Society wrote:
> "ls"  wrote in message
> news:1107561137.391768.8330{at}o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Gactimus wrote:
> >>
> >> Some of the behavior of women in the office is so
> >> unmistakeably slutlike
>
> "Slutlike".  I take it you mean "sexually harrassing or
> exploitative" by that.
>
> > that it has to be intentional.
>
> Yup.  In which case a sexual harrassment complaint
> is justified.  And managements that do not act on their
> own but wait for formal complaints from the men
> these women are harrassing only set themselves up
> as being complicit in creating a hostile work environment
> against the men employees.  Therefore, these women
> who -- unless their job is as a cocktail bar hostess
> or lap dancer -- are damaging to the workplace and
> firing them is not only justified but _required_ for the
> employer to stay in compliance with employment laws.
>
>    In sexual harassment cases, the behavior must be
>    considered explicitly sexual by a reasonable victim.
>    If the victim is a woman, it's a reasonable woman
>    standard. If the victim is a man, it's a reasonable man
>    standard.
>
>    Rita Risser, Managing Within The Law
>
> If, however, the women who behave in this sexually
> charged way DON'T "get it" (to use the correct
> feminist lingo) then they are obviously lacking in
> the necessary judgement, self control and self
> awareness to be -- on net -- productive in the
> workplace, thus their immediate termination is
> again justified.
>
> >> For example, in my place of work, a list of potential
> >> candidates for a lucrative promotion had been
> >> narrowed down to two: a man and a woman. Both
> >> candidates were required to give presentations
> >> in front of the project staff. The day the man gave
> >> his presentation, the woman showed up for work
> >> in a form-fitting blouse and a skirt so short it could
> >> have been used as a headband. As a result, this
> >> poor bastard stammered, stuttered, and basically
> >> "ummed" his way through the entire presentation.
>
> I suggest you tip off that guy (if you are in contact
> with him) and alert him to the fact that he has (in the
> US anyway, probably in all of the Anglosphere too)
> a very good case of sexual harrassment that led to
> him losing a job opportunity.  There are men's rights
> lawyers who'd be happy to file the necessary suit
> and put the appropriate press releases out into the
> public media.
>
>    Of course, where male employees allege
>    that co-workers engage in conduct which
>    creates a hostile environment, the appropriate
>    victim's perspective would be that of a
>    reasonable man.
>
>    US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
>    Ellison v. Brady, 924 Federal Reporter
>    2d Series, p 879
>
> > How do you know that's why he stumbled though
> > the presentation?  Maybe he wasn't prepared.
>
> Maybe -- certainly! -- you're making excuses for,
> how do feminists say it, "blaming the victim".
>
> Sheesh.
>
> > Are you saying that men can't control themselves
> > and become idiots around a miniskirt?  I don't believe
> > that at all.
>
> Your professed disbelief is over a straw--- uh, woman,
> of your own constrution, ls.  (Duh.)
>
> Now let's return to the Real World (tm).  Yes, a woman
> making a sexual display of herself in front of a man IS
> distracting to him.  And women know full well that they
> can exploit that AND get away with their exploitation
> of men in that way (which is, btw, another example of
> women's behavior that wrongs others is not considered
> "criminal" but objectively IS -- in the specific case
> under discussion here the woman very arguably stole
> someone's livelihood).
>
> Dr. Warren Farrell in his landmark book _Why Men
> Are the Way They Are_ employs the neologism
> "genetic celebrity" to describe the ease with which
> young women draw men's attention to themselves.
> The sex-role reversal that would demonstrate how
> distracting Ms. Sex-Display's behavior was to that
> job candidate who happened to be a man would be
> to consider just how composed a young woman
> like Ms. Sex-Display would have -- in her turn --
> been while making her presentation to an audience
> that included a Robert Redford, Mel Gibson, or
> Keanu Reeves who was giving HER "meaningful
> looks" throughout.
>
> (Duh.)
>
> >> Ultimately, management gave the promotion
> >> to the woman.
> >>
> >> In any decent society, this broad would be sitting
> >> in jail right now.
>
> Or she and her employer would be paying a huge civil
> penalty to the man that was wronged by her on-the-job
> sexual game-playing.
>
> >> Instead, she's sitting in her corner office with her
> >> windows and her private bathroom and her fucking
> >> goldfish. And the silly, slobbering son of a bitch that
> >> should have gotten the promotion is stagnating in
> >> a cubicle somewhere.
> >
> > If he's a silly and slobbering then he probably shouldn't
> > have gotten the promotion anyway.  He had to prove
> > himself and he couldn't do it.
>
> There you go again, ls, playing your feminist double
> standard of "We always take the side of the woman
> no matter what."  Sheesh!
>
> >> Is it time women covered up at work? You're
> >> goddamn right it is ... but it's not to protect them
> >> from us. It's to protect us from them.
> >
> > I agree,
>
> No you don't, ls.  But you're willing to lie.  If you
> truly did "agree" you wouldn't have been pooh-poohing
> the case of the fellow who was sabotaged by
> Ms. Exposed-Cleavage's broadcasting of sexual
> come-ons during the evaluation of a job candidate.
>
> You're busted.  Tsk, tsk.

No, you're wrong.  I do agree that women should dress conservatively at
work.  I simply don't think that a grown, professional man trying for a
promotion would turn to jelly and stumble and stammer when he sees a
short skirt.  I give men much more credit than that.

>
> > women should dress more conservatively at work.
> > In my office it's more detrimental and some woman
> > have been talked to about 'office attire'.
>
> That so many women require being "talked to" only
> demonstrates how easily women can get away with
> sexually harrassing the men in the workplace, ls.
> What those women are doing, ls, is "hitting on"
> (as the expression goes) all the men around them.
> Were a man to choose a verbal rather than the
> typically female mode of hitting on those of the
> other sex by visual means, do you wish to seriously
> argue that the worst that would happen to him
> would be getting "talked to"?  Sheesh, ls, if so
> you're even more dense than you presently let on!
>
> --
>    [T]here is no need to argue for the creation
>    of a reasonable man standard since the Court
>    already recognizes its validity. Beyond this,
>    however, it is justified by the same arguement
>    Catharine MacKinnon uses to justify a uniquely
>    female reasonable woman standard[.]
>
>    Rod van Mechelen, "Sexual Harassment and
>    the Reasonable Man Standard"
>    http://www.vanmechelen.net/microsoft/rman.html
>
>    (This article is also the source for all quoted
>    material drawn upon earlier in this post.)



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/7/05 2:33:38 PM ---