Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: KrisKrinkle
Again, "whatever that means". "Sense" and "decency" may mean different things to different people.

Can we agree that at a minimum, they mean no touching people or exposing ones self to them (as Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK and a surprising number of other celebrity jerk-offs apparently did) simply because they dress in a certain way? This kind of behavior used to be called being a gentleman for males, and these days the law is happy to help enforce such conventions.

the reaction is a wolf whistle, a long look interpretable as a leer, or a comment you don't like

I really am not concerned about wolf whistles or comments, and I don't believe the law is either - people are free to make all sorts of comments about the appearance of total strangers, and face any resulting anger. And as for long looks - this doesn't rise to the level of even a trivial offense, not in my eyes and certainly not in eyes of the law.
19 posted on 11/18/2017 11:09:03 AM PST by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: AnotherUnixGeek
Can we agree...

Who's "we"? You and I might agree but there's a whole bunch of other people who need to agree too. By "touching" I assume you mean private parts, but I've been unexpectedly touched elsewhere, sometimes hugged, more rarely kissed. I didn't take offense but that doesn't mean others wouldn't.

As to "exposing ones self", you only mention men. What about the woman in a low cut top who bends over and provides a clear view of a well formed breast? Or the woman in a short skirt who allows a clear view. You might not object to that. I might not object to that. Can we get everybody to agree with us?

I really am not concerned about wolf whistles or comments, and I don't believe the law is either...

Some people are concerned about wolf whistles or comments. The concern or lack of concern of you and me is not the only consideration.

As to the law, from the US Code (emphasis added):

§ 1604.11 Sexual harassment.

(a) Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of section 703 of title VII. 1 Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

...not in eyes of the law.

Yet.

20 posted on 11/18/2017 3:01:08 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

I really am not concerned about wolf whistles or comments, and I don’t believe the law is either - people are free to make all sorts of comments about the appearance of total strangers, and face any resulting anger. And as for long looks - this doesn’t rise to the level of even a trivial offense, not in my eyes and certainly not in eyes of the law.
——-
You’ve just described several elements of ‘a hostile environment ‘. People have been fired and successfully sued over these things.

And, in part, this has made things worse for everyone, as it has destroyed and convoluted longstanding rails.


26 posted on 11/19/2017 1:48:41 PM PST by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson