Harvey Weinstein, Fired Amongst Sexual Harassment Allegations

[spjunkies]

1 minute ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

What other sage advice do you have?  I'm curious.  Unprotected sex with strangers?

 

Risks in life!  Deal with it!

 

Keep running around afraid of life. I don't really give a ****.

[PeterMP]

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

it's policy in many places.

it also protects both people, despite you and benning thinking it's about being afraid of your own impulses. you have to do some serious mental gymnastics and have some serious bias to read it that way

 

your gut reaction is to mock it, down play it. i don't know what to tell you. maybe wake up a bit and read the news? the idea is not new and is practiced throughout.

 

you guys just don't like pence. which in itself is fine, i don't like him either. you're just being silly about it.

 

It isn't fair to females either.

 

http://bellebrita.com/2017/09/mike-pence-boundaries-sexism/

"Those included requiring that any aide who had to work late to assist him be male"

 

That certainly puts a limit on female advancement.

 

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

it's policy in many places.

it also protects both people, despite you and benning thinking it's about being afraid of your own impulses. you have to do some serious mental gymnastics and have some serious bias to read it that way

 

your gut reaction is to mock it, down play it. i don't know what to tell you. maybe wake up a bit and read the news? maybe get a job where you have (job-related) power over others? it's pretty standard advice. the idea is not new and is practiced throughout.

 

you guys just don't like pence. which in itself is fine, i don't like him either. you're just being silly about it.

 

I don't close my door period when meeting with a student in my office.  The sex doesn't matter.  That's different than not just closing my door when meeting with female students.

 

If I'm meeting with a female student, it is noisy outside my office and won't close my door because they are female, which hurts the quality and value of our conversation realistically, that's sexist and specifically hurts female students.

Edited October 12, 2017 by PeterMP

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

It isn't fair to females either.

 

http://bellebrita.com/2017/09/mike-pence-boundaries-sexism/

"Those included requiring that any aide who had to work late to assist him be male"

 

That certainly puts a limit on female advancement.

 

 

Yeah, that's rather unfortunate. I suppose a better way would be to require more than 1 person stay (even if the other person was a female, the goal is accomplished, unless you want to go down the path of omg they're all colluding.) I'm sure that costs more, but if your concern is for the well being of everyone then you should be able to justify the cost.

 

Of course, we always hear from these stories that the women felt powerless because of the position the person had over them/their career. If we're not going to hold the women accountable for not doing anything about it (stopping it, reporting it, whatever), then preventing the environment where it happens seems more fair than not.

 

I could go either way on it. My issue was with the mockery and dismissing of what is, in the general sense, a rather standard policy in many different industries/government.

Edited October 12, 2017 by tshile

[Spaceman Spiff]

9 minutes ago, spjunkies said:

 

Keep running around afraid of life. I don't really give a ****.

 

Pound 4 beers and take the keys! 

[PeterMP]

14 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Yeah, that's rather unfortunate. I suppose a better way would be to require more than 1 person stay (even if the other person was a female, the goal is accomplished, unless you want to go down the path of omg they're all colluding.) I'm sure that costs more, but if you're concern is for the well being of everyone then you should be able to justify the cost.

 

Of course, we always hear from these stories that the women felt powerless because of the position the person had over them/their career. If we're not going to hold the women accountable for not doing anything about it (stopping it, reporting it, whatever), then preventing the environment where it happens seems more fair than not.

 

I could go either way on it. My issue was with the mockery and dismissing of what is, in the general sense, a rather standard policy in many different industries/government.

(While I agree generally), I think you are wrong to pin it just on females.  Did you see Terry Crews' comments about being sexually harassed?

 

(As part of that, what Pence is really saying is:

 

1.  That a false claim of inappropriate behavior by a female would be more harmful than a male (which seems very unlikely given his politics).

2.  That a false claim from a female is more likely than from a male (which I'm not sure there is any evidence to back up and so a sexist belief).

3.  He doesn't trust himself alone with females other than his wife.

Edited October 12, 2017 by PeterMP

[visionary]

I do think the Pence idea and using it to say Weinstein wouldn't have harassed anyone or assaulted them is somewhat based on sexism and stupid.  If you really want to harass or grab someone and think you can get away with it and don't care about who you hurt you will probably end up doing it whether people are around or not.  That said, there is also something to be said for limiting chances for something bad to happen as a possible victim or as someone who might have certain impulses, but does not want to give in to them (be it something like this or drugs or something else).

[PeterMP]

4 minutes ago, visionary said:

as someone who might have certain impulses, but does not want to give in to them (be it something like this or drugs or something else).

The best way to avoid eating junk food is not to buy it.

 

But that essentially is an argument that Mike Pence would behave like Weistein without his rule.  Which if true, doesn't say much about Pence's character really.

Edited October 12, 2017 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

"The reason Harvey Weinstein was able to keep getting away with it"

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/11/opinions/ndas-fail-victims-opinion-callan/index.html

 

(NDAs)

[Bozo the kKklown]

Yeah, some of us aren't afraid of ourselves around women. Thats it in a nutshell. If you think you cannot because you are afraid of what you might do or are not interested in what they have to say and need a 3rd party, then you have a problem.

[TradeTheBeal!]

If you're a Democrat like me, stripping naked and chasing the help around your garage of Lamborghinis is perfectly normal.  

 

We do it every other Wednesday.

 

#countach

#muira

 

[Destino]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

If I'm meeting with a female student, it is noisy outside my office and won't close my door because they are female, which hurts the quality and value of our conversation realistically, that's sexist and specifically hurts female students.

It also protects that student from you.  No offense but sexual predators don't tattoo it on their foreheads.  You have no idea if that student is comfortable being alone and out of sight with you.  She may not, but feel it's impolite to say so.  

 

My point is that that while your perspective is a valid one, it's not the only valid one.  

 

Avoiding men being in closed rooms with women, particularly when power imbalances exist, does have benefits to all involved.  I've worked in an office with such rules and I didn't see it hinder anyone.  Most of the directors were female.  It's really not hard to avoid being alone with other people if you know ahead of time that you must.  

 

I'm not sure I prefer it, but it wasn't difficult to work around.  It does feel ridiculous though.  

[Destino]

2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Yeah, some of us aren't afraid of ourselves around women. Thats it in a nutshell. If you think you cannot because you are afraid of what you might do or are not interested in what they have to say and need a 3rd party, then you have a problem.

I'm not worried about me, I'm an immovable object.  An example of professionalism for others.  I'm lying, obviously.  I'm an asshole on a good day.  Despite that, I am sensitive to appearances.  I will not meet coworkers in hotel rooms, for example.  I'm also sensitive to other people's discomfort, you never know when the person you're meeting with has been victimized.  They might not want to be in a personal or private setting and not want to mention it.  So I avoid it.  Plus, I'm always looking to cover my own ass.  

 

 

 

 

[zoony]

5 hours ago, Destino said:

I'm not worried about me, I'm an immovable object.  An example of professionalism for others.  I'm lying, obviously.  I'm an asshole on a good day.  Despite that, I am sensitive to appearances.  I will not meet coworkers in hotel rooms, for example.  I'm also sensitive to other people's discomfort, you never know when the person you're meeting with has been victimized.  They might not want to be in a personal or private setting and not want to mention it.  So I avoid it.  Plus, I'm always looking to cover my own ass.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is solid advice for the younger members om the board

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, Destino said:

It also protects that student from you.  No offense but sexual predators don't tattoo it on their foreheads.  You have no idea if that student is comfortable being alone and out of sight with you.  She may not, but feel it's impolite to say so.  

 

My point is that that while your perspective is a valid one, it's not the only valid one.  

 

Avoiding men being in closed rooms with women, particularly when power imbalances exist, does have benefits to all involved.  I've worked in an office with such rules and I didn't see it hinder anyone.  Most of the directors were female.  It's really not hard to avoid being alone with other people if you know ahead of time that you must.  

 

I'm not sure I prefer it, but it wasn't difficult to work around.  It does feel ridiculous though.  

 

Yes, it protects them from me too.

 

Whether it is easy or not and therefore a barrier, I would suggest depends on the job. 

 

In a normal 9-5 job, I don't think it is probably an issue.

 

PhD students in the sciences tend to work a lot of late and odd hours and STEM PhD students and faculty tend to be male.  I frequently worked Saturday's and evenings when my advisor was also present where we were the only people in the area (it was a big building and there were other people in the building, but nobody else in our specific area). And in this case would have been an issue for my PhD advisor, who was male because he was not tenured at the time and not allowing us to both work at the same time would have been put a real limit on the research that we could get done.  Realistically, if I was a new male faculty member in a research institution and I  couldn't be present with a female student without somebody also being present, I wouldn't take any female students until I had first built up a reasonable population of male students working in my lab.

 

Telling an equivalent female student that they couldn't work those hours would have absolutely be a barrier.

 

(Even think of it in terms of the President.  Do you think the President might sometime want to meet with specific advisors one-on-one so there can be a completely honest and confidential conversation?  If I'm a male President and I can't meet alone with my VP if she's female, I'm not sure it makes sense to have a female VP (or CIA director, Chief of Staff, etc.)).

 

(The biggest issue though is it still is essentially a claim that:

1.  That males won't/can't be uncomfortable being alone with me.

2.  That a claim by a male of inappropriate behavior isn't going to damage me.

3.  Or that females are more likely to make such claims.

 

I'm not sure if any of that is true.)

Edited October 12, 2017 by PeterMP

[Bozo the kKklown]

5 hours ago, Destino said:

I will not meet coworkers in hotel rooms, for example.  I'm also sensitive to other people's discomfort, you never know when the person you're meeting with has been victimized.

this is something different though.

 

If I am in my office meeting someone, I dont care who it is. We can sit and chat. I dont think about a person's sex.

 

I have no idea why I would have a 1v1, work meeting in a hotel room though. I can do it and its no big deal, but I have never been put in that situation.

[PeterMP]

51 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

this is something different though.

 

If I am in my office meeting someone, I dont care who it is. We can sit and chat. I dont think about a person's sex.

 

I have no idea why I would have a 1v1, work meeting in a hotel room though. I can do it and its no big deal, but I have never been put in that situation.

 

Again, this depends on the job.  I traveled with my PhD advisor to meetings.  We sat down in his room and ran through my talk the morning before I gave it.  We didn't easily have access anywhere quite to do it, and we were the only two people from the research group at the particular meeting.  Could we have pulled in somebody else?Probably, but not somebody else that I knew well.

 

If I'm a male and starting a company where that is going to have to give presentations to other companies in other cities and I am not willing to meet alone with females in hotel like environments, then my first couple of employees can't be female.

Edited October 12, 2017 by PeterMP

[Bozo the kKklown]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Again, this depends on the job.  I traveled with my PhD advisor to meetings.  We sat down in his room and ran through my talk the morning before I gave it.  We didn't easily have access anywhere quite to do it, and we were the only two people from the research group at the particular meeting.  Could we have pulled in somebody else?Probably, but not somebody else that I knew well.

 

If I'm a male and starting a company where that is going to have to give presentations to other companies in other cities and I am not willing to meet alone with females, then my first couple of employees can't be female.

Read what I said.

 

I said I don't see it as a big deal, but I have not been placed in that situation.

 

I would definitely be sensitive to a person's feelings on this though. Thats all.

[Fresh8686]

I'm just tired of limits and barriers being placed upon women, because guys suck too much at life to work on developing a handle and maturity with their own sexuality.

How hard is it not too be a ****ing weirdo around women? To adapt to whatever sexual tension you might feel around them? To be able to differentiate the sexual stimulation from who they really are as people, so you can actually form some type of working or personal relationship, rather than act like a dog in heat or some twitchy nervous wreck?

And this weird Mike Pence religious based isolation from women is coming from an extreme and unhealthy place as well, that is not the answer, although that is NOT to say that certain legal and business practices in place during unequal power dynamics are wrong, more so I'm saying that is different then the place where Mike Pence is coming from and I understand others reactions to it on here. 

 

Edited October 12, 2017 by Fresh8686

[tshile]

10 hours ago, PeterMP said:

(While I agree generally), I think you are wrong to pin it just on females.  Did you see Terry Crews' comments about being sexually harassed?

 

(As part of that, what Pence is really saying is:

 

1.  That a false claim of inappropriate behavior by a female would be more harmful than a male (which seems very unlikely given his politics).

2.  That a false claim from a female is more likely than from a male (which I'm not sure there is any evidence to back up and so a sexist belief).

3.  He doesn't trust himself alone with females other than his wife.

 

I wasn't trying to pin it specifically on females, just operating under his policy of it only being females. I did see Terry Crews' comments, and sexual harassment/assault of males certain happens and is reported it's just sort of ignored in the general conversation.

 

1 - I don't know if 'more harmful' is correct, maybe 'more likely to be taken seriously', in which case I would say he's unfortunately probably correct. As I said above, claims from males of sexual harassment/assault are not taken as seriously (and many would argue we have an issue with how seriously we take the claims from females to begin with.) So i'm wiling to accept someone thinking that...

2 - I don't know how to make any judgement on that because of the a aforementioned issues with harassment/assault against the different sexes. It could be much more likely simply because of the percentage of people who would assault someone of the same sex is lower? Aren't gays a significantly smaller percentage of society? I try not to default to - you're being sexist.

3 - You and others keep saying that but it requires a complete twisting to actually think that. I expect that from them, not from you, but you seem touchy on the subject so maybe I should adjust my expectations. Not taking shots, just being honest. Nothing he's said is about not trusting himself, you and others have made that up because of your own bias and/or issues with him or the general conversation involving sexism and sexual assault. (maybe i've missed pence saying he doesn't trust himself around women, which then i'm in the wrong. i don't follow pence enough to know he definitely didn't say that , but i don't believe i've read that from anyone other than a few of you posters here)

 

10 hours ago, visionary said:

 If you really want to harass or grab someone and think you can get away with it and don't care about who you hurt you will probably end up doing it whether people are around or not. 

 

Right, but now there would be witnesses.

 

Which is really the point. Obviously a problem if all the witnesses are 'in on it'.

 

I don't understand how this is so hard to grasp.

Edited October 12, 2017 by tshile

[tshile]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

If I'm a male and starting a company where that is going to have to give presentations to other companies in other cities and I am not willing to meet alone with females in hotel like environments, then my first couple of employees can't be female.

 

Or you could meet in the bar/lobby/restaurant area that pretty much every hotel has where there are other people (and likely cameras)

 

Just not, in your room.

 

Or you can meet in your room and not care. That doesn't mean that people who do care are being sexist or ridiculous.

 

[PeterMP]

26 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I wasn't trying to pin it specifically on females, just operating under his policy of it only being females. I did see Terry Crews' comments, and sexual harassment/assault of males certain happens and is reported it's just sort of ignored in the general conversation.

 

1 - I don't know if 'more harmful' is correct, maybe 'more likely to be taken seriously', in which case I would say he's unfortunately probably correct. As I said above, claims from males of sexual harassment/assault are not taken as seriously (and many would argue we have an issue with how seriously we take the claims from females to begin with.) So i'm wiling to accept someone thinking that...

2 - I don't know how to make any judgement on that because of the a aforementioned issues with harassment/assault against the different sexes. It could be much more likely simply because of the percentage of people who would assault someone of the same sex is lower? Aren't gays a significantly smaller percentage of society? I try not to default to - you're being sexist.

3 - You and others keep saying that but it requires a complete twisting to actually think that. I expect that from them, not from you, but you seem touchy on the subject so maybe I should adjust my expectations. Not taking shots, just being honest. Nothing he's said is about not trusting himself, you and others have made that up because of your own bias and/or issues with him or the general conversation involving sexism and sexual assault.

 

1.  You really don't think that a male claiming Mike Pence made sexually inappropriate contact with them wouldn't be taken seriously?  You don't think the press would jump all over that?

 

If you're Mike Pence and you have been working late alone with a male and the person comes to you and says, I'm going to claim you've been making unwanted sexual advances to me, are you really going to say, that's fine nobody is going to care?

 

2.  Does somebody have to be gay to (falsely) claim that there was inappropriate actions?  Is there any reason to believe that gay males would be more likely to claim another male was acting in sexually inappropriate manner? (Foley didn't seem to care if his victims were homosexual or not.  Just that they were males).

 

If you are Mike Pence and a male comes to you and says , I'm going to claim you've been making unwanted sexual advances to me does it matter if the person is straight or gay?

 

3.  Well if 1 and 2 aren't correct, that only leaves with you #3 (or bad/sexist logic).

18 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Or you could meet in the bar/lobby/restaurant area that pretty much every hotel has where there are other people (and likely cameras)

 

Just not, in your room.

 

Or you can meet in your room and not care. That doesn't mean that people who do care are being sexist or ridiculous.

 

 

Hard to practice a talk or go over a presentation in a bar/lobby/restaurant.  Just the act of sitting and doing it is different than standing when doing a talk or presentation.

Edited October 12, 2017 by PeterMP

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  You really don't think that a male claiming Mike Pence made sexually inappropriate contact with them wouldn't be taken seriously?  You don't think the press would jump all over that?

 

2.  Does somebody have to be gay to (falsely) claim that there was inappropriate actions?  Is there any reason to believe that gay males would be more likely to claim another male was acting in sexually inappropriate manner? (Foley didn't seem to care if his victims were homosexual or not.  Just that they were males).

 

3.  Well if 1 and 2 aren't correct, that only leaves with you #3.

 

Hard to practice a talk or go over a presentation in a bar/lobby/restaurant.

1 - I may just be overly cynical or working off of out dated information. My understanding from things I've read, which was a while ago but not that long, that males suffer from sexual harassment and assault in reasonably significant fashion, but that it is generally ignored in society for various reasons. The whole 'men can't be raped' or a mindset that a man should be 'strong enough' to stop it, or any other number of things that cause this. So I have my doubts about how seriously it would be taken - more specifically, I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Pence was able to brush off such a claim from a male significantly easier than he could from a female. If I'm wrong about this, then that's a good thing.  Now that he's vice president that would be different, but for the bulk of his career he wasn't vice president, and I don't know that the national press would have gone after him. We already see how journalism was (at lest attempted to be) compromised on the Weinstein issue. How is this such a stretch to you?

 

2 - Wait, what are you talking about? If a male sexually harasses or assaults someone of the same sex, then the perpetrator is attracted to people of the same sex, and therefore is gay (or bisexual, i suppose.) No? I'm willing to believe that a perpetrator could do such a  thing while not being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, but instead just being hooked on the rush of the power dynamic and not caring about the gender of the victim, but that's not my first thought on the subject. Not exactly something I study though. I don't know why you think I'm talking about the victim being gay. If you believe that being gay (sexually attracted to same sex) is part of perpetrating sexual harassment/assault against someone of the same sex, and that gays are a significantly smaller portion of society, then it would follow that sexual harassment against the same sex should be significantly smaller (unless someone wants to argue that being gay makes you more likely to sexually assault/harass someone, but I'm not willing to make that claim)

 

3 - What are you talking about? You and others have injected this "he's afraid he can't control himself around women" nonsense. Has pence actually said this? I haven't seen it, but maybe he has. But it seems to me like you and others just have an issue with the conversation and instead of discussing a rather simple idea that is used as a policy in a lot of different situations across a lot of different industries, but generally for the same idea, you're going straight to "lol he's afraid he can't control himself around women" nonsense.

 

 

And no, I don't think it's hard to practice or go over a presentation in a bar/lobby/restaurant. I've done it, I've seen others do it. It's not difficult at all, though it does require a tiny bit of effort in deciding where to park yourself.

[PeterMP]

19 minutes ago, tshile said:

1 - I may just be overly cynical or working off of out dated information. My understanding from things I've read, which was a while ago but not that long, that males suffer from sexual harassment and assault in reasonably significant fashion, but that it is generally ignored in society for various reasons. The whole 'men can't be raped' or a mindset that a man should be 'strong enough' to stop it, or any other number of things that cause this. So I have my doubts about how seriously it would be taken - more specifically, I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Pence was able to brush off such a claim from a male significantly easier than he could from a female. If I'm wrong about this, then that's a good thing.  Now that he's vice president that would be different, but for the bulk of his career he wasn't vice president, and I don't know that the national press would have gone after him. We already see how journalism was (at lest attempted to be) compromised on the Weinstein issue. How is this such a stretch to you?

 

2 - Wait, what are you talking about? If a male sexually harasses or assaults someone of the same sex, then the perpetrator is attracted to people of the same sex, and therefore is gay (or bisexual, i suppose.) No? I'm willing to believe that a perpetrator could do such a  thing while not being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, but instead just being hooked on the rush of the power dynamic and not caring about the gender of the victim, but that's not my first thought on the subject. Not exactly something I study though. I don't know why you think I'm talking about the victim being gay. If you believe that being gay (sexually attracted to same sex) is part of perpetrating sexual harassment/assault against someone of the same sex, and that gays are a significantly smaller portion of society, then it would follow that sexual harassment against the same sex should be significantly smaller (unless someone wants to argue that being gay makes you more likely to sexually assault/harass someone, but I'm not willing to make that claim)

 

3 - What are you talking about? You and others have injected this "he's afraid he can't control himself around women" nonsense. Has pence actually said this? I haven't seen it, but maybe he has. But it seems to me like you and others just have an issue with the conversation and instead of discussing a rather simple idea that is used as a policy in a lot of different situations across a lot of different industries, but generally for the same idea, you're going straight to "lol he's afraid he can't control himself around women" nonsense.

 

 

And no, I don't think it's hard to practice or go over a presentation in a bar/lobby/restaurant. I've done it, I've seen others do it. It's not difficult at all, though it does require a tiny bit of effort in deciding where to park yourself.

 

1.  Bringing up the Weistein situation in this case is laughable as it was a male/female interaction.  I think after things like the Larry Craig and Mike Foley (neither of whom were VP and the scandals made the national news) scandals your being naive if you don't think it would have made the national press or he could have easily brushed it off.  Heck, Trump easily brushed off female sexual harassment in this Presidential race to still win the race.  Foley and Craig where both forced out of politics.  There are lots of examples of politicians surviving female/male harassment even at the Presidential level (e.g. Trump and Bill Clinton).  I don't know of any cases of a major politician surviving even a claim of homosexual harassment at any level.

 

2.  You are in general correct, I suspect.  But it isn't relevant to the conversation.  That's not what Pence is really protecting himself from by not meeting with females.  What he's protecting himself from is false or mistaken claims of misconduct.  In that case, the only thing that matter is it possible that Pence is gay and might people believe it.

 

3.  I haven't seen him say that, but again realistically the action only makes sense if you believe one of a few things;

 

(1.  That a sexual harassment claim by a woman is more damaging to him than one from man.  That doesn't seem likely.

2.  That a female is more likely to claim sexual harassment when they haven't been harassed.

3.  You don't trust yourself to not harass females.)

 

Yeah, again, I'm going to disagree.  Again just the ability to stand and move makes a big difference, which is at least how presentations that I'm involved in are normally done.  Now, I guess if you are doing presentations sitting at a table, it is pretty much the same, and today, to me it probably wouldn't matter much.  But as somebody young learning how to do presentations, working on how to control my nervous energy while standing in front of my audience what to do with my hands, etc was a big part of it.

Edited October 12, 2017 by PeterMP

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  Bringing up the Weistein situation in this case is laughable as it was a male/female interaction.  I think after things like the Larry Craig and Mike Foley (neither of whom were VP and the scandals made the national news) scandals your being naive if you don't think it would have made the national press or he could have easily brushed it off.  Heck, Trump easily brushed off female sexual harassment in this Presidential race to still win the race.  Foley and Craig where both forced out of politics.

 

2.  You are in general correct, I suspect.  But it isn't relevant to the conversation.  That's not what Pence is really protecting himself from by not meeting with females.  What he's protecting himself from is false or mistaken claims of misconduct.  In that case, the only thing that matter is it possible that Pence is gay and might people believe it.

 

3.  I haven't seen him say that, but again realistically the action only makes sense if you believe one of a few things;

 

(1.  That a sexual harassment claim by a woman is more damaging to him than one from man.  That doesn't seem likely.

2.  That a female is more likely to claim sexual harassment when they haven't been harassed.

3.  You don't trust yourself to not harass females.)

 

Yeah, again, I'm going to disagree.  Again just the ability to stand and move makes a big difference, which is at least how presentations that I'm involved in are normally done.  Now, I guess if you are doing presentations sitting at a table, it is pretty much the same, and today, to me it probably wouldn't matter much.  But as somebody young learning how to do presentations, working on how to control my nervous energy while standing in front of my audience what to do with my hands, etc was a big part of it.

 

1 - Absolutely willing to be wrong on this. That would be a good thing. I wasn't aware the seriousness with which sexual harassment/assault towards men has changed.

 

2 - It is relevant to the question of a policy only being in place for situations of opposite sex. You can fix it by not being about opposite sex. One can think just caring about situations involving opposite sex is appropriate, without being sexist. Which I believe was more the point.

 

I'll have to tell those people who practiced that they weren't standing and moving, that their presentation was done while sitting at a table.  I'm not sure they were aware of that.

[PeterMP]

13 minutes ago, tshile said:

I'll have to tell those people who practiced that they weren't standing and moving, that their presentation was done while sitting at a table.  I'm not sure they were aware of that.

 

So you walk into a hotel restaurant, set a lap top on a table, and then stand up and move aroudn and give a presentation to somebody sitting at the table?

 

I've been to a lot of science meetings where a lot of people were doing presentations, and I've never seen that, and I've never heard of anybody doing that.  Generally, I'd consider that pretty rude to the people trying to work in the restaurant and the other people trying to eat there.

13 minutes ago, tshile said:

2 - It is relevant to the question of a policy only being in place for situations of opposite sex. You can fix it by not being about opposite sex. One can think just caring about situations involving opposite sex is appropriate, without being sexist. Which I believe was more the point.

 

But if in doing so you are basing your actions based on ideas that aren't supported by facts (e.g. women are more likely to claim to be harassed when they weren't really harassed) that ends up putting females at a disadvantage, then you have to wonder where those beliefs came from (are they sexist?) and is the overall result of the action sexist.

 

Bad ideas come from somewhere and in the context of them being related to sex, frequently they come from sexism.

Edited October 12, 2017 by PeterMP