3 ms·
It's considered harassment because they (or at least one of them) were her superiors. The problem is the power dynamic.
by Dewie 12y ago
It's considered harassment because they (or at least one of them) were her superiors. The problem is the power dynamic.
- bobcoat 12y agowhat do you mean power dynamic
- leereeves 12y agoThat's what I thought too, now I'm not so sure: "If you are a strange man trying to talk to me on my way to or from work, when I am commuting alone, you are a harasser, pure and simple."
- Dewie 12y agoHer attitude and what happened are two separate things. Given that she isn't lying, it doesn't matter what her opinion on interacting with strange men are (radical as they are). It doesn't change what happened to her.
- leereeves 12y agoWhat harassment is depends on who you ask. If you mean the legal definition, consider that even different courts often disagree.
- kofejnik 12y agoYour wording suggests there's a universally accepted standard of what exactly constitutes harassment. As noted in comments below, courts tend to disagree. Personally, I believe that one radfem with agenda and no real proof should not be able to ruin careers and lives by twitter.
- Dewie 12y ago> Your wording suggests there's a universally accepted standard of what exactly constitutes harassment. My wording was "considered harassment". How does "considered" imply a universal standard? > Personally, I believe that one radfem with agenda and no real proof should not be able to ruin careers and lives by twitter. And I think you are discrediting her based on her professed beliefs and background. I totally agree that no one should be able to ruin other people's lives based on their word alone. They should be able to show some proof.