Sexual harassment laws: a crock on so many levels

The ridiculous and unconstitutional doctrine of sexual harassment, which was concocted out of thin air by radical feminist university theorists in the 1970s, is a crock of non-sense on so many levels its hard to even contemplate. Where does one begin in fighting this faulty and destructive faux legal doctrine?

Well, how about at its source: that so-called sexual harassment is a form of workplace (or schoolyard) "sexual discrimination" which is the foundation from which the doctrine itself emanates?

The average person is probably unaware that the foundational legal basis for the banning of so-called sexual harassment in workplaces and elsewhere is that it violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination based on sex (as in male or female) in certain circumstances. So how did we get from not hiring someone because of sex to the idea that one individual randomly being attracted to another individual is "discrimination."

Anyway, those who think I'm an "idiot" might be interested to find out, I'm not the only one who questions sex harassment laws (for example, Mercury14's statement that "just about everybody" blindly and wholeheartedly supports these laws as currently interpreted is simply not true). Even Alan "Turkeyshitz" Dershowitz, long a darling of much of the liberal left has challenged the doctrine, but lets leave that for another post. What I want to focus on here is whether so-called sexual harassment, as defined as "unwelcome sexual interest," is always a form of "discrimination" against a class of people based on their sex, or rather simply a misunderstanding between individuals. To add further credibility to the thread, since many of you think I'm an "idiot" I won't even offer my own opinions, but will cut and paste from another source.

You're an idiot because you keep making the same thread over and over.

And you don't know what sexual harassment is.

renard_ruse said:

So how did we get from not hiring someone because of sex to the idea that one individual randomly being attracted to another individual is "discrimination."

Click to expand...

See? You're ignorant of even the most basic concepts of sexual harassment. You don't know what it is, you just think it's a crock.

OHHHH common! somone take the bait!

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll216/Tails214/happy-face-770659.png

Noted author and legal expert Mane Hajdin has written:

"...set[ting] aside any general criticisms that could be made against anti-discrimination laws, such as have been made by Richard Epstien, what I want to investigate is whether, assuming that the laws against sex discrimination are, by and large, justified, the idea that they provide a legal "home" for the sexual harassment law can withstand scrutiny.

Let me say at the outset that I readily acknowledge that there are some instances of conduct that are currently classified as sexual harassment that are, at the same time, instances of sex discrimination. For example, if men at a workplace that has until recently been all-male submit female coworkers to a campaign of sexual insults that is intended to make the women's lives so miserable that they will be forced to resign, then it may well be quite plausible to say that the women are victims of sex discrimination. The existance of such examples, however, in no way proves that all of the conduct currently classified as sexual harassment consitutes sex discrimination... The issue that is relevant here, is not where there are overlaps between sexual harassment and sex discrimination, but whether sexual harassment can be subsumed under the notion of sex discrimination..."

mercury14 said:

You're an idiot because you keep making the same thread over and over.

And you don't know what sexual harassment is.



See? You're ignorant of even the most basic concepts of sexual harassment. You don't know what it is, you just think it's a crock.

Click to expand...

Maybe he got fired from Burger King for sexual harassment. It would explain his fixation on this tired subject.

Unfortunately I can't cut and paste from the book, its not allowing me to copy, but you can find the whole critique here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=PD...zq3lROgdkMREv3c7T2Q&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

More from Hajdin:

"...An interesting detail from the history of sexual harassment law... is that when the argument was first made that Title VII should be interpreted as including the prohibition of sexual harassment, it was outright rejected by the courts...

In Corne v. Bausch and Lomb Inc., the court... concluded that the conduct complained of cannot constitute discrimination in employment because it "appears nothing more than a personal provclivity, peculiarity or manerism. By his alleged sexual advances, [the alleged harasser] was satisfying a personal urge... no employer policy is here involved..."

Very_Bad_Man said:

Maybe he got fired from Burger King for sexual harassment. It would explain his fixation on this tired subject.

Click to expand...

They wouldn't let me have it my way.

renard_ruse said:

They wouldn't let me have it my way.

Click to expand...

for you, that's quite witty.

Renard is jealous he's never been sexually harassed.

mercury14 said:

You're an idiot because you keep making the same thread over and over...

Click to expand...

What about you making the same threads over and over about how terrible the dirty rotten Republicans are?

Hostile-environment sexual harassment is created in situations in which an employee is subject to unwelcome verbal or physical sexual behavior

Click to expand...

How do you know something is unwelcome before you do it?

This is like an ex post facto tort or something.

renard_ruse said:

How do you know something is unwelcome before you do it?

Click to expand...

Simple: any sexual behavior you, renard_ruse, initiated, would be unwelcome. To anyone.

renard_ruse said:

How do you know something is unwelcome before you do it?

This is like an ex post facto tort or something.

Click to expand...

Most people find that "do unto others" is an adequate guideline. Don't you?

What happened to you lately that complelled you to make three threads about this?

John Doe said:

What happened to you lately that complelled you to make three threads about this?

Click to expand...

he gave one of his co-workers at mcdonalds a cum milkshake.

Methinks the renard doth protest too much. S'matter? A little too creepy at the office there boyo? Here's a suggestion: look them in the eye when you talk to them. Keeps you out of trouble.

renard_ruse said:

How do you know something is unwelcome before you do it?

This is like an ex post facto tort or something.

Click to expand...

You don't know, but despite your confusion and the specific wording of the law, sexual harassment was never meant to outlaw or punish someone who politely invites another person out to dinner simply because the invitee finds that person repulsive.

It was designed to deprive you of the license to be continually obnoxious just because there was no law demanding that you behave otherwise.

phrodeau said:

Most people find that "do unto others" is an adequate guideline. Don't you?

Click to expand...

Apparently women who claim sex harassment don't. The same behavior from someone they find attractive makes them happy, from someone they don't find attractive they sue for million$ for being "victimized." The whole thing is a complete crock, and frankly discriminatory towards ugly people (BTW, I'm not ugly myself, I just find it unfair and wrong).

Colonel Hogan said:

You don't know, but despite your confusion and the specific wording of the law, sexual harassment was never meant to outlaw or punish someone who politely invites another person out to dinner simply because the invitee finds that person repulsive.

It was designed to deprive you of the license to be continually obnoxious just because there was no law demanding that you behave otherwise.

Click to expand...

In fact, its my argument that the actual goal, when the concept was concocted by radical university feminists in the early 1970s was to "de-heterosexualize" everyday life by forcing asexuality on everybody in workplaces (at the time, homosexuals were mainly in the closet, and anyway the vast majority of people are heterosexual, so banning flirtateous interaction between people would overwhelming effect heteros). That was because most of these feminists at the time were man-hating lesbians, which was in vogue in those circles at the time.

Later, trial lawyers got hold of the concept and carried it to the extremes we see today because they found they could make a buttload of dinero off the lawsuits.

As for outlawing obnoxious behavior, fine, but why is that the government's job? Isn't that a bit totalitarian?

Many people don't seem to realize that sexual harassment has not always existed. It is an ideological concept, a "social construct" if you like, that was created by a small circle of feminist ideologues at eastern universities.

Here's the real story:

In the book In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution (1999), journalist Susan Brownmiller quotes the Cornell activists who in 1975 thought they had coined the term sexual harassment: "Eight of us were sitting in an office ... brainstorming about what we were going to write on posters for our speak-out. We were referring to it as 'sexual intimidation,' 'sexual coercion,' 'sexual exploitation on the job.' None of those names seemed quite right. We wanted something that embraced a whole range of subtle and un-subtle persistent behaviors. Somebody came up with 'harassment.' 'Sexual harassment!' Instantly we agreed. That's what it was." (p. 281). These activists, Lin Farley, Susan Meyer, and Karen Sauvigne went on to form Working Women's Institute which, along with the Alliance Against Sexual Coercion, founded in 1976 by Freada Klein, Lynn Wehrli, and Elizabeth Cohn-Stuntz, were among the pioneer organizations to bring sexual harassment to public attention in the late 1970s...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment

Click to expand...

I'm so glad I don't live the lonely, miserable existence that you do. You must be so sad and psychologically desolate to have to spend endless hours dreaming up ways to complain about the same trivial shit over and over like this.

renard_ruse said:

How do you know something is unwelcome before you do it?

This is like an ex post facto tort or something.

Click to expand...

A supervisor sexualizing the workplace might be welcome? The boss is screwed because how does he know his subordinate employees will not welcome a nice ass grab now and then until he tries it?

renard_ruse said:

Many people don't seem to realize that sexual harassment has not always existed. It is an ideological concept, a "social construct" if you like, that was created by a small circle of feminist ideologues at eastern universities.

Here's the real story:

Click to expand...

Yeah, and " domestic abuse" didnt use to exist either.. neither did child abuse

that doesn't mean it didnt happen, genius

renard_ruse said:

In fact, its my argument that the actual goal, when the concept was concocted by radical university feminists in the early 1970s was to "de-heterosexualize" everyday life by forcing asexuality on everybody in workplaces (at the time, homosexuals were mainly in the closet, and anyway the vast majority of people are heterosexual, so banning flirtateous interaction between people would overwhelming effect heteros). That was because most of these feminists at the time were man-hating lesbians, which was in vogue in those circles at the time.

Click to expand...

So basically you're saying you're a misogynistic bigot who's mad as hell that society rejected your bigotry?

Flirting between coworkers is not illegal. It was never illegal. And nobody is trying to make it illegal. Stop saying otherwise.

renard_ruse said:

As for outlawing obnoxious behavior, fine, but why is that the government's job? Isn't that a bit totalitarian?

Click to expand...

Of course it's the government's job to make workplace harassment, discrimination, and exploitation illegal. What other entity has that power?

In the absence of these laws women were coerced into submitting to unwanted sexual conduct at the threat of negative action against their careers. And if they complained, they often suffered negative action just for filing a report with their company. Women's annual reviews were often based on how willing they were to submit to the boss' sexual advances.

Banning this kind of exploitation is totalitarian? What's wrong with you?