|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So if a woman walks past a man who is looking at, say... a Rigid Tool catalog, and she finds it offensive enough to complain, then what happens if I walk past a the office of a woman who is provocatively dressed? Can I file a complaint as to that? In other words, is the real thing more or less offensive than a picture? Or is it merely a question of who's doing he looking?
These women should be careful, because just like CSI last night, the law can be interpreted many ways, and the more you legislate (or litigate), the more your expose YOURSELF to prosecution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
appear. What is happening is the de-sexing of the western world. In other words women are demanding that the amount of non-consensual sexuality pervading interactions between men and women be eliminated.
When men argue that they should be allowed to behave without restraint and a little slap and tickle is just harmless fun, then we are telling women what? The same thing we have been telling them for generations.
How can we as a political force complain about advertisements with demeaning content but claim that we have the right or freedom to be demeaning in our comportment or speech. The problem with the university professor in Toronto is that he continued to stare after she had made it "reasonably" clear to him that his attention was unwelcome. He was in a position of authority and trust, and he had the potential to affect her life simply by virtue of his power and so his influence. He wasn't in a shopping mall he was on the university property. Likewise in all formal environments like work or church or offices or their parties (yes they are celebrations but a priori within a formal context - "office party" not "strip club party") where politics and power are often the modus operandi, consent is notwithstanding. Sexuality, by law, requires consent by both parties. In context of power and authority within employment structures compliance is mandatory within the confines of law so any reference to sexuality is by law a breach of the right to consent by removing the liberty of the subordinate party to freely withdraw or refuse to consent. Many companies for this reason discourage or even forbid fraternization between superiors and their subordinates, and because anyone one could become another's superior or subordinate at any time in the future, between peers as well.
In public places staring at women is not innocent. Staring is an overt act initiated from a decision to stare or to practice staring and under total control of the person staring. The object of the stare has no say in the process. Staring is a form of association and both parties are protected under applicable rights and freedoms. Staring is no different than are offensive or demeaning advertisements which can be legitimately described as staring at one from their location. Speech likewise is not innocent and free of consequence but restricted in "many" cases such as slander, liable, threat, or hate. To argue that limits on free speech when they invade the privacy or destroy the sense of well being or sense of safety of others should be removed in the case of sexual conversation is simply a discredit to what we are trying to achieve as men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I might buy what you say except that some women dress in a manner that is clearly intended to attract a stare. I regard this a harassment of me, as there are certain uniquely male responses to visual stimulus that are not voluntary. If a woman walks past my office and attracts my attention, even long enough for me to process that I don't want to or should not continue to look, then I've been trapped, and it was all just a matter of male response to visual stimulus. If she was provocatively dressed, it may take me longer to process that, perhaps fractions of a second, but I'm still trapped.
If this continues, then we can see our way clear back to the veil and chador, because eventually, the courts WILL recognize that a provicatively dressed woman will attract even unintended attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I might buy what you say except that some women dress in a manner that is clearly intended to attract a stare"
Some women don't know how to dress and just do what they think is expected of them. Some women aren't aware of their rights and freedoms some have no clue at all!
We are primates and there is no evidence that primates have any "instinctual" relationship to their sexuality. Primates learn their sexuality by living with other primates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are primates and there is no evidence that primates have any "instinctual" relationship to their sexuality. Primates learn their sexuality by living with other primates.
Mmmmm, I don't agree with that, either. Sexuality is part of your biology. Instinctively, you are attracted to an individual because you believe that individual will be a good bearer or begetter or children for you. This has been researched and studied thoroughly by human sexuality experts like Desmond Morris.
I'm not going to say environment doesn't play a role at all, but your initial sexual reactions in this world are more nature than nurture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh my
Morris has been the subject of much ridicule and has been debunked repeatedly. If I can find some articles that debunk his theories as junk science where should I post them to avoid driving this thread into the extremities of the right hand marigin? lol
His whole premise is that we descended from apes (hence "The Naked Ape"). There is no proof of this and in fact, if you will agree that National Geographic is reliable source, then they have extensive references to this subject. Anthropological concenses is that we have comon ancestors but that we evolved along very different lines. In fact the big argument now is whether or not neandertal man and homo sapiens were capable of interbreading.
None the less sexuality is part of our genetic make up, yes, but the expression of this genetic reality is far from the uncontrolable sense that instinct mandates. Crawling and walking are instinctive. Running is instinctive. All primates attain their native locomotion without training. Vocalsing is instinctive; three dimensional vision is instinctive; smiling and frowning are instinctive; grapsing with one's hands is instinctive; masturbation could be argued to be instinctive; inserting a penise into a vagina is an association and that, where primates are concerned, is learned. Are you aware that primates are the only mamals that have a boneless penise? If it were an instinct we would have kept the bones and appropriate muscles in our penises like all other non-primate mamals have.
Your assertion that sexual selection is madated by instinct in hominids or even primates negates many other factors that repeatedly show up in anthropoligical digs. Such as the welfare of the group. This concern has been of greater importance to our species than survival of the fitest. they find this over and over again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
His whole premise is that we descended from apes (hence "The Naked Ape").
That's not exactly true. He makes comparisons to apes and humans, but he never actually says man was descended from ape. He makes the "common ancestor" assertion you described above.
Are you aware that primates are the only mamals that have a boneless penise? If it were an instinct we would have kept the bones and appropriate muscles in our penises like all other non-primate mamals have.
Yes, that's a well-known biological fact. "The human male must be aroused by the human female in order to become erect and copulate with her," right? That's meaningless in terms of instinct versus learned behavior. I can become erect without female manipulation. In fact, when I was teen I was practically erect all the time because of the natural rage of hormones that occurs in adolescence.
Yes, some sexual behavior is learned. Putting a penis into a vagina, however, is, again, more nature than nurture. Primates aren't the only species which function sex-organ-to-sex-organ in order to reproduce. The mere lacking of a bone in the penis does not negate the fact that the appearance of basic sexual practice is instinct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 15, @06:08PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
"inserting a penise into a vagina is an association".
Are you sure of this? I have a degree in Biotechnology, a lifetime interest in science, and some familiarity with the social science of Anthropology. And for all that, I have never heard that being a heterosexual has been proven to be a learned act!
"Your assertion that sexual selection is madated by instinct in hominids or even primates negates many other factors that repeatedly show up in anthropoligical digs. Such as the welfare of the group"
I'd like the references to these studies, please. If you haven't heard, anthropology and sociobiology have been waging an ideological war against each other for the last fifteen years or so. They frequently come up with different conclusions from the same data. Besides, anthropology is one of the more politicised branches of social science.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes if I can find them; I will stop using my memory as sole source. It is causing a lot of angst and annoyance.
This group is very keen on integrity, and I respect that. So I appologise for my casual references or factoids as they have been called in the past.
In response, I am thinking of an article (Scientific American?) that refers to dicoveries of hominid remains that show congenital deformities (spinal?) in "older" individuals that preclude such long individual survival without much group (concerted) effort.
The conclusion being that survival of the fitest is less certainly a priori than previously asserted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you aware that primates are the only mamals[sic] that have a boneless penise[sic]?
Absolutely false. Are you aware that only some mammals have an os penis, and some do not--horses and rabbits, for example don't have an os penis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone else heard of the theory of epigenesis and the concept of an epigenetic landscape?I think it incorporates the ideas of biology, sociology and psychology very well.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 15, @08:45PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like your talking about "fitness" peaks? That is, how an organism relates genetically to its environment given time and the genetic variability possible within a given species?
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that Desmond Morris himself states that the horse--another non-primate species--does not have one either. I'll attempt to find a reference.
Thanks, Mars. I'll admit to only having been aware that humans do not have the penis bone.
Btw, Desmond Morris' "The Human Animal" was on The Learning Channel earlier tonight, for anyone who was watching. The penis bone issue came up (so to speak).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually DC your wrong. there is a great deal of evidence that we DO have an "instinctual" relationship to our sexuality.
If you want the studies I can list them or you can take my word for it. (I keep them on hand for feminists that argue this point)
The addition to this is that we are social animals and the rules and expectations of society do manipulate and sanction this to some extent but to think that we are "lumps of clay" that society can manipulate into little robots is a lie.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Staring is no different than are offensive or demeaning advertisements which can be legitimately described as staring at one from their location.
Oh, MAN, do I beg to differ on that one. People are going to look at each other. Men do it. Women do it. There's nothing offensive about it. I will look at a woman whom I think is attractive, that doesn't mean I want to assualt or offend her. Sheesh! Would you consider the fact that I've caught several of my female peers staring at my butt on occasion sexual harassment? I don't. The fact that they're looking at it doesn't bother me a bit.
NOW, if their opinion of my behind had some effect on my job or position within my company, that would be sexual harassment. Likewise, if they escalated the staring to a point where all they did was talk about my butt, that would be harassment (I wouldn't necessarily call it "sexual" harassment, but it would be harassment).
Also, how do you determine what is staring and what is not? If staring is sexual harassment, then should I simply not ever look at another person as long as I live for fear that they'll think I'm staring? My last girlfriend used to get on my nerves because if I met her eyes just once during a conversation she'd shout "STOP STARING AT ME!" Gee, guess I was harassing her by doing the natural thing of looking at her when I was talking to her.
And, finally, one human being looking at another is not the same thing as being forced to view an ad like the Nine West misandrist ad in a public place. How can you equate those two things? So, if I'm walking down the mall and I happen to look up from my feet and see a woman, and she's offended because my eyes happened to be pointing in her direction, that's the same thing as seeing a depiction of a woman claiming her superiority over men by impaling a man with her heel?
Sexual harassment policies are incredibly screwed up. Just because someone is offended doesn't mean it's sexual harassment. Hell, I wouldn't define the Nine West ad is sexual harassment (it's simple hate speech), but I *could* sue over it under that context, which is one of the reasons I suggested it in my letter to Nine West (no response from them yet, btw).
Sigh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Idiots, idiots, idiots! Every single one of them!! So if a guy stares at me, or even makes eye contact, I can sue his ass. Yeah, right. Like I'd want to for something as nice and valuable as the contact of another human being (especially a heterosexual male who's staring me down... :) )
Cry "wolf" and the wolf will come and eat you.
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 15, @12:42PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Lady Rivka:
Visited your site. Very, very nice :) Anyway, just wanted to say that I'm glad at least some modern women understand that human contact necessarily entails risk, and that one shouldn't always assume the worst about people.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No of course not. There are opportunists among us everywhere, and they will use any rule to their advantage.
None-the-less you do agree that there can be and frequently is sexual content to staring (that is staring as you refer to it). That is okay when there consent either tacit, implicit, or direct.
Staring is not, by default, an interactive event. It "is" one positive use of the word in the poetic sense that two lovers can stare at each other to the exclusion of all else. But that is poetic license, and always qualified by the context in which the word stare is used. It is necessary to identify the staring as consensual and, in this case, between two lovers, because the default value for staring is negative - intimidation or passive aggression, or sexual intent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Staring is not, by default, an interactive event. It "is" one positive use of the word in the poetic sense that two lovers can stare at each other to the exclusion of all else. But that is poetic license, and always qualified by the context in which the word stare is used. It is necessary to identify the staring as consensual and, in this case, between two lovers, because the default value for staring is negative - intimidation or passive aggression, or sexual intent.
Again, you equate sexuality with malicious intent. Sex is *neither* and act of violence nor rape, nor is the expression of sexual attraction. That's a radical gender feminist point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't equate sexuality with malicious intent.
I equate staring with agression.
I equate that act by men toward women as sexual.
It may well be otherwise, harmless, asexual, impotent substitution, hypnotic adverse reaction to medication, petit mal siesures, any one of a host of possibilities. People appear to stare when deep in thought.
If you are saying that the alleged perpetrater is not responsible for the plaintive's perception, and that there is no way to acurrately determine motive for staring and so how can it be valid to try and judge?
I say great!
Good luck.
Now all you have to do is convince the jury!
LOL
Tell me why you think that the sexuality is irrelevent.
I may need a good lesson here. so go ahead and enlighten me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I say great!
Good luck.
Now all you have to do is convince the jury!
LOL
So now you are implying that staring, no matter what the intent, should be a crime? Regardless of what you think, intent is often taken into consideration when an individual is charged with a crime, otherwise you'd be punishing innocent people for accidents.
I honestly believe any law enforcement officer (not to mention a judge or jury) would laugh at (at a man, at least) if you approached him and said, "That guy keeps looking at me!"
Sorry, Donald, but if you're out in the public eye, then I have a right to look at you, for exactly the same reason that (as long as I'm not peeking through your windows) I can take your photo and publish it in a newspaper without your permission. You're in the "public eye."
It doesn't really matter whether my intent in taking your photo and publishing it was malicious, I am protected by law in my right to take your photo. No jury considering the law would convict me.
Again, my rights end where your nose begins, so if I followed staring at you with a punch to your nose, then I have committed a crime.
Tell me why you think that the sexuality is irrelevent.
I may need a good lesson here. so go ahead and enlighten me.
Because sexuality *is not* an act of male aggression. That's a radical gender feminist argument and the exact same fallacy that has wrought so much unnecessary pain and trouble for men lo these past 30 years.
*Because* you equate staring with agression, and staring by men toward women as sexual, then you equate sexuality with agression, and therefore make it malicious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because sexuality *is not* an act of male aggression. That's a radical gender feminist argument and the exact same fallacy that has wrought so much unnecessary pain and trouble for men lo these past 30 years.
GO NIGHTMIST! Everyone has the right to gaze, even men! Sight is one of the great things about being human (besides having our brain), it allows us to be sociable and scientific, contantly exploring our world and our universe. And the opposite sex is part of the heterosexual's universe! :)
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are right when you deal with simply looking at a woman who "you" find "attractive". And you could easily say that you find her face interesting, she reminds you of your sister, your mother whatever. Granted. But to throw your hands up and say oh well anything that I do is up to interpretation of what the other person thinks simply begs the question.
When someone stares at another where is this choice you hold so dear? You think I'm wrong or out to lunch? Don't take my word for it prove it to yourself - Walk into a biker-bar and try staring at those guys, and then come back and tell me that there is no such thing as staring. Or that it is completely relative and you should be able to do so if you feel like it. Tell the offensive linemen on the football team that they can't stare at the guys on the other team lol intimidation is half the game. And staring at the opponent is a big part of intimidation.
My x-wife used to threaten to kill the kids and herself and then just star at me as if she was daring me to call her bluff; it didn't take long for the stare to get her a great deal of mileage out of me on regular occasions.
We have to be very careful about double standards here. They are so easy to fall into. Men's rights is a very new field of activism and we all have much to learn on the journey.
Here is another example of what I mean. A guy gets his gun from the closet and starts cleaning it at the supper table. As he does this he tells his wife the if she ever leaves him he will take that gun and kill her. Then he just sits there and looks at her quietly while continuing to clean his gun. He does this a couple of times. Then when ever she does ANYTHING that annoys him he just goes to where she is with his gun cleaning kit tells her not to do it again and looks at her for significant period of time (stares). He does this a couple of more times. From then on, he can bring her to heal simply by giving her "that look" the stare. The phenomena is well documented. Another well documented activity around staring is that reported by the adult children of alcoholics who report that the alcoholic parent exerted destructive control over them as children by a menacing stare. They all report the "stare" as a means of control. Psychopaths do the stare as well, it is referred to as the, "eyes of a goat", the eyes of the "beast". Look at the videos of Osama Bin Laden and watch his eyes. Look at the eyes in photographs of him. They are expressionless eyes, dead eyes, as are the eyes of many of those in his network. Psychopaths, cold hearted killers, so cold they were able to convince others to do the killing for them.
Staring is different than looking, most looking goes completely unnoticed it's even expected.
That doesn't make it good, wise, or proper it just makes what it is - looking, and doing so at your own risk; just don't con yourself into thinking that there is no such thing as a stare. There is and it is not a nice thing to do.
Man, even dogs know about staring. There are two types of dogs that bite.
1) fear biters
2) brave biters
1) Fear biters will bite you if you take your eyes off of them for one second. You have to stare them down.
2) Brave biters are the opposite; they won't bite unless you look them right in the eye and try to out stare them. Brave biters are the ones that maul children - cause kids get scared and can't take their eyes off the eyes of the dog.
You decry sexual harassment policies as violations of rational behavior. "Sexual harassment policies are incredibly screwed up."
I don't agree, what is screwed up is changing the rules of the game halfway through and kicking the shit of the poor suckers who can't make the change as quickly as others.
I had this discussion with Dr. Stuart Shipco of the Panic Disorders Institute in regards to the libido suppressing affects of SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Paxil, Celexa, Zoloft, and Luvox). I suggested that in our modern culture the mass media devotes enormous resources to creating an environment of heightened sexuality. I suggested that in fact the SSRIs may not actually be suppressing the libido as much as normalizing it in respect of an over stimulation. Psychiatrist and physiologists agree for the most part that the greatest aphrodisiac for men and women is the plain old "frequency of sexual intercourse". The more you engage in sexual intercourse the more you crave it.
You feel very strongly about your cause. Please don't let your strong feelings blind you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Staring is different than looking, most looking goes completely unnoticed it's even expected.
That doesn't make it good, wise, or proper it just makes what it is - looking, and doing so at your own risk; just don't con yourself into thinking that there is no such thing as a stare. There is and it is not a nice thing to do.
Man, even dogs know about staring. There are two types of dogs that bite.
1) fear biters
2) brave biters
You're completely missing my point, Donald. My point is: so *what* if the staring is sexual? That's what your original post was about, not staring as an intimidation tactic. Being sexually/physically attracted to someone, and staring at the person in appreciation of the beauty, is *not* intimidation.
And, again, if we continue to make policies and laws like this, they only lead to abuse, not by just *a few* people, either. We've seen what has happened to fatherhood in this country as a result of the extraordinary abuse of men and children used as weapons in the legal system.
You know what, I'm not even sure I buy that staring as an intimidation tactic should be considered any kind of harassment. Stare at me? I'll stare back at you. We can't punish people for where their eyes are pointing.
Likewise, you still can't address that ridiculous "passive watching" argument of the article by equating staring with that Nine West ad. The ad may intimidate you, but it's not "staring" at you. You're staring at it. And even if it does intimidate you, intimidation is hardly the point. The reason the Nine West ad is offensive is because it paints the picture that women should feel superior to men. I wouldn't give a damn about it if I thought it were actually about a sexual fetish.
I'm sorry, but I just cannot support the ridiculous sexual harassment policies and laws that make human thought and feeling a crime. Nor do I feel like punishing someone because they feel attracted to me, or even if they *don't* feel attracted to me and hate my guts. So what? They have a right to their feelings.
Rather than trying to remove freedoms and rights from other individuals to protect our own mental states, we should remember, instead, that the other individual's rights end where my nose begins. If they actually use those thoughts and feelings to in some way *harm* me, THEN it's actionable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You're completely missing my point, Donald. My point is: so *what* if the staring is sexual? "
Yes yes yes,
and assault is assualt and what difference does it make whether it is sexual assualt or not.
Does it serve justice or equal rights to differentiate one assualt from another in kind when it is the violation that is illegal and not the colour of the violation?
Is it mysandry to catagorise hetrosexual rape as different than other assaults?
I would have to say at this juncture in my life, that I would view the sexual nature of the act as discrete. And that a complaint by a woman against a man is fundamently different than the complaint by a man against a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes yes yes,
and assault is assualt and what difference does it make whether it is sexual assualt or not.
Again, staring at someone is not assault, even if the nature of the staring is not sexual. To prove assault, you must have physical manifestations of that assualt upon your body. I don't think I've ever bruised anyone by staring at them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the major problems with the whole idea including staring/looking as sexual harassment is how our society dating roles are defined. Men have to take the initial step in showing interest and women are supposed to return it if they are interested. A look or eye contact by the male is often the first step in this sequence. I seriously doubt that a woman complaining about the look from one guy would complain if the same look was from a guy she was attracted too. (I know I am assuming but its logical) So the real issue is not that a look is sexual harassment but it is unwanted attention by a person they are not interested in. The way to correct this is have women take the same chance of emotional rejection men have to do and take a lead in the complicated dating dance.
Feminist theory has created this idea that men have all the power in society. Everything in society according to this theory is an attempt to suppress women. This view is the main reason that sexual harassment attempts to control only the male sphere of sexuality and social interaction. If sexual harassment was honest then it would outlaw makeup, perfume, highheel shoes, a variety of hair products etc.
I feel that society has failed to recognize that the workplace is and always will be a place of social interaction. As the number of women in the workplace increases combined with the number of hours Americans are staying at work increasing yearly the workplace is a becoming a dating pool as well as a source of income. It is counterproductive to try and change it into some sterile environment. The best bet is to acknowledge the change and create acceptable way of interacting. The current laws that deal with sexual harassment are too draconian. Men are often scared to work around women alone due to a risk of an accusation. The current zero-tolerance policy is backfiring and creating a gender-hostile environment.
Finally, we all need to be honest and aware of how we interact with people. "Looks" can be annoying and harassment but the best way to deal with the problem is open discussion. The usual problem is a lack of social skills and tact not some attempt at degrading women.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Again, staring at someone is not assault"
I agree.
so
I will concede this for the moment.
Maybe I should use the term coercion.
In Canada the argruments are articulated differently but they amount to the same thing.
One is merely a variation of the other.
They are in the general sense legal equivalents.
Would you agree that staring could be construed as an attempt to dominate someone else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would you agree that staring could be construed as an attempt to dominate someone else?
Dominate? No. It could be, but not in every circumstance. Staring at a woman you find sexually attractive is not an attempt to dominate her. Nor are blind people attempting to dominate, coerce, intimidate, or otherwise assault anyone when they stare; said staring being a natural part of their condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 15, @05:56PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Would you agree that staring could be construed as an attempt to dominate someone else?
Yes, staring could be an attempt to dominate someone else. And so what? Besides, staring can also be a form of compliment, a result of surprise, or many innumerable other things.
Are you aware that just about anything can be construed as an attempt to "dominate"? Your so educted about this do you really need me to give you some sickening examples of this radical gender-group-domination theoretical crap? And just how it ruins real lives?
Whats the matter , Donald? Can't stand on your own two feet, so you need the government to do it for you? Well, you've already seen that,as a man, you are, invariably, the opressor. But it hasn't taught you anything.
I will place this right before you: Every relationship that exists in this world :mother-child, husband-wife, girlfriend-boyfriend, boss-employee, even best friend to best friend, has some kind of power differential to it. And there are MANY kinds of power differentials. But so what? Just what level of totalinarianism do you want us to submit to, just so everything can be equal? And are you absolutely sure that such a thing is even possible or desireable?
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And there are MANY kinds of power differentials
that is self evident.
You can't define an ever larger public space without definng an ever smaller private space.
I no more support totalitarianism than I support anarchy.
You are just taking the long winded way around to the old expression "fuck em if they can't take a joke".
I will see if I can find those references for you all
I need to rest, I'm kinda tired out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 15, @07:32PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
"You can't define an ever larger public space without definng an ever smaller private space"
Hmm. Wonder what you mean by this? I hope you realize the value of privacy, or you will soon find that the only "public space" there will be will be a prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I feel that society has failed to recognize that the workplace is and always will be a place of social interaction. As the number of women in the workplace increases combined with the number of hours Americans are staying at work increasing yearly the workplace is a becoming a dating pool as well as a source of income. It is counterproductive to try and change it into some sterile environment. The best bet is to acknowledge the change and create acceptable way of interacting. The current laws that deal with sexual harassment are too draconian. Men are often scared to work around women alone due to a risk of an accusation. The current zero-tolerance policy is backfiring and creating a gender-hostile environment. "
We are far more entrenched in this kind of development. In fact we had, in my former employer's environment, seminars on, the what where how and when of the sexual harassment issue.
The result is that in practice sex is just simply taboo at work. Don't talk about it don't even think about it! It just doesn't exist! There are no men at work there are no women at work there are only people there. All communication is to be as androgynous as humanly possible. It is like that for religios, racial, and ethnic background as well. You just don't make reference to it at work; such things are without relavence to work.
In a sense becuase people are entiled by charter to their own culture within Canada, culture in a sense does not exsist, difference is assumed even garanteed, so it is irrelevant to work and not subject for discussion there.
Like all things "flexibilty" is earned through practice and trust so such discussions do take place but they are usually for purposes of sorting out confusion, or simply information for understanding or enabling.
I cannot speak for any company but the one I worked for, however judging by what I see daily in the public sphere of life, compliance and support for the general concept appears fairly univeral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well my concern "is" about a lack of privacy which forms my complaint about defending staring.
If one asserts that by staring at another there is no violation of a private space then one limits privacy by declaring another's personal space to be, visually at least, public domain.
It feels paradoxical to me. It feels dysfunctional also.
Privacy is a right but you can't exersise that right unless you have some kind of domicile in which to exersise it. Does an encloser, say office with a door, for example fall under some type legal definition of domicile or extension of a domocile?
Maybe I just have not had reason to contemplate it and then elucidate my contemplations about it before now.
In the modern open office we have no doors. So then we have no privacy in that environment.
Women then should act accordingly?
If women must act accordingly then men must also act accordingly.
So then where are we?
Well it is certainly egalitarian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If one asserts that by staring at another there is no violation of a private space then one limits privacy by declaring another's personal space to be, visually at least, public domain.
There is no such thing as privacy in "the public eye." This is a well-known concept, and one on which journalists routinely rely.
Let me put it to you the way my media law professor in college put it to me:
If I'm peeking at you through a window an take a photograph of you in the shower, I'm on your private property, looking into your private home, and invading your personal privacy.
If you're on the street in full public view, you get hit by a bus, it knocks you out of your clothes, and I take your photograph, I'm not violating your privacy at all. You're in the public eye where anyone can happen to see you.
Therefore, there is no such thing as privacy in public.
Does an encloser, say office with a door, for example fall under some type legal definition of domicile or extension of a domocile?
If you are not out among other people, another person can invade your privacy. If you're at a public event, even if it's inside an enclosure, you are in "the public eye." If you are in an office building, and your office has a door which effectively closes you off from the rest of the office, then you are out of the public eye and, therefore, in "private."
It should also be noted, though, that because you do not own the building, it is legal in many cases for office management to invade your privacy via electronic means (cameras, etc.), even in the confines of your office.
The only place you *truly* should have privacy is in an enclosed building which you own, and which you have not purposefully opened to the public when the alleged invasion of privacy occurs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surely you don't exclude rental accomodation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surely you don't exclude rental accomodation?
Well, the owner of a rental property certainly has rights to that property, but I must admit that I do not know what the rights of renter's privacy versus owner's property would be.
Rental property privacy rights do not negate the public eye argument, however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 16, @04:53PM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
"If one asserts that by staring at another there is no violation of a private space then one limits privacy by declaring another's personal space to be, visually at least, public domain.
It feels paradoxical to me. It feels dysfunctional also. "
Well, just how much "private space" will you have left if you try to create "stare police"? Donald, the ultimate in private space is your mind. Ironically, to protect you from being stared at -- to give you a tort that you can claim -- both your mind and the alleged perps have to be exposed and opened to the examination of the law, or a jury.
Ultimately , strength comes from the ability to not let anyone in your head involuntarily.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is out of bounds in the workplace? Potentially everything. Yes, it's horrid but has anything really changed all that much? Ok yes, you can be sued (or your employer can) but in reality, people have been sanctioning each other's behaviour at work for eons.
Look, how do you get a promotion? Is is only perfomance? No, never was. It was/is a combination of many things, including your superior's perception of how you are likely to act in circumstances. Whether you'll be an oveall asset or liability to the business. Whether you'll be a motivating force or a demotivating force with your co-workers. Supervisors notice this stuff.
I know a person who was interviewing someone for a big promotion. He set up a business lunch. The interviewee brought his own chopsticks to lunch (this was not a Chinese place) and proceeded to give lengthy instructions to the waiter on how to prepare his food. He didn't get the promotion. The higher up felt he was just to damn quirky and not likely to be a team player. Does the man have a right to eat with chopsticks if he wants? Yes. Does he have a right to be persnickety in restaurants? Yes he does. Can it cost him? Yes it can.
One must be aware of all manner of nuance in most workplaces to get ahead, or even to keep your job. I'll give another example. There was a guy at my firm, extremely talented probably more than anyone there. Yet he would routinely annoy clients and co-workers with stupid off the wall comments, often rude ones. It wasn't intentional. He simply had no social graces whatsoever. He was passed over time and again for promotion and finally during a downturn in business was one of the first to be laid off. His talent did not override his percieved liability to the firm.
Therefore, yes you can "stare" or make inappropriate comments, jokes, whatever all day everyday and that is your right. Free speech and all that. But in the end it WILL catch up with you. I've seen it happen. It's fair and balanced because these unwritten rules affect everyone in the workplace.
Now that women are a big part of the workplace, the "corporate culture" is in part shaped by them as well as men (as it should be shaped by the people who work there). The unwritten rules may be little different than they were before, but IMO haven't changed all that much in the overall sense. You still have to mind your P's and Q's or you'll get the ax, or at least you won't get very far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that women are a big part of the workplace, the "corporate culture" is in part shaped by them as well as men (as it should be shaped by the people who work there). The unwritten rules may be little different than they were before, but IMO haven't changed all that much in the overall sense. You still have to mind your P's and Q's or you'll get the ax, or at least you won't get very far.
What about staring in a public mall? :)
Anyway, regardless of minding your Ps and Qs, it shouldn't be government-mandated. And walking by an individual who happens to be looking at something that the other individual thinks is offensive is *not* sexual harassment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
see here we go again.
HERE, we have to account for that in work settings. I remember when the decree came down from on high that "those kinds" of pictures and calenders had to come down - Now!
If there is a "complaint" in any business, ultimately, when push comes to shove it is no small matter here. There is no defence what so ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist__ I agree about the staring thing. I don't get it, though someone staring at you can be creepy in a number of ways. However, you can't go through life expecting everything to go your way or stay at home hiding under the covers either.
I love people watching at a mall, or any public place like a park, etc. In fact, I often sketch people. I try not to make it obvious who I am sketching. Quite honestly, I've never encountered anyone who is so anal about staring as the composite person we seem to be discussing here. Was there a real case of sexual harrassment brought because of staring?
On your other point, yes, you still have to mind your P's and Q's in public outside of the workplace. You can't prance around nude for example.
Another personal example. I was once at a party where I heard a guy say some detestable stuff about his wife. He also later in the evening made a joke about wife beating which I found offensive. A few years later he was bidding on a contract to supply materials for one of my company's projects. He didn't get the bid. I knew I was going to have to work with this guy and I found his demeanor from a few years previous unpleasant. Now, he might be a perfectly ok guy or may not have meant what he said. But I chose someone else. Right or wrong, how you comport yourself in public CAN come back to bite you later. I'm sure it has happened to each of us without our knowing it.
The "free" in free speech does not apply to every conceivable cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, everyone has free speech but there are also consequences, social and legal, for that speech. The point I will disagree with you on is that it is fair and balanced in the workplace. Most men I know recognize that women have all the power when it comes to sexual harrassment allegations. The burden of proof is often on the male to prove he did NOT harrass the victim. The situation is reversed when the male is the victim. The male victim has to prove he was harrassed.
What has happened basically is that sexual harrassment has gone past the right to feel respected and comfortable in the workplace to an empowerment tool for women.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note the last clause. This is the checks and balances portion to the 1st Ammendment which is often overlooked... "the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Not to GET redress, but the right to petition for it.
This means those who want to curtail a person's right to petition for redress (such as for alleged sexual harrassment) are actually calling for weakening the 1st Ammendment.
Now, that said, I personally don't believe running for the lawyers at the drop of a hat is good strategy. Doing so does not help women in the workplace overall. I am NOT opposed to a person excercising their rights under the 1st Ammendment in principal, only on strategy. A choose your battles carefully type of thing.
One cannot advocate trashing one part of the 1st Ammendment while simultaneously clinging to the other. Well, I guess one can, but not while maintaining a shred of integrity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony I agree that sexual harrassement is not always used wisely and/or appropriately. But women do not come out unscathed. We all (women in the workplace) pay a price as well. So in that sense it is fair.
Unfortuantely, women can be just as greedy as anyone else; think only of themselves and not of the overall welfare and benefit of women's social/legal standing in society. Anytime a law is abused it compromises those who could more legitimately be helped by such a law. Some people don't give a rat's ass about others. What can you do?
This is the case with all laws. Women who bring frivolous or false accusations are not likely to care much about other people who may need the law for more legitimate or more serious cases. Like all people a certain percentage of women are going to use laws for pure greed or to settle some personal vendetta. We know that our legal system has been manipulated by these types of people and we arrange, as best we can, to mitigate the misuse ... such as raising the bar for bringing suit or creating the ability for countersuits against such individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
such as raising the bar for bringing suit or creating the ability for countersuits against such individuals.
You've just expressed why some of us are so outraged by this article... the bar for sexual harassment is being lowered, not raised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We know that our legal system has been manipulated by these types of people and we arrange, as best we can, to mitigate the misuse ... such as raising the bar for bringing suit or creating the ability for countersuits against such individuals.
This is pure fantasy based on the unfounded conviction that men are not being screwed over in this society relative to women. We do nothing of the kind.
Here in Colorado, a bill was proposed to make it illegal to file false sexual harassment and sexual assault claims. The bill was defeated, and, after its defeat, one of the legislators who fought the bill said its defeat was a good thing because the bill would, supposedly, have had a "chilling effect" on true victims of harassment and assault.
Oh my! A "chilling effect" compared to the utter destruction of the lives of completely innocent men.
The fact is that we continue to make it easier to file false harassment and assault claims and, in many, many cases, refuse to hold those who file such claim accountable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that there are no safeguards or serious punishments in place to prevent abuse. I agree that anyone that brings forward false accusations minimize those that have true grievences but the problems is women are the vast majority of these false cases.
I feel that anyone that brings forward a false accusation against a person should have a punishment equal to what a guilty charge could have resulted in.
while this is logical the major group that fights this type of litigation are women's groups. The reasons they use are the typical propaganda of preventing women from coming forward. it is thie very idea that has resulted in abuse by women.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there some percedent that makes this charge unsuitable for use in cases of false accusations?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @05:50PM EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
Donald:
I honestly don't know. It is an interesting question to look into. My bet would be "yes", however. Why? Because I did look up libel law a few years ago and found out it was much more restrictive and sadly subjective then I'd imagined.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps, but so what? It's sexist to consider ANY problem of men before all possible problems of women have been addressed.
Since there are a virtually limitless number of possible problems of women (as, indeed, there are for men), the internal logic of this statement is that no problem of men should ever be addressed. To make this logic work it is necessary to introduce the word 'sexist', the meaning of which reduces to the word 'wrong'. But in what way is it wrong to consider any problem of men before every problem of women? Beyond the use of the word 'sexist' we are not told; we are expected to accept the use of the word 'sexist' as explanation enough. This being the case, the statement can be read as a definition of the word 'sexist', rather than as a statement about the treatment of men and women's problems. In other words, the use of the word 'sexist' indicates a belief that it is wrong to ever consider the problems of men. I hope this handy deconstruction helps people to have a better understanding of the word 'sexist', of those who created it, and of its intended purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had this discussion with Dr. Stuart Shipco of the Panic Disorders Institute in regards to the libido suppressing affects of SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Paxil, Celexa, Zoloft, and Luvox). I suggested that in our modern culture the mass media devotes enormous resources to creating an environment of heightened sexuality.
I should also point out that SSRI's do not, in every case, suppress libido. They have varying side effects, some of which some people experience and others do not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I submitted a response directly to the Newspaper that published the article under debate here.
I wish to clear up the mess I have created here.
In a unicultural society like the USA Briton, Australia I do believe that the right to free speech rules supreme. That such speech may offend, even outrage, others is not just cause to place limits on this right. The only limits one can place on free speech are those which deprive others of exercising their right to free speech.
I live in Canada, and Canada is not a unicultural society. Canada is by charter a multicultural society. Some of my thoughts on how this affects the issue under debate here I submitted to the newspaper as follows:
In a society that defines itself as unicultural as opposed to multicultural, sexual expression appears to be akin to, or at least no more significant than, political, religious(spiritual if you prefer), or philosophical expression. All of these in my opinion are of equal intimate potential. Should any country that sees itself as unicultural attempt to codify, in statute, limits or boundaries that intend to directly protect (intervene in our behavior, speech or writing) freedoms attached to the above concerns, prudence should be exercised by ensuring that all of these realms or concerns are treated equally in spirit.
The issue becomes very complicated in multicultural societies like Canada. Post charter jurisprudence and politics must cope with diversity by dynamically defining culture leading to unique entities achieving culture status. These "virtual cultures" arising by accident of definition significantly affect our perception of limits and boundaries. The limits on invasive statute can be compromised when a virtual culture exhibits attributes not normally associated with extant culture that must be also protected as per the charter of rights and freedoms.
To major conflict areas, family and gender, have fallen victim to this compromise in Canada. We seem to have added three Virtual Cultures to the mix. Children, Women, Men. In Canada these three groups have rights and freedoms in isolation from each other. This results in contrived conflicts arising out of the inherent relationship between the three and their incumbent interactions violating the derived rights of cultural identity.
Sexual innuendo now becomes also cultural slur, and child discipline now becomes also cultural repression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You may find, in your struggle, much refernce to Canada's handling of men's and women's rights.
Be alert to the reality that we do not subscribe only to your basic American values, but also to a "concept" not relavent to American rights and freedoms.
To this reality I bow, and wish you all the very best of fortune.
Live Long and Prosper
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And what about your boner that of all mammals, only some primates lack an os penis? Is this the "concept" not relevant to "American rights and freedoms"? It's certainly not relevant to the truth, either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
"PRIMATES; LORISIDAE PRIMATES; LORISIDAE
Order Primates
Primates
....
Daubentonia has one pair of abdominal mammae; females of the family Cheirogaleidae have one pectoral, one abdominal, and one inguinal pair; and the genus Varecia has one pectoral and two abdominal pairs. All other primates have a pair of mammary glands in the chest or axillary region. The penis of males is of the pendulous type (a rare pattern in mammals), and a baculum is present in most genera but absent in Tarsius, Lagothrix, Homo, and a few others. The testes are borne in a sac known as the scrotum. The typical primate reproductive cycle differs in certain respects from the typical mammalian "heat" cycle and is known as the menstrual cycle in the female. The males of many primates, unlike many other mammals, do not exhibit a specific period of pronounced sexual activity, but are capable of breeding at any time."
Source
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/walker/primates.htm l
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel that your apology wasn't sufficiently grovelling. Please take it again, this time with feeling. Also, the whole world needs you to admit your factual error refarding the os penis, and not merely skirt around the issue. You will find the admission cathartic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but I really don't need a catheter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Touche! All it takes is a witticism and you're off the hook, exonerated, aquitted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @04:52AM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
I think this whole debate needs to be put into perspective. I think it is crazy that so much time is spent debating whether women should be protected from seeing someone looking at something they might find offensive, or from "stares".
Compare this to the lack of focus on workplace safety; far more effort is put into protecting women from possible offence than protecting men from death.
"During 1980--1997, 103,945 civilian workers died in the United States from occupational injuries, an average of 16 work-related deaths per day."
"Males accounted for 93% of all deaths"
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5016a4. htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @10:50AM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps, but so what? It's sexist to consider ANY problem of men before all possible problems of women have been addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps, but so what? It's sexist to consider ANY problem of men before all possible problems of women have been addressed.
Are you being serious?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because of the CDC statistic, I've noticed an interesting opportunity to expose the rhetoric of using statistical thresholds to efface one gender from discourse on certain classes of victims, such as domestic violence victims or occupational victims.
The "love is not abuse campaign" of Liz Claiborne Inc. makes the following justification for its across-the-board gendering of domestic violence perpetrators as male and domestic violence victims as female (taken from http://www.lizclaiborne.com/lizinc/lizworks/women/ what.asp):
The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that more than 90% of all relationship abuse victims are female and most abusers are male. Because of this, we use "she" when referring to victims and "he" when referring to abusers. Whether the victim is male or female, violence of any kind in relationships is unacceptable.
According to this rhetorical style, because of the 90% statistic, it would appear permissible to make a parallel across-the-board gendering of all occupational fatalities as male, with the following justification:
The Center for Disease Control estimates that Males accounted for 93% of all deaths died in the United States from occupational injuries, an average of 16 work-related deaths per day. Because of this, we use "he" when referring to occupational injury victims. Whether the victim is male or female, occupational injuries of any kind are unacceptable.
My point if it's acceptable for feminists to efface the statistic of male victims from discourse on domestic violence because some 90% statistical threshold was exceeded (this is a matter of controversy), then conversely, it's acceptable for masculists to efface the statistic of female occupational fatalities, since the relevant statistical threshold was exceeded; i.e., greater than 90% of all work related deaths are male.
Feminists who want to avoid mentioning the first statistic should be presented with the statistic on occupational deaths along with the justification for effacing the gender of female victims in any discussion of occupational fatalities. It would be interesting to hear the response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm reposting this because the original contained distracting grammatical errors and because it generated a woefully insufficient response, in view of its importance.
Because of the CDC statistic, I've noticed an interesting opportunity to expose the rhetoric of using statistical thresholds to minimize the significance of certain classes of victims of a certain gender, or otherwise rule out one gender as a statistically significant population of victims of a certain type, such as domestic violence victims.
The "love is not abuse campaign" of Liz Claiborne Inc. makes the following justification for its across-the-board gendering of domestic violence perpetrators as male and domestic violence victims as female (taken from http://www.lizclaiborne.com/lizinc/lizworks/women/ what.asp):
The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that more than 90% of all relationship abuse victims are female and most abusers are male. Because of this, we use "she" when referring to victims and "he" when referring to abusers. Whether the victim is male or female, violence of any kind in relationships is unacceptable.
According to this rhetorical style, because of the 90% statistic, it would appear permissible to make a parallel across-the-board gendering of all occupational fatalities as male, with the following justification:
The Center for Disease Control estimates that males accounted for 93% of all deaths in the United States from occupational injuries, an average of 16 work-related deaths per day. Because of this, we use "he" when referring to occupational hazard victims. Whether the victim is male or female, fatal occupational injuries of any kind are unacceptable.
My point if it's acceptable for feminists to efface the statistic of male victims from discourse on domestic violence and to stereotype all males as perpetrators of domestic violence because some 90% statistical threshold was exceeded, then conversely, it's acceptable for masculists to efface the statistic of female work-related fatalities, since the relevant statistical threshold was exceeded; i.e., greater than 90% of all work related deaths are male.
Feminists who want to minimize the proportion of male victims of domestic violence as insignificant should be presented with the statistic on occupational deaths along with the parallel justification for characterizing the proportion of female victims as insignificant in accordance with the 90% threshold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 18, @07:38AM EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
Mars:
I would say that the issue of occupational deaths is a good one for us to pursue. And that men work the dangerous jobs is one of the few popular impressions that work in our favor.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not seriously suggesting a tit-for-tat stereotyping of occupational fatalities as male, simply because over 90% of all occupational fatalities are male, and even though some feminists use the 90% threshold ro sweep the male victims of domestic violence under the ideological rug.
But occupational deaths is a very good issue for the men's movement, because the facts aren't controversial, they seem to undermine a whole slew of anti-male prejudices at once, and they raise questions of their own: what would society look like if there weren't men around to risk their lives in unsafe jobs? One can ask this without begging the question of how society would turn out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IF anyone wants a serious reality check about men and work look at the expected lifespan of a coal miner. It is shocking.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
