So now flirting or asking a girl out is sexual harassment

originally posted by: Arnie123
Hannity WILL fight this and I hope it creates a new front in response to these leftist terrorist who go to grest lenghts to get conservstive host fired under false allegations.

You do know the woman in the accusation is a Republican, right?

It's really sad to even suggest the following, but somebody needs to: if you are a man and need to hire new employees, don't be pressured into "filling gender quotas" and aim for "fair" representation. Hire on skill and merit! And if the candidate that wins on merit happens to be a woman, remember stories like these when considering whether your company will benefit or weaken with all the drama that just might ensue. You have been warned!

a reply to: TheRedneck

The problem there is the lack of a good definition for "flirting." For instance?

Nah man, there's nothing ambiguous about it. I linked the entire legal definition of sexual harassment specifically because it goes into strenuous detail on what constitutes sexual harassment. The 2nd sentence in that working definition says :

Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

That's why companies simply say not to risk it, aka don't do it.

Did it ever occur to you that humans are not machines? I have yet to work anywhere that small talk didn't occur. You yourself admitted in the line I didn't quote that you had personally dated a co-worker.

Humans not being machines doesn't mean that humans can't follow rules. lol Can we start using that as an excuse for any other time someone breaks a law he/she doesn't agree with?

And when I dated that co-worker, everything was strictly off the job. There was no flirting at work or anything of that sort. So yes, self restraint is a possibility for humans.

Would it surprise you to know that I have personally turned down women for positions because they were women? I have, because I didn't want the liability that came with having women and men together in the workplace. You want to see what's holding up that 'glass ceiling' we hear about? I just showed you the real reason, and it has nothing to do with men. The part I hate is that it is a small percentage of women who cause this, but all of them pay the price. Which is probably why the women I know say openly that they despise feminism and feminists.

O_O
Dude you're admitting that you're the problem with the glass ceiling. You rejected women strictly based on their gender simply because you and some of the other guys in the area couldn't deal with having a woman working with you. That's both pathetic and a direct violation of the law as well. That's legally no different from saying you denied hiring an African American for job positions because they were African American.

You want to know the irony here? The more I hear from conservatives on these matters, the more you sound like the ultra conservative Muslims like Wahhabis & the Salafis that I'm against. They maintain their separation of women and men for exactly this same reason. They say that women & men working together will only create unnecessary problems. The Saudis deny women the right to drive because they claim women will complicate things by going to see other men when they're alone. They force women to wear burkas because they say the women are simply too attractive and will create lust in the mentally frail men around them.

And even though the Qur'an doesn't say that men & women must pray separately, Muslim conservatives claim that a woman praying in front of a man will unnecessarily distract the males. The Qur'an does have a passage that says that when we pray, there should be no distractions. And since several parts of our prayers involve us bending over (standing and then on our knees), the conservatives say a woman bending over during prayers counts as that distraction. I guess it's true that conservatives are alike after all, huh?

So yeah, let's decree that all men are legally subject to prosecution at any time for any reason because they are men, then let's talk about how all men are sociopaths because they try to legally protect themselves by separating themselves from women. That's a great idea!

I never said any of this so quit putting this crap in my mouth. If you read the legal definition that I posted in my 1st post in this thread, you'd see that the law applies to both men and women. That means that men in the same situation can also file sexual harassment cases. It even says "Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex."

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I should have been more clear, but the fact I responded to another poster in response to his link should have been clear.
As for the accused, hannitu says no proof and false allegations.

In response to a provided link and the recent bill slander, putting two and two together is pretty easy.

This is an attemtp to bring down personalities, the idiots were foolish after they tasted blood and got Bill, so hannity is next.


The womans political affiliation matters not if she is the one doing the accusations, because it is one aspect people look at when publicized.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

In other words, hire based on merit unless the best applicant is a woman. If it's a woman, also take possible negative gender issues into consideration. LOL That defeats the point in hiring strictly based on merit.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Some women actually would call that sexual harassment. No lie. I have been 'schooled' on being sexist and insulting for holding a door open for my date, by my date, many years ago.

I apologized, closed the door, stepped back, let her go in, went back to my car, and drove home. Date over.

LOL!

I wish I had the audacity to do that! I would probably pause, ask her politely if she is a feminist, and if she confirms she is, I would indicate the date is over and very insincerely offer to drive her home.

The look of "WTF! How DARE YOU!" would THEN be my justification to do as you did.

I would say that any unwanted advances is sexual harrassment. Ask once then back off jerks.

originally posted by: Arnie123
The womans political affiliation matters not if she is the one doing the accusations, because it is one aspect people look at when publicized.

Sure it does, particularly if someone is going to argue it is a 'leftist agenda'.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Hannity WILL fight this and I hope it creates a new front in response to these leftist terrorist who go to grest lenghts to get conservstive host fired under false allegations.

Leftist terrorists? Debbie Schlussel, the woman in this case, is as right wing as it gets. LOL So anyone you don't like automatically must be a left winger?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
In other words, hire based on merit unless the best applicant is a woman. If it's a woman, also take possible negative gender issues into consideration. LOL That defeats the point in hiring strictly based on merit.

You said it, not me!

But how would that scenario be much different to the current one: only hire a man if it's based on merit, however, still hire a woman whether or not it's based on merit, but mainly because you need to fill your quotas.

You can't have your cake and eat it too! (Unless you are a feminist and believe you can, and not expect any consequences as a result.)

originally posted by: Taggart

originally posted by: butcherguy
After reading this much of the thread, I am convinced that some posters would agree that Bill Clinton should have lost his job as POTUS for sexual harassment of an intern in the workplace.

Was that harrassment though? Who say's Bill was the one asking for it (I know he probably was)
Maybe she should have said no, and complained (and be found dead in North Dakota from sucide, shooting herself in the back of thead)

So a guy that hires and fires should also have sex in the workplace with subordinate unpaid workers?

Seems different than what I was seeing on the first page of this thread.... concerning just flirting.

a reply to: xstealth

Even though it's a couple pages in, I thought I'd chime in. It's always been going this way. I'm going to be 38 this year, but when I was 20 I worked for Safeway. In one of the videos they made new-hires watch, they showed us examples of what they felt to be sexual harassment. In one of the examples, this male employee was talking to a female customer, and it honestly looked like they were hitting it off. The employee decided to ask the girl out. Now, the girl wasn't offended, nope nope. Y'know who was offended?? The old lady nearby. So in other words, Safeway was telling it's employees that even if the person you ask out is interested, someone nearby can turn you in for sexual harassment.

So hearing the way things are lately doesn't surprise me. :

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: butcherguy
After reading this much of the thread, I am convinced that some posters would agree that Bill Clinton should have lost his job as POTUS for sexual harassment of an intern in the workplace.

Not even remotely the same thing. Monica Lewinski was a consenting and willing participant. The women Fox had to pay off for O'Reilly did not want the attention and wanted
It to cease. In O'Reilly's case, he apparently doesn't understand the meaning of "No".

We had people in the first page of this thread saying that a boss that does hiring and firing should not ask a subordinate out on a date.
One thing I saw was that it is a workplace... not a club.

Now... since Clinton is the question .... a boss having sex IN the WORKPLACE is ok.... because she wanted it.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Re-read your post. That's what your post amounted to.

if you are a man and need to hire new employees, don't be pressured into "filling gender quotas" and aim for "fair" representation. Hire on skill and merit!

This basically amounts to "hire strictly based on skill & merit, not on any other issue". Not problem here.

And if the candidate that wins on merit happens to be a woman, remember stories like these when considering whether your company will benefit or weaken with all the drama that just might ensue.

This amounts to "however, if the candidate with the best merits is a woman, now you should take any possible negative gender-based situations into consideration".

You're advising males to hire based on skill and merit only if the best candidate is a male, but not if it's a female. By this logic, shouldn't female recruiters and bosses be able to take any possible negative gender-based situations into play when they're looking at male applicants? Or are males the only ones who get to do use gender as a hiring condition?

As for this being a 'Leftist' agenda to systematically target FOX...The Left will utilize and promote useful idiots of any political persuasion...as long as they are willing to pursue the target.


As far as the 'Hannity' situation goes, this particular woman is an extreme right-wing Muslim hater, who has demonstrated a pre-existing personal animosity towards Sean Hannity.
She has previously accused his charity of misusing donations and was proven wrong.

Yet, the Leftist media will promote this Muslim-hating, right-winger as a feminist hero, because 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

You know what, I believe I've come up with the perfect solution to this whole issue.

We should simply do away with gender all together, instead of all this crap. Think about it, not only are we solving this sexual harrassment issue, we're solving various other issues - gender politics.

Instead of LGBTQPRSTEXPEALADOCIOUS or however many genders there are now we can just have one, single gender. At birth, remove sexual resproductive organs and become service mechanoids like Kryten out of red dwarf...

No genitalia, just plastic underpands and a trademark.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Nah man, there's nothing ambiguous about it. I linked the entire legal definition of sexual harassment specifically because it goes into strenuous detail on what constitutes sexual harassment.

That 'strenuous detail' isn't followed, though. I have seen a man fired for sexual harassment whose only contact with the plaintiff was cracking the punchline to a lewd joke walking down a hall within earshot of her. That's not exactly specified in the definition. Her next target was me, because I had been giving her a ride home from work while her car was being repaired. Based on that incident and several comments she had made to me earlier about how disgusting men were, I decided I was putting myself in danger doing so, and made up an excuse why I couldn't give her a ride any more.

Thankfully, several co-workers came to my rescue before she could get me fired.

No, that definition isn't worth the paper it's written on in real life.

Humans not being machines doesn't mean that humans can't follow rules.

Reasonable rules, yes. But to never utter a word that is not 100% necessary to performance of duties during an 8-hour stretch? To never look neither left nor right walking from one point to another? That's ridiculous.

I'm not talking about true sexual abuse that does happen. I'm talking about the hundreds of little innocent things we all do every day that some will turn into a career-ending episode.

O_O
Dude you're admitting that you're the problem with the glass ceiling. You rejected women strictly based on their gender simply because you and some of the other guys in the area couldn't deal with having a woman working with you. That's both pathetic and a direct violation of the law as well. That's legally no different from saying you denied hiring an African American for job positions because they were African American.

Statute of limitations, my friend. That company is long defunct and I think it's maybe time someone spoke out to what is really happening. That is assuming anyone really cares about fixing the problem. It is generally considered a good thing in my line of work to know what the problem is before trying to fix it.

If you really expect anyone to hire someone who they believe will be a problem for the company or its employees, you're living a fantasy. I try to avoid trouble, not pay to have it find me. Truth be known, it hurt me to make that decision, but my primary concern was for my business, my present employees, myself, and my family. That's the hard truth. Every other CEO has the exact same concerns. So, like it or not, I was not the problem; I was reacting to the problem in the only reasonable manner open to me.

And your analogy is not accurate. A black man isn't likely to accuse me of sexually harassing him. No problem with that applicant.

You want to know the irony here? The more I hear from conservatives on these matters, the more you sound like the ultra conservative Muslims like Wahhabis & the Salafis that I'm against.

Well, you're actually my main source on here for accurate information on Muslim culture, so I can't argue. I wonder if my reasoning (trying to stay out of court) is the same as theirs?

I actually believe women are every bit as capable as men, even more so in some circumstances. They deserve the same pay and same opportunity and same respect as men do. That's why I'm so angry the feminist movement is preventing them from achieving it, simply by trying to use gender to harm so many people.

I never said any of this so quit putting this crap in my mouth.

.
My apologies; I should have been clearer. You did not say any of that; feminism as a whole does. It was not my intention to put anything in your mouth.

The law may state it applies equally to men and women, but the implementation and practice say otherwise. If one truly believed the genders are equal (as I do), one would expect the application of sexual harassment policy to be equally distributed between the genders. It is obviously not. The vast, vast majority of cases have the male as the offender and the female as the victim. Ergo, the genders cannot be equal, which goes against the very spirit of the law in the first place.

TheRedneck

Open question:

Is a male telling a female co-worker, at work, that she looks pretty today, sexual harassment?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Open question:

Is a male telling a female co-worker, at work, that she looks pretty today, sexual harassment?

That depends, does she like you??

originally posted by: Necrobile

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Open question:

Is a male telling a female co-worker, at work, that she looks pretty today, sexual harassment?

That depends, does she like you??

Explain, please.