This is complicated, but must be addressed. Some women have spoken out in reaction to the #Metoo/#Balancetonporc, including Catherine Deneuve. If some women and politicians have taken it overboard, that is a shame. But the notion that this outcry is a war against flirtation in the workplace or otherwise, against the fun and lovely interactions between men and women, is to completely misunderstand what the complaint really is. We're all going to have to be careful to define terms, as there are differences between pedophilia, rape, sexual misconduct, and misuse of power, in the context of all of this. These things are abusive and should be considered such. Flirting in the workplace is not the same thing. Nor is telling dirty jokes, in the context of equals. Nor is consensual dating. There is no war on fun and sex and sexuality. It's extremely important to understand, at this juncture, what "abuse" is.
I totally agree. It's a shame that this wasn't brought out into the open earlier but some women would have been too scared to report it + if management are involved they won't leave evidence laying about & witnesses won't come forward as they're scared of losing their jobs if they do. It doesn't always work out if you're in a union either because in some cases your union rep is always too busy to do something about it & sometimes the union rep is either management or chosen by management rather than the right person for the job. I'd class sexual harassment in the workplace as snide remarks about certain parts of a specified woman's anatomy who is there & name-calling like "tiger t*ts! I guess you don't get many of them in a lb." & comments like "if you're a virgin now, you won't be when I've finished with you." & members of staff touching you in places where you shouldn't be touched like your genital area. Misuse of power is used in these cases but in other cases too. I think it happens because sometimes Manager's choose people to manage who they like not because they're the most capable people & power goes to their head a bit too much. These people are the wrong type of people to be in charge. Although in many places Managers try to be friends with their workers as they get more done to a higher standard this way as people want to work for them & aren't scared of them or nervous so they know what's required of them, they do what they're asked & work on their own initiative as well as take orders & accept constructive criticism to help them learn how to do things more competently & are free to offer ideas which are sometimes taken into consideration & manager's prefer to persuade their staff to do what they want, a lot of places are still managed the old way where companies are structured hierarchically & authority is always asserted by manager's. I'd also say that power in the work-place is mis-used when people are set up in whatever way, an example would be float-fixing or when non-constructive criticism is given. The difference between non-constructive & constructive criticism for me is constructive criticism can be learnt from, non-constructive criticism is nasty, personal & insulting & can't be learnt from. An example of constructive criticism may be "there are a lot of spelling, punctuation & grammatical errors in the letter you sent me to sign today. Please can you proof-read it more carefully before printing it out in future?". An example of non-constructive criticism is "You're hopeless, useless & stupid & can't do anything right. Just look at that & do it again." Which example are you more likely to do the best re-type for & learn more from? I think the 1st example.
That's dreadful & unfair. People often aren't interested in seeing all sides of the story to work out the truth. Normally, evidence isn't left & witnesses won't stand forward as they're scared of losing their jobs & everyone always believes Manager's over staff so staff wouldn't have a chance & bad management can destroy lives. Of course there is rape is fornication which both parties have not consented to & verbal sexual harassment is just that. I understand. That's very true. I agree. Society as a whole needs to start looking at what went wrong & why & come up with solutions to these problems. I can understand why you think the way you do but how things are now, you'd probably be up for not offering equal opportunities especially if the woman had better qualifications & experience than the man though I guess you could easily say that you wanted someone who knew nothing at all about the business so they hadn't built up any flaws & you could train them to do things your way.
I totally agree. It's how it makes you feel. It should be all based on attitude, aptitude, commitment, willingness to work hard, dedication, personality, behaviour & adaptability but because of all what's going on it's scary. Some women try it on to get people into trouble which isn't only bad for business but for other women too because some people think if 1 woman has tried it on other's will too. You're in a tricky situation. If you employ a woman she could try it on. If you don't employ women you could be accused of not offering equal opportunities. It's unfair for employers but it's also unfair for people who would fit all your other criteria & hadn't got a chance elsewhere.
On a related note, the new US tax code has taken out the tax that big oil companies pay dedicated to an emergency fund to pay for oil spills. Which has regularly been needed. Now, instead, it will come from US taxpayers, or at least until the government gets restitution back from Big Oil. And the gifts just keep on coming for the wealthy from Trump.
O.K. I just realised my mistakes & felt the need to explain myself & apologise. Now, I can now learn from my mistakes, move on, have a laugh & chat with people, Enjoy myself & have fun.
As you're English, you won't know Howard Stern. He's the original "shock jock" here in the US. Before there was even polarized political talk radio, there was Howard, being completely outrageous, talking to porn stars, strippers, truckers, saying whatever suited him, insulting anything PC, and feminists, etc. etc. He's from NY, so we've had him here for decades, even before he went national. As a knee-jerk progressive, I was told to expressly object to Howard. Until I listened to him, and realized that he's mostly a lampoon of the baffoon that he plays on radio. His long-time side-kick is Robin Givens, a woman of color. She's a great foil to him. He was Trump before Trump, except that he didn't really mean it. You can hear him disavow Trump in that clip. Him telling men that they don't get the difference between porn and what women really want is excellent. The people that listen to him are exactly the people that need to hear all that.
