Nashville currently holds a “red light” rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education for several of its policies that effectively allow officials to punish various forms of free speech as harassment.

Among them, the public university’s discrimination and harassment policy warns employees and students that “whistling in a suggestive manner” could get them sanctioned — including being expelled or fired — if officials deem the tune sexual harassment.

Other examples of possible sexual harassment listed under the policy include “suggestive or insulting sounds,” “suggestive or obscene gestures,” “unnecessary touching or brushing against the body,” jokes about sex inside and outside the classroom and more.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

... what? Whistling a tune?

The classic wolf whistle is identifiable by its characteristic peak crescendo followed by a deeper downspike. Forgive me, music isn't my forte, I'm sure there do exist words that characterize it better. Anyway, I always considered whistling at others to be rude behavior. I haven't seen/heard it in a long time. I think in most places it's very much out of style and good riddance.

I wonder though, how will school officials be able to deem some kind of whistling to have been done "in a suggestive manner", when it's not well-defined? Or, if they weren't there to hear it? Same goes for jokes told, etc.?

Sounds to me like yet another tool in the feminist arsenal. Accuse a boy of whistling at you. That's enough. You needn't have ever met him.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2017-12-10 01:20

There is a legitimate kernel to sexual harassment. For example, if a man calls a woman into office and tells her to have sex with him or get fired, yes, that's a legitimate issue.

So, too, domestic violence is a legitimate issue. If a man hits a woman for no reason, yeah, that's legitimate issue.

But in both cases, feminists take what is a legitimate issue and then do three things: claim only men do it, exaggerate the scope of the problem, and treat even minor incidents as major infractions.

In regards to SH, they now claim anything a man does that might be considered to be of a sexual nature--the operative word being "might"--is sufficient to have him sacked. These include dirty jokes, compliments, leers, a pat on the back, a hug, a wolf whistle--all these can now be grounds for dismissal, at least if you're a man. I don't know of a woman who's been fired for these things. But everything a man does is viewed in the worst possible light: see what happened to Garrison Keillor.

In regards to DV, things like criticizing a woman's behavior or denying her money are now considered DV. And if a woman hits a man, that's okay--he just better not hit back.

Not to mention, accusing a man of sexual harassment is a good way to get a check. It becomes yet another way to transfer money from men to women.

The real crime feminists want to convict men of is the crime of being a man.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Sun, 2017-12-10 15:13