Is it time to repeal the sex harassment laws?

[Bob Waters]

http://www.funnyhub.com/videos/pages/sexual-harassment-and-you.html

 

[Bob Waters]

Sure but "he looked at my chest" isn't the basis of a substantial sexual harassment suit.

"He stares at my breasts constantly, stands over me to look down at them, and continued to do it after I asked him to stop" has much more substance though.

There are 2 types of harassing behavior - quid pro quo and hostile work environment.

For it to be a hostile work environment the behavior must be pervasive and rise to the level of meeting the objective standard for harassment.

'Leering' meets that standard.

In most cases, the offending party is told to stop, they do and it's over. It's when they don't that it becomes an issue - as it should.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Sexual harassment laws are a good thing. The real problem is the private sector has expanded upon those laws as a course of conduct to protect themselves from litigation. Unfortunately unscrupulous woman have used the sexual harassment card much like the race card has been used. However this does not illegitimize the sexual harassment laws.

It has come to a point you cannot compliment a woman at work without it being construed as sexual harassment by the female if she chose. I think this makes the statement "Don't shit where you eat" even more important a rule to live by.

 

[renard_ruse]

Like just about everyone, I think we should have these laws, yes.

How come you're refusing to answer my questions though?

"Like just about everyone"...

With statements like that, you've answered your second question.

 

[Bob Waters]

Sexual harassment laws are a good thing. The real problem is the private sector has expanded upon those laws as a course of conduct to protect themselves from litigation. Unfortunately unscrupulous woman have used the sexual harassment card much like the race card has been used. However this does not illegitimize the sexual harassment laws.

It has come to a point you cannot compliment a woman at work without it being construed as sexual harassment by the female if she chose. I think this makes the statement "Don't shit where you eat" even more important a rule to live by.

A manager shouldn't be playing flirty games at the office anyway. Period. It erodes his or her authority.

Unfair? Maybe but that's the extra work that comes with the position and higher pay.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

A manager shouldn't be playing flirty games at the office anyway. Period. It erodes his or her authority.

Unfair? Maybe but that's the extra work that comes with the position and higher pay.

100%.....and people wonder why the military wont let the infantry go co-ed.

 

[mercury14]

Sexual harassment laws are a good thing. The real problem is the private sector has expanded upon those laws as a course of conduct to protect themselves from litigation. Unfortunately unscrupulous woman have used the sexual harassment card much like the race card has been used. However this does not illegitimize the sexual harassment laws.

It has come to a point you cannot compliment a woman at work without it being construed as sexual harassment by the female if she chose. I think this makes the statement "Don't shit where you eat" even more important a rule to live by.

I don't know why people use the term 'card' for these things. They're actually pretty serious issues at times and not wisely described as a game.

 

[mercury14]

"Like just about everyone"...

With statements like that, you've answered your second question.

Sorry let me qualify that. What I should have said is every single person I've ever discussed this with in my life except you.

Now will you answer my questions or will you keep hiding from them?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Exactly. How come the "weak and victimized" women of yesteryear seemed to be more than able to keep men in line while the post-feminist "strong woman" needs the government, courts, and millions of dollars in compensation to protect her from an evil male co-worker who dares to ask her out on a date?

I raised my daughters to knock the insolence out of pests. One of them made a guy fly across the hood of his car for a fresh remark.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I raised my daughters to knock the insolence out of pests. One of them made a guy fly across the hood of his car for a fresh remark.

Is your answer always to solve problems by breaking the law?

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

I don't know why people use the term 'card' for these things. They're actually pretty serious issues at times and not wisely described as a game.

(Smacks you on the back of the head) Don't be a nudge you know what the fuck I mean.

 

[radepor]

Things aren't as simple as you think

I'm male; I'm not simple-minded, weak-willed or easily influenced.

Nevertheless, when I think back, I now wonder if I would have pursued a sexual relationship with my female boss who clearly desired it, if she had not been my boss.

She wasn't all that attractive, or sexy; in fact, a few pounds overweight; but, I liked her and she had an aggressive attitude which I liked. She pursued, and 'won' me. I don't know if I'd have pursued her under different circumstances.

I don't know if my situation constituted sexual harrassment. I do know I was in my early thirties at the time. Forever afterward, I counselled male and female co-workers and subordinates not to pursue workplace romances.

p.s. I was not married at the time. Had I been married; no amount of harrassment or coercion would have succeeded. How do I know? Multiple decades of marriage afterward; multiple occasions for illicit sex with female bosses, co-workers and subordinates at home and business trips to the eastcoast and the leftcoast- yes, I was that attractive (once).

Like I said, I'm not weak willed. Every circumstance is different, however; there are people reading this who may have reacted differently in the past, currently or in the future. I'd be the very last person to pass judgement; things are not as simple as you think.

We don't have laws against being rude to each other, to non-perjurious lying, to whether we do or do not say "hi" when we pass each other in a hallway. People would be right to view these things as an absurd area for the state to be micromanaging and regulating.

In the same vein, the government needs to get out of the business of micromanaging whether or how men and women flirt with each other, yes, even at work. Its simply not the state's business. If someone crosses the line into touching that is sexual assault, if someone is simply being a normal human and not an asexual android and shows interest in another human that is not.

Lets repeal these stupid, harmful, and counterproductive laws once and for all!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Is your answer always to solve problems by breaking the law?

There are so many laws its impossible not to be an outlaw. The Feds alone have 4500criminal offences you can step in.

My creed is, CONSIDER THE OUTCOME YOU WANT, CONSIDER THE PRICE FOR IT, AND CHECK THE FUNDS ON DEPOSIT IN YOUR TESTICLES. Like Emerson said, GOD DONT HIRE COWARDS TO DO HIS WORK.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Being as the issue of sexual harassment is back in the headlines again, I think this is a good time for the issue of sexual harassment itself to be brought up for discussion.

I feel that the government has no business passing laws that are so intrusive, pervasive, and extreme that they micromanage the minutest details of everyday life and human interaction. The way men and women interact in the course of normal everyday life is not an issue for the government to concern itself with.

Men and women can work out their own ways of interacting with each other in matters as petty as this without the state. The sex harassment laws themselves are an extreme case of government overreaching into our lives and need to be REPEALED.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=39057707&postcount=2343

 

[Goctionni]

GOD DONT HIRE COWARDS TO DO HIS WORK.

Not sure if this is a serious comment, but...

What? Have you ever actually read the bible? If you are to believe the bible, than aside from a handful like Simson, really quite a lot of the "pawns" used by God are describes as hesitant and insecure. Moses? Didn't think he was a good enough speaker, asked God to pick someone else. Gideon? Needed a load of miracles before he'd play ball.

God actually seems to structurally pick those who are not particularly remarkable to highlight that it's his own power, and not that of his messenger- that does shit.

 

[Mike_Yates]

Being as the issue of sexual harassment is back in the headlines again, I think this is a good time for the issue of sexual harassment itself to be brought up for discussion.

I feel that the government has no business passing laws that are so intrusive, pervasive, and extreme that they micromanage the minutest details of everyday life and human interaction. The way men and women interact in the course of normal everyday life is not an issue for the government to concern itself with.

Men and women can work out their own ways of interacting with each other in matters as petty as this without the state. The sex harassment laws themselves are an extreme case of government overreaching into our lives and need to be REPEALED.

The reason why sexual harassment laws are so insanely strict is because there are so many tens of thousands of lawsuits because of it. Women in the workplace will think of any reason they can to sue someone for quick and easy cash. Including many successful multi-million dollar civil suits against CEO's and executives of large corporations. Sex harassment litigation is also an enormous profit center for the American "lawsuit industry".

The laughably extreme and ridiculous laws and regulations of sexual harassment are the result of countless people and employers being financially raped by sometimes bankrupting lawsuits fired by "sensitive" women (and their greedy attorneys) who are really interested in nothing more than taking advantage of the deeply corrupt civil justice system and making tons of money.

Wouldn't you sue a wealthy CEO and their company for tens of millions of dollars if he/she made some rude sexual comment to you? Wouldn't you like to be rich beyond your wildest dreams off of the total economic ruin of others?

You're right, the absurd laws and policies the government imposes on people and employers deeply impedes on men and women's ability to interact with one other. People in the workplace aren't even allowed to make eye contact with each other for certain intervals of time fearing that someone might scream sexual harassment.

I could go on and on and on about greed and corruption in the civil justice system, but I'm just going to leave it at that.

 

[Mike_Yates]

Read this book to learn about the horrible ripple effects that the greed-driven lawsuit industry has had upon American society.

 

[John Doe]

I think it's retarded for someone to characterize sexual harassment as "expressing sexual attraction to each other." Invariably, with harassment cases, the attraction is one-sided, hardly mutual at all. Only a clueless idiot or misogynist would suggest that we need to do away with sexual harassment laws.

What does misogyny have to do with it?

 

[renard_ruse]

Gay activist calls for repeal of sex harassment laws

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/04/sexual-harassment-and-the-law-a-legal-little-shop-of-horrors/


Lost in the press’s non-stop hunger for a lurid he-said-she-said regarding the allegations against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain is a more basic look at the nature of sexual harassment claims in this country.

As a recovering trial lawyer, I know first-hand how messy our legal system can be, but even I am shocked at the sorry modern state of sexual harassment law.

Instead of focusing on the claimed constitutional protections of suspected foreign terrorists held at Guantanamo, maybe the ACLU and the rest of the faux civil libertarian left should be spending a little more time concerned about egregious infringements on the constitutional rights of American citizens here on American soil. A good starting place would be taking a look at the state of sexual harassment law in this country, which can best be described as a legal little shop of horrors.

Our sexual harassment laws often undermine free speech. The claims themselves are incredibly easy to allege, incredibly difficult to defend, have been expanded to cover almost any type of speech and underscore the need for real and serious tort reform in this country.

Earlier this week, conservative author and former lawyer Ann Coulter caused waves when she said that getting charged with sexual harassment in the 1990s was akin to being charged with witchcraft in the 1690s. As usual, Coulter is both shocking and absolutely correct at the same time.

Sexual harassment has occurred for centuries, but legally speaking sexual harassment didn’t exist before the 1970s. During the ’70s, feminist lawyers undertook what has been described as a “concerted assault, of unprecedented magnitude and force, on the practice of sexual harassment. Responding on many fronts to the demands of the second-wave feminist movement, the American legal system began slowly to yield to this challenge, and for the first time recognized women’s right to work free of unwanted sexual advances.” (A Short History of Sexual Harassment, Reva Siegel, Yale Press).

As is so often the case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Few would argue that real sexual harassment isn’t problematic. Indeed, even conservative critics of sexual harassment laws like UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh make it clear that certain types of workplace harassment should be barred including: unwanted physical conduct, discrimination in job assignments, quid pro quo harassment (“sleep with me or you’re fired”) and unprotected speech like threats, fighting words and slander. (Eugene Volokh, What Speech Does “Hostile Work Environment” Harassment Law Restrict?, 85 Geo. L.J. 627 (1997)).

The problem is that sexual harassment law hasn’t stopped there. Instead, sexual harassment law has expanded dramatically, threatening basic First Amendment free speech protections and creating an environment where liability attaches almost anywhere, at anytime and under almost any circumstance.

As Prof. Volokh has accurately pointed out, workplace harassment laws have spiraled out of control. Virtually every place is now considered a workplace, almost any speech — even isolated speech not targeted at the plaintiff — can now give rise to a claim and a hostile work environment can be the product of a patron of an establishment — not just an employee!

Workplace harassment laws have even been used to justify the left wing’s politically correct attack on free speech in the form of college campus speech code

 

[renard_ruse]

(Con't)

The plaintiff’s bar has only exacerbated the problem. Trial lawyers looking to make a quick and easy buck off of this out-of-control system extol the ease of making and recovering for a sexual harassment claim. Indeed, a leading sexual harassment lawyer in California, John Winer, has an entire website — SexualHarassment.com — set up to tell perspective clients how easy it is to win cash in a claim.

Included on this website are assurances that “90-95%” of sexual harassment cases are settled before trial. The site also lets erstwhile “victims” know that no physical touching is required — going as far as to say that “in fact, visual harassment, including leering looks, offensive gestures or derogatory posters, cartoons or drawings have been found sufficient to create a hostile environment.” That’s right — “leering looks”!

Apparently, the reported Cain settlement of $35,000 would be peanuts according to the “sexual harassment expert.” Winer says on his site that “every good liability sexual harassment case has at least a six-figure potential value,” and includes tips on how to win million-dollar-plus verdicts (tips like: make sure the defendant is a big corporation).

Trial lawyers are aided by a legal system that does nothing to discourage false or frivolous claims.

Conservatives everywhere should use this event as a “teachable moment.” Not a teachable moment about opposition research or campaign damage control, but instead one focused on how we can reform sexual harassment laws specifically, and our legal system more generally. We need laws that are more narrowly tailored to the actual problem. We need laws of specificity — not vague laws that can be twisted and abused. And we need to ensure that our laws respect our First Amendment rights. We also need fundamental reform of the process. We need a loser pays system that discourages frivolous suits and we need tort reform that limits punitive damages.

Christopher R. Barron is a Republican political consultant and chairman of the Board of GOProud, a national organization for gay conservatives and their allies. He blogs at Red Barron

 

[renard_ruse]

Lunatic left now going after school kids for normal youth behavior

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Survey-Sexual-harassment-pervasive-in-grades-7-12-2255371.php

NEW YORK (AP) — It can be a malicious rumor whispered in the hallway, a lewd photo arriving by cell phone, hands groping where they shouldn't. Added up, it's an epidemic — student-on-student sexual harassment that is pervasive in America's middle schools and high schools.

During the 2010-11 school year, 48 percent of students in grades 7-12 experienced some form of sexual harassment in person or electronically via texting, email and social media, according to a major national survey being released Monday by the American Association of University Women.

The harassers often thought they were being funny, but the consequences for their targets can be wrenching, according to the survey. Nearly a third of the victims said the harassment made them feel sick to their stomach, affected their study habits or fueled reluctance to go to school at all.

"It's reached a level where it's almost a normal part of the school day," said one of the report's co-authors, AAUW director of research Catherine Hill. "It's somewhat of a vicious cycle. The kids who are harassers often have been harassed themselves."

The survey, conducted in May and June, asked 1,002 girls and 963 boys from public and private schools nationwide whether they had experienced any of various forms of sexual harassment. These included having someone make unwelcome sexual comments about them, being called gay or lesbian in a negative way, being touched in an unwelcome sexual way, being shown sexual pictures they didn't want to see, and being the subject of unwelcome sexual rumors.

The survey quoted one ninth-grade girl as saying she was called a whore "because I have many friends that are boys." A 12th-grade boy said schoolmates circulated an image showing his face attached to an animal having sex...

The AAUW had examined the problem previously — in 1993 and 2001 — and found that more than 80 percent of students reported experiencing sexual harassment at least once in their school career. The new study was not directly comparable because it looked at only a single year, but co-author Holly Kearl of AAUW's Legal Advocacy Fund said the problem had not eased and may have worsened because of the spread of electronic and online harassment...

"Too often, the more comfortable term bullying is used to describe sexual harassment, obscuring the role of gender and sex in these incidents," the report says. "Schools are likely to promote bullying prevention while ignoring or downplaying sexual harassment."

These loons are OUT OF THEIR FRIGGIN MINDS. Teenagers are horny and obnoxious by nature. These totalitarian goons want to even micromanage these teenagers. THEY ARE INSANE.

 

[Bob Waters]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/04/sexual-harassment-and-the-law-a-legal-little-shop-of-horrors/


Lost in the press’s non-stop hunger for a lurid he-said-she-said regarding the allegations against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain is a more basic look at the nature of sexual harassment claims in this country.

As a recovering trial lawyer, I know first-hand how messy our legal system can be, but even I am shocked at the sorry modern state of sexual harassment law.

Instead of focusing on the claimed constitutional protections of suspected foreign terrorists held at Guantanamo, maybe the ACLU and the rest of the faux civil libertarian left should be spending a little more time concerned about egregious infringements on the constitutional rights of American citizens here on American soil. A good starting place would be taking a look at the state of sexual harassment law in this country, which can best be described as a legal little shop of horrors.

Our sexual harassment laws often undermine free speech. The claims themselves are incredibly easy to allege, incredibly difficult to defend, have been expanded to cover almost any type of speech and underscore the need for real and serious tort reform in this country.

Earlier this week, conservative author and former lawyer Ann Coulter caused waves when she said that getting charged with sexual harassment in the 1990s was akin to being charged with witchcraft in the 1690s. As usual, Coulter is both shocking and absolutely correct at the same time.

Sexual harassment has occurred for centuries, but legally speaking sexual harassment didn’t exist before the 1970s. During the ’70s, feminist lawyers undertook what has been described as a “concerted assault, of unprecedented magnitude and force, on the practice of sexual harassment. Responding on many fronts to the demands of the second-wave feminist movement, the American legal system began slowly to yield to this challenge, and for the first time recognized women’s right to work free of unwanted sexual advances.” (A Short History of Sexual Harassment, Reva Siegel, Yale Press).

As is so often the case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Few would argue that real sexual harassment isn’t problematic. Indeed, even conservative critics of sexual harassment laws like UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh make it clear that certain types of workplace harassment should be barred including: unwanted physical conduct, discrimination in job assignments, quid pro quo harassment (“sleep with me or you’re fired”) and unprotected speech like threats, fighting words and slander. (Eugene Volokh, What Speech Does “Hostile Work Environment” Harassment Law Restrict?, 85 Geo. L.J. 627 (1997)).

The problem is that sexual harassment law hasn’t stopped there. Instead, sexual harassment law has expanded dramatically, threatening basic First Amendment free speech protections and creating an environment where liability attaches almost anywhere, at anytime and under almost any circumstance.

As Prof. Volokh has accurately pointed out, workplace harassment laws have spiraled out of control. Virtually every place is now considered a workplace, almost any speech — even isolated speech not targeted at the plaintiff — can now give rise to a claim and a hostile work environment can be the product of a patron of an establishment — not just an employee!

Workplace harassment laws have even been used to justify the left wing’s politically correct attack on free speech in the form of college campus speech code

The First Amendment applies to government, not private entities. Private workplaces and educational institutes can ban whatever speech they want.

 

[Samuelx]

Being as the issue of sexual harassment is back in the headlines again, I think this is a good time for the issue of sexual harassment itself to be brought up for discussion.

I feel that the government has no business passing laws that are so intrusive, pervasive, and extreme that they micromanage the minutest details of everyday life and human interaction. The way men and women interact in the course of normal everyday life is not an issue for the government to concern itself with.

Men and women can work out their own ways of interacting with each other in matters as petty as this without the state. The sex harassment laws themselves are an extreme case of government overreaching into our lives and need to be REPEALED.

hmmm.....let's replace them with Sharia Law.

 

[renard_ruse]

...Included on this website are assurances that “90-95%” of sexual harassment cases are settled before trial. The site also lets erstwhile “victims” know that no physical touching is required — going as far as to say that “in fact, visual harassment, including leering looks, offensive gestures or derogatory posters, cartoons or drawings have been found sufficient to create a hostile environment.” That’s right — “leering looks”!...

Duh. Anyone who's been to a sex harassment "training" in the past 15 years knows that 99.99999% of these cases do not involve any touching, and that yes just glancing at someone can be harassment.

The writer, though well intentioned, doesn't even apparently realize the full scope of the problem. The fundamental human right to vision, to glance around briefly where one chooses is taken away by the sex harassment laws. Forget about getting sued just for asking someone on a date, you will be sued even if you're suspected of considering asking someone on a date.

 

[Bob Waters]

Duh. Anyone who's been to a sex harassment "training" in the past 15 years knows that 99.99999% of these cases do not involve any touching, and that yes just glancing at someone can be harassment.

The writer, though well intentioned, doesn't even apparently realize the full scope of the problem. The fundamental human right to vision, to glance around briefly where one chooses is taken away by the sex harassment laws. Forget about getting sued just for asking someone on a date, you will be sued even if you're suspected of considering asking someone on a date.

Where the fuck do you work?


Drama and hyperbole. All of it.