5 ms·

No it is not bullshit. This whole topic is filled with loaded words like "harassment" and "victim." Furthermore, workplace harassment laws are tipped in the f

by sheraz 11y ago

No it is not bullshit. This whole topic is filled with loaded words like "harassment" and "victim." Furthermore, workplace harassment laws are tipped in the females favor. If she even perceives something, then it happened. If you think that sending a wink to someone is treating them as a lower life form, then I don't think there is much I can say...

hluska 11y ago
You are wrong. Sexual harassment laws are somewhat tipped in the victim's favour, but only because law in general is tipped slightly in the victim's favour. This is not about laws favouring women, it is just about how the law works. Simply, the victim's feelings matter. There is a difference between a wink and a wink after something sexually suggestive. If you can't understand that difference then yeah, there's nothing else I can say.
- sheraz 11y ago
  And there in lies the problem -- we are legislating about "feelings." We have delegated to the state what our personal responsibility should have been all along. "Hey, asshole -- keep it in your pants or I will tell the whole office that you went through an Asian-fetish. Now can we discuss this TPS report or not?" Secondly, a wink after something sexually suggestive is a little redundant, wouldn't you say?
  - hluska 11y ago
    You have stopped trying to be productive and are just being argumentative now. Your third and fourth paragraphs are in particularly poor taste. I don't understand what is so difficult here. Her manager harassed her and the fear and embarrassment that she felt were real. If the genders were reversed, the result would have been the same. That is because in a civilized society, if you act in a way that makes someone uncomfortable, there needs to be accountability.
    - sheraz 11y ago
      This whole topic is unproductive. We are "having an argument on the internet" :-)
- tomp 11y ago
  > law in general is tipped slightly in the victim's favour Not really, at least in the US it's tipped in the innocent person's favor (i.e. innocent until proven guilty). > Simply, the victim's feelings matter. So, if I'm hurt by how stupid what you wrote is, should you be lose your job or be jailed? Basing laws on feelings is the most stupid and abuse-prone idea I've ever heard.
  - hluska 11y ago
    > Not really, at least in the US it's tipped in the innocent person's favor (i.e. innocent until proven guilty). That is only in the criminal system. And, that truism has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Even in the criminal system, if you yell, "I'm going to kill you" and run at me with a knife, you may feel that you are joking. But, if I feel fear for my physical safety, my feeling of fear overwhelms your feeling that it was a joke. You're also not thinking through the entire system. You seem to be under the belief that criminal/tort law requires an actual physical injury. That is simply not the case. > So, if I'm hurt by how stupid what you wrote is, should you be lose your job or be jailed? > Basing laws on feelings is the most stupid and abuse-prone idea I've ever heard. And, that is why we have lawyers and judges. Consider laws about assault. Assault does not require actual physical harm in order to be a criminal or tortious act. It only requires two elements: - the assaulter needs to demonstrate intent. This requires more than words. - the victim needs to feel fear for his/her safety. Or, let's consider laws about sexual harassment. In the United States, simple teasing is not illegal, but it can become illegal if it creates an offensive or hostile work environment. The feeling has to be justified (hence the role of judges and lawyers), but it is still all about feelings and reactions. You should read the US civil rights act. It's well written and quite interesting. I think it's obvious but I'm neither American not a lawyer.

by sheraz 11y ago

hluska 11y ago

You are wrong. Sexual harassment laws are somewhat tipped in the victim's favour, but only because law in general is tipped slightly in the victim's favour. This is not about laws favouring women, it is just about how the law works. Simply, the victim's feelings matter. There is a difference between a wink and a wink after something sexually suggestive. If you can't understand that difference then yeah, there's nothing else I can say.

sheraz 11y ago
And there in lies the problem -- we are legislating about "feelings." We have delegated to the state what our personal responsibility should have been all along. "Hey, asshole -- keep it in your pants or I will tell the whole office that you went through an Asian-fetish. Now can we discuss this TPS report or not?" Secondly, a wink after something sexually suggestive is a little redundant, wouldn't you say?
- hluska 11y ago
  You have stopped trying to be productive and are just being argumentative now. Your third and fourth paragraphs are in particularly poor taste. I don't understand what is so difficult here. Her manager harassed her and the fear and embarrassment that she felt were real. If the genders were reversed, the result would have been the same. That is because in a civilized society, if you act in a way that makes someone uncomfortable, there needs to be accountability.
  - sheraz 11y ago
    This whole topic is unproductive. We are "having an argument on the internet" :-)
tomp 11y ago
> law in general is tipped slightly in the victim's favour Not really, at least in the US it's tipped in the innocent person's favor (i.e. innocent until proven guilty). > Simply, the victim's feelings matter. So, if I'm hurt by how stupid what you wrote is, should you be lose your job or be jailed? Basing laws on feelings is the most stupid and abuse-prone idea I've ever heard.
- hluska 11y ago
  > Not really, at least in the US it's tipped in the innocent person's favor (i.e. innocent until proven guilty). That is only in the criminal system. And, that truism has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Even in the criminal system, if you yell, "I'm going to kill you" and run at me with a knife, you may feel that you are joking. But, if I feel fear for my physical safety, my feeling of fear overwhelms your feeling that it was a joke. You're also not thinking through the entire system. You seem to be under the belief that criminal/tort law requires an actual physical injury. That is simply not the case. > So, if I'm hurt by how stupid what you wrote is, should you be lose your job or be jailed? > Basing laws on feelings is the most stupid and abuse-prone idea I've ever heard. And, that is why we have lawyers and judges. Consider laws about assault. Assault does not require actual physical harm in order to be a criminal or tortious act. It only requires two elements: - the assaulter needs to demonstrate intent. This requires more than words. - the victim needs to feel fear for his/her safety. Or, let's consider laws about sexual harassment. In the United States, simple teasing is not illegal, but it can become illegal if it creates an offensive or hostile work environment. The feeling has to be justified (hence the role of judges and lawyers), but it is still all about feelings and reactions. You should read the US civil rights act. It's well written and quite interesting. I think it's obvious but I'm neither American not a lawyer.