|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 13, 2017 17:36:17 GMT
I'm glad this is getting attention and something is being done about it, but I wonder how many decades will go by before it becomes acceptable for men to accuse their female harassers and abusers...? No, there are probably not as many of them as there are male counterparts, but they do exist, there are more of them than you think and their victims aren't taken seriously at all. If you ask me, sexual predators - no matter their gender, color or creed - are some of the worst abominations of the human race and none of their victims should ever feel overlooked! one of the inherent challenges in that is there are men who think they WANT to be "predated" and you will never convince them it is a bad thing. The inherent difference between flirting and sexual harassment is whether the sexual advances made towards you are wanted or not. If you like and welcome what the other person does, you're not being harassed. If we fail to make that distinction, the workplace can no longer function as a venue for establishing romantic connections and that would be a loss to society. I know some people make the claim that any romantic or sexual advance made in the workplace is harassment, whether it's welcomed or not, but I'm not a fan of that claim. In my view, it's only harassment if the advances are inappropriate and unwanted and especially when victims are coerced and led to believe "there will be consequences" if they don't go along with it. Reciprocal flirting should not be counted as harassment. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 14, 2017 0:49:47 GMT
one of the inherent challenges in that is there are men who think they WANT to be "predated" and you will never convince them it is a bad thing. The inherent difference between flirting and sexual harassment is whether the sexual advances made towards you are wanted or not. If you like and welcome what the other person does, you're not being harassed. If we fail to make that distinction, the workplace can no longer function as a venue for establishing romantic connections and that would be a loss to society. I know some people make the claim that any romantic or sexual advance made in the workplace is harassment, whether it's welcomed or not, but I'm not a fan of that claim. In my view, it's only harassment if the advances are inappropriate and unwanted and especially when victims are coerced and led to believe "there will be consequences" if they don't go along with it. Reciprocal flirting should not be counted as harassment. a lot of business have "no fraternization in the ranks" rules just because of the potential for a power dynamic to become uneven. - in those cases, it is not harassment, it is just violation of company policy. - unless there is a harassment complaint, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 14, 2017 0:56:15 GMT
The inherent difference between flirting and sexual harassment is whether the sexual advances made towards you are wanted or not. If you like and welcome what the other person does, you're not being harassed. If we fail to make that distinction, the workplace can no longer function as a venue for establishing romantic connections and that would be a loss to society. I know some people make the claim that any romantic or sexual advance made in the workplace is harassment, whether it's welcomed or not, but I'm not a fan of that claim. In my view, it's only harassment if the advances are inappropriate and unwanted and especially when victims are coerced and led to believe "there will be consequences" if they don't go along with it. Reciprocal flirting should not be counted as harassment. a lot of business have "no fraternization in the ranks" rules just because of the potential for a power dynamic to become uneven. - in those cases, it is not harassment, it is just violation of company policy. - unless there is a harassment complaint, of course. And I get that. There's also the risk of nepotism, or at least of others perceiving it that way, even if it doesn't actually take place. That's generally bad for morale, so it makes sense on several levels to try to prevent bosses/managers from being romantically involved with subordinates. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 14, 2017 1:01:03 GMT
a lot of business have "no fraternization in the ranks" rules just because of the potential for a power dynamic to become uneven. - in those cases, it is not harassment, it is just violation of company policy. - unless there is a harassment complaint, of course. And I get that. There's also the risk of nepotism, or at least of others perceiving it that way, even if it doesn't actually take place. That's generally bad for morale, so it makes sense on several levels to try to prevent bosses/managers from being romantically involved with subordinates. that is part of why we have the "reasonable person" standard here. as in if a reasonable person wouldn't have found it offensive, then maybe the complainer needs to put their big boy/girl pants on and learn to exist in normal society. OTOH, if nobody objects, then there is no complaint. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 14, 2017 1:26:50 GMT
that is part of why we have the "reasonable person" standard here. as in if a reasonable person wouldn't have found it offensive, then maybe the complainer needs to put their big boy/girl pants on and learn to exist in normal society. OTOH, if nobody objects, then there is no complaint. The problem with the "reasonable person" standard when it comes to boss/employee romantic relationships is that sometimes, the boss proclaims him-/herself to be the "reasonable person" everyone else has to listen to. In other words, if the boss doesn't see a problem, then anyone who does is just wrong and any complaints aren't taken seriously. I'm willing to bet that's the realization many of those who have company policies against such relationships have come to at some point. Also, too many managers/bosses have tried to treat their significant others as they would any other employee, but have failed in some way or other. Most often in the form of avoiding conflict with that person, because they have to go home with them when the work day is over and they don't want that conflict to continue at home later on. They know the subordinate party may put on a brave face when criticized at work, but once they're in the car and on their way home, it's "I can't believe you talked to me like that in front of the others" time. Who wants to bring that home with them? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 14, 2017 2:29:08 GMT
that is part of why we have the "reasonable person" standard here. as in if a reasonable person wouldn't have found it offensive, then maybe the complainer needs to put their big boy/girl pants on and learn to exist in normal society. OTOH, if nobody objects, then there is no complaint. The problem with the "reasonable person" standard when it comes to boss/employee romantic relationships is that sometimes, the boss proclaims him-/herself to be the "reasonable person" everyone else has to listen to. In other words, if the boss doesn't see a problem, then anyone who does is just wrong and any complaints aren't taken seriously. I'm willing to bet that's the realization many of those who have company policies against such relationships have come to at some point. Also, too many managers/bosses have tried to treat their significant others as they would any other employee, but have failed in some way or other. Most often in the form of avoiding conflict with that person, because they have to go home with them when the work day is over and they don't want that conflict to continue at home later on. They know the subordinate party may put on a brave face when criticized at work, but once they're in the car and on their way home, it's "I can't believe you talked to me like that in front of the others" time. Who wants to bring that home with them? but it is outside observers who get to decide what is reasonable, once the complaint is filed. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 14, 2017 8:00:59 GMT
I'm glad this is getting attention and something is being done about it, but I wonder how many decades will go by before it becomes acceptable for men to accuse their female harassers and abusers...? No, there are probably not as many of them as there are male counterparts, but they do exist, there are more of them than you think and their victims aren't taken seriously at all. If you ask me, sexual predators - no matter their gender, color or creed - are some of the worst abominations of the human race and none of their victims should ever feel overlooked! one of the inherent challenges in that is there are men who think they WANT to be "predated" and you will never convince them it is a bad thing. "I know someone who can help"..... Oh Errr... back 30 50 yrs or so, I am working a bar, and I am being "Predated" by a 30yrs older than me "probably female" nightmare of a FUGLY woman who has had about a gallon too many over what would be good for her who is instant that she is "Taking me home tonight". You may call them "cougar" these days, I will just call it a vastly overweight monster who makes the above mentioned film director look pretty.... If you WANT to be predated by an older probable-female, and I say that because even now I cant be 100% certain that it wasnt a trans- cock-in-frock, I can always ask about and turn that one out at you?.. BTW, my method had always been the same, to deal with "problems" like that, I have a gold ring in my pocket that slips on quite quickly, it was my Granddads, almost exact match finger size as me, I just slip it on and say "My wife will be here soon best she doesnt find you saying that?" I may not have been marries, I may have been single, but, if it works, use it?. It Worked 9/10 ?. Nowadys, my Wife is at the end of the bar, and her usual comment is "You can have him if you want him, but let me tell you he snores like and express freight train", which is usually enough to do the trick.... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 14, 2017 8:29:07 GMT
Behind the headlines. Yeah. This answers an awful lot. First, source, www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41610963Second, this is "Known" already and had been the topic of a lot of public argument between team Red and Everyone else, who see's team Red "Get away with an awful lot". So Team German, The Mercedes team, do they "Overspend" the budget allowed?. Why yes, yes they do, because they develop engines that they provide to other teams. Of COURSE they do R&D on the engines they are running, so they get the best engines. Ferrari supply engines to other teams as well?. Erm, well, sort of, "Last years", and then only the base model, no upgrades, no fine tuning. So why is Ferrari so "Merda" this year?. because the new boss there want the new boss last year, and it takes a while for them to change things, and with the "Bye bye" to bernie eccleston, ferrari have now to build a car that wins rather than rely on rule changes that favours them and them alone. Yeah, its true, they "used" to grease a LOT of palms to get to the top, "Bungs" more than a utalian prime ministers bunga-nunga party, and they still believe they "Own" the sport.... But back to the start of the thread. "Win on Sunday, sell on Monday", team red used to be all about promoting their cars. Now its all about Franchise and selling key rings. Team red make more in key rings and hats than they do by selling cars... Team Red have "lost" their spot as exclusive suppliers of super-cars. Mostly because many of their customers were fed up of going out in a roar of noise and coming back on a flat-bed?. But they have blown the budget. "Inside" information has been revealed that the new boss spent big. His remit for the job was "Make us win", his reply was you cant buy ferrari on Toyota budget, so they gave him a blank check. Dont matter what team German is supposed to have spent, you can guarantee team Red spent twice that, as they tried to buy the title. It hasnt worked. There have been rumours that Lewis Hamilton will be driving for team Red soon... I dont fink so. This is all about the fact that team Red have tried to approach him with Blank Check. That is true. But they also tried to approach Rosberg, and lewis is of the ability to say either he picks team mates he can work with or no deal. Lewis has stated "Level playing field", and let the better driver win. Of COURSE he wants the best car, but, in having the best car, he wants both cars to be the best, because he knows already he has the skills to win on the track?. And that is also why he cant work with certain other drivers. Including the current team red "No.1" But Team Red "demand" that they can buy the best... of everything... including people... Yeah, hows that working for you again?. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 14, 2017 14:33:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 15, 2017 15:59:16 GMT
a very rare scoop: the morning news station Mrs TLW watches caught footage of a fire on the roof of a downtown building before the fire department even got there.
unfortunately, I missed the details that would let me find it online, and it hasn't hit their website yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 16, 2017 0:01:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 16, 2017 7:23:32 GMT
Does this need to be titled "This is how stupid you can get"?... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 16, 2017 7:34:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 16, 2017 7:37:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 16, 2017 7:39:31 GMT
Because, you know, when you are ill, you have better things to do that just eat chocolate?.. So no super-size?.. is it too intelligent to suggest "Just bring me TWO normal size then"?. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41630681 |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 16, 2017 13:40:40 GMT
Does this need to be titled "This is how stupid you can get"?... not sure it quite makes the cut. to me, the fact of it being in range of a fixed mount weather camera is more newsworthy. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 16, 2017 13:47:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 16, 2017 13:52:52 GMT
Because, you know, when you are ill, you have better things to do that just eat chocolate?.. So no super-size?.. is it too intelligent to suggest "Just bring me TWO normal size then"?. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41630681I wonder if it will be as big a national crisis as when New York City passed the law that restaurants may not use a glass larger than a pint to serve sugary beverages to dine-in customers. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 16, 2017 13:55:24 GMT
Because, you know, when you are ill, you have better things to do that just eat chocolate?.. So no super-size?.. is it too intelligent to suggest "Just bring me TWO normal size then"?. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41630681I wonder if it will be as big a national crisis as when New York City passed the law that restaurants may not use a glass larger than a pint to serve sugary beverages to dine-in customers. Free refills. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 16, 2017 14:53:40 GMT
I wonder if it will be as big a national crisis as when New York City passed the law that restaurants may not use a glass larger than a pint to serve sugary beverages to dine-in customers. Free refills. apparently, we can think on our feet better than New Yorkers. |
|
