Do You Remember?

Dec. 14, 2017 | Me Vanity Post

[rockinqsranch]

In the 1970's something occurred, an event occurred in the U.S. that ultimately caused businesses, government, etc. to perform mandatory sexual harassment classes.

I can't remember what it was at the time in I believe the latter 1970's that caused the glorious waste of time (IMO) that to this day is a requirement in most workplaces.

Was it something similar to what is inundating the headlines today? Is what we are subjected to daily now simply deja vu?

[familyop]

The ‘70s? Didn’t see it. Maybe the ‘80s.

[familyop]

The ‘80s in universities, more likely. I don’t remember hearing it mentioned in private sector offices until the ‘90s.

[Vermont Lt]

A lot of things happened in the 70’s.

Most of them involved drugs.

[alexander_busek]

Again, I think that it is counter-productive to try to identify some one-time event that supposedly "triggered" the subsequent moral avalanche. In most of life's realms - Civil Rights, etc. - it is pointless to try to point to a singular event as the "starting-point." Moreso in the case of something as vague as "shifting societal morés." Even something like the "Rosa Parks" moment was merely the outward manifestation of a deeper process that had already been going on for a long time. If a million other, in and of themselves insignificant things hadn't preceded it, Rosa Parks would have been marched off that bus and never heard of again.

The only possible "mileposts" would be things like WW II and the mass-mobilization of the female workforce, the prevalence of a level of widespread affluence in 1950s America that the world had never before known, the birth control pill, and the "Youth Culture" (in which - as never before in history - you had a large segment of healthy, young people 1) enjoying a period of prolonged adolescence, 2) unprecedented spending power, and 3) being catered to by the mass-media).

In previous historical epochs, the economy and culture (films, music, books, commercials, etc.) of course catered to the consumer - who was usually some poor, oppressed soul with a poorly-paying job and a passle of kids... the kind of person who has already been beaten down by life (even if he's only 22 year old) and is no mood to entertain utopian visions, to "battle the establishment," etc. Such people are usually quite conservative - even if they voted Dem, they despised shiftless bums, unwed mothers, parasites, etc.

Then, suddenly, in the 50s (as stated above), you had a demographically important ("Boomer") generation of teenage layabouts (they had part-time jobs, but were by no means "under the cudgel" - i.e., hadn't yet really been forced to come to terms with the realities of life) who were mobile (when, before in all of history...?), rich, and horny (as always).

In no previous era would an idea like the Peace Corps have had any traction whatsoever - young folks were either penniless and totally subservient to / constantly under the watchful eye of their parents or, as soon as they were "released" into adult life, soon attached to a ball and chain.

Regards,

[Yosemitest]

We had to go through that crap in the military.
It was B.S then and it's B.S. now.
The Bible is all we need, and it needs to be the main book upon which public school is founded, and the main book used in teaching, like our founding fathers intended.

Congressional resolution, September 12, 1782, endorsing Robert Aitken's Bible [page 468]
David C. Claypoole, 1782 from the Journals of Congress

The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that
on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere."
On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress
to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament
which he was preparing at his own expense.
Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken,
as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States."
This resolution was a result of Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project.

Aitken’s Bible

Aitken published Congress's recommendation of September 1782 and related documents (Item 115)
as an imprimatur on the two pages following his title page.
Aitken's Bible, published under Congressional patronage,
was the first English language Bible published on the North American continent.



"The Bible of the American Revolution"

As long as the United States remained under British rule,
the British government forbade the printing of Bibles in America.
When the Colonies declared their independence,
the importation of Bibles became restricted
and by 1777 there was a severe shortage of Bibles in America.
On September 11, 1777, this shortage of Bibles was brought to the attention of the Continental Congress
by its chaplain, Dr. Patrick Allison.
He said in his report that Bibles were urgently needed because,
“the use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great”
and on Dr. Allison’s advice, Congress passed a resolution
to make every attempt to import 20,000 Bibles in English
“from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the Union.”
The importation of Bibles soon proved to be nearly impossible
and the Continental Congress had to search for another alternative
to supply the population with their most important book.

On January 21, 1781, the noted colonial printer Robert Aitken petitioned Congress
for both sanction and support for the production of a complete Bible for the American people
and a committee was immediately formed to determine
if Aitken were qualified to produce a book of such significance.
Aitken’s impressive credentials
(he had, among other things, been the publisher of the Journals of Congress for the first Congress
and published numerous articles by Thomas Paine)
convinced the committee and on September 10, 1782,
a Congressional Resolution was adopted granting Aitken permission and financial support
for the printing of the first edition of the first American Bible.

George Washington, one of the greatest supporters of the Aitken Bible, was so pleased with the result
that he regretted that the Revolutionary troops had been disbanded
before he could provide them with such an appropriate symbol of his gratitude.
Writing to a friend, Washington lamented,
"It would have pleased me well,
if Congress had been pleased to make such an important present
(a copy of the Aitken Bible) to the brave fellows,
who have done so much for the security of their Country's rights and establishment."

The printing of the new Bible marked a significant moment in the history of the United States.
More American versions of the Bible soon followed
and, no longer subject to British editions of the Bible, the United States was,
for the first time, able to fully express the freedom of religion held so dearly by the population.
The Aitken Bible was championed by the people
and symbolized a dramatic release from British, and indeed government control,
over their right and ability to worship.


I also found out that the Aitken 1782 Holy Bible was called by Congress the
Bible. English. Authorized. 1782..

Also see http://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i182ac/s01/third78.html











Although 10,000 copies of the Aitken Bible were printed, the first printing is extraordinarily scarce today.
20^th-century estimates place the number of extant copies between 30-40, with possibly five (certainly no more than ten) in private hands.
It is one of the world’s rarest books, significantly rarer than even the Gutenberg Bible. 

The photo of the copy to the left is an extraordinarily scarce first edition,
one of approximately 30 known copies (with perhaps only five in private hands),
of the first English Bible printed in America,
the first and only Bible ever to be printed with Congressional approval.
An absolutely extraordinary copy of a most rare and important volume.

[Albion Wilde]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 included race and sex, prohibiting discrimination in employment and housing. By the time the early 70s rolled around, many successful lawsuits had been fought by blacks and by women whose rights to a job, for instance, had been violated by egregious discrimination such as manifestly unequal pay for equal work. The awards were enough money to alert corporations and other entities that they should undertake training to try to avoid gross violations that might result in costly lawsuits.

How Women Became Part of the Civil Rights Act
Making Sex Discrimination Part of Title VII

As a "survivor" of that era in employment, I have to add that while the threat of lawsuits was real, it was also a very high hurdle for most women to obtain a lawyer and fight through a suit. Documentation of many types of discrimination or sexual harassment was hard to obtain. There were no cellphone cameras, surveillance cameras, desktop computers or other devices that today can back up some of the claims. So sexual harassment, groping, coercion and intimidation were a constant threat and almost daily reality. It is why I started my own business rather than put up with it any more, after my boss showed up at my apartment one night drunk and announcing that his wife was out of town, he should come in and "get it on" with me, and that I would never get a raise unless I "put out." This was after several years of constant remarks and attempts to grope. I pushed him backwards towards the stairs. You can imagine how that went down when I showed up at the office the next day.

Without any proof, not only could I not sue effectively, but I reasoned that I would have "blackballed" myself in my field (marketing). So I starved for the first two years and ultimately kept the business going for 30 years. But it was very hard, and I missed out on many of the kinds of security that hired employees can take for granted, like ever having a real vacation where you are getting paid for time away and not worrying every moment (when you are not working, you are not making money now and not priming the pipeline for the next months), as well as the support of reduced group rates for good health care coverage, insurance parking, etc.

I should add that I had never planned to go into business and my learning curve was forced by circumstances, very expensive and very steep. I do resent these factors to this day, but someone had to cut the first trails, and my era's women — first wave of the Baby Boom — had to do that.

[Albion Wilde]

The masturbatory displays was a thing back then, too?!? Man, we really are primates.

In the early 70s, it was definitely a "thing." Even under the table in restaurants, there would be fumbling around and then your boss or client grabbing your hand under the tablecloth and guiding it to his lap, where his fly was open and junior was "liberated." One of my friends who was two weeks away from delivering her first child was taken to a private room in a fancy restaurant for her "goodbye luncheon" before maternity break and her boss took it right out at the table.

For any men who might be reading, please take note: women as a rule do not find this behavior in any way attractive or enticing. It is masturbatory, in that the woman's desires are not part of the scenario, and she is truly just an object for the man's gratification, being used like a living porn magazine by this type of animalistic display.

Some men are so debauched that causing the woman shame, disgust or humiliation is arousing to them. None of this is okay in any context whatsoever in which she is not specifically consenting for her own purposes, such as being married to you and thus having financial leverage over you, so that a game of "let's pretend" is acceptable. In the workplace or among the women you encounter such as neighbors, co-congregants (yes, this happens) or the wives or girlfriends of your friends or of your wife or girlfriend's friends, this behavior is as completely out of bounds as it would be if you did it to your boss's boss in front of his best client.

[central_va]

We should all learn the proper way to sexually harass.

[cyclotic]

I work for a division of a mid size but influential multinational company.

I’ve been there 8 years and three months ago was the first time I had to take harassment training.

I used to dread the complete waste of time when my last company forced it on us.

I walked out of one contemplating filing harassment charges on the female attorney who taught the course. I think she was really getting off describing cases and repeatedly using vulgarities in front of a group. Others felt the same and we did complain to HR.

mercifully at my company, it’s a 20 minute video done in your spare time.

Here’s my idea. Treat everyone with respect and there’s no problem. I generally follow Pence type rules. I also never make physical contact beyond a handshake. There are exceptions.

A few years ago, a female co-worker who worked with me on a huge project gave me a hug on her last day at the company.

While I know it goes on, I’ve never really witnessed any behavior that I’d consider harassment.

[ealgeone]

I recall the Tailhook situation brought about a lot of focus on the issue. Shortly after that we had the first sexual harassment classes at work.

[rockinqsranch]

I do believe you are correct. It was 1991. Further up the list, and after your post Catmom also posted Tailhook, and I looked it up. Although Wiki doesn’t go beyond the Navy experience, the aftermath of what happened in the civilian World I do believe that was the trigger that saddled employers, and employees across the nation, and apparently around the World in various other nations with sexual harassment training. I’ll do more personal research to learn more as it does seem to have effect on our society today.

The current events, Weinstein, “me too”, etc. caused me to reflect on previous similarities. I didn’t remember dates as they actually were, but what the heck, was within 20 years ;)

[Robert DeLong]

It was about that time that women learned they could successfully move up the corporate ladder if they accused their boss of sexual harassment, but it was more like the early to mid 80’s not the 70’s. If my recollection is correct. It was no where near as pervasive as this though.

[rockinqsranch]

“I recall the Tailhook situation brought about a lot of focus on the issue. Shortly after that we had the first sexual harassment classes at work.”

Several other posts mention that Tailhook event as well. I looked it up, and am of the belief that was the catalyst, the event that kicked off the era of government involvement in the workplace relations. I recall the event, but didn’t pay much attention at the time.

Thank you for your response. It was one of those reflections driving me nuts trying to remember what happened.

[kosciusko51]

... mercifully at my company, it’s a 20 minute video done in your spare time.

In California, it is a mandatory 2-hour course every two years for managers. Fortunately, it can be done as an online course.

[kaehurowing]

“Yeah, except for everyone being mind-controlled by an evil monster from Venus.”

---

This one was “It Came From Outer Space.”

Highlights:

1. You can casually carry a snub-nose revolver in your coat pocket or unlocked in your car glove compartment, and nobody including the police thinks anything of it when you pull it out and point it at things which you are doing quite frequently.

2. You can spend the whole movie running around with a bombshell babe next to you, and absolutely no hanky-panky goes on.

3. If you and the sheriff get in a disagreement about how to get rid of the aliens, you can get into a knock-down fist fight with each other and there are no consequences, and you both shake hands and agree to disagree afterwards. Men are men.

4. Nobel laureate scientists are wandering around the desert without anyone paying them any attention.

5. Everyone in the movie knows each other by first name, there are no strangers. Small town America at its best.

6. The sheriff on the spur of the moment can just grab every man off the street and make them a posse, and they all willingly and immediately set off with their own guns (they all have their own rifles in their cars and trucks of course) to get the aliens.

7. If you don’t promptly come home for dinner when you were expected, your wife immediately gets upset and goes to the sheriff’s office to find out what happened to you. “Why it’s not like Joe not to come home on time.”

[rockinqsranch]

Excellent post. Thank you for your response.

[Freedom56v2]

Surprised by that too...Apparently we were :(

[shotgun]

It was an offshoot from the failed Equal Rights Amendment would be my guess.

[thecodont]

Maybe that one time event was WWII. It was soon after WWII that we got the beatniks who were the precursors to the hippies.

We also had the total mobilization of the US population where many women were thrown into the workforce and civilians got used to being told what to do for the greater cause.

There's lots of evidence that US morals started cracking up in the supposedly clean and spiffy 50's.

The 60's and 70's was just when the dam that had been seeping for years finally gave way.

I think you'd have to reach back a bit further. Like WWI.

[visualops]

the simple fact that this type of behavior from certain types of men has continued unceasing to this day- means that there are certain types of men that women should avoid. Trying to emasculate all men will not stop those sleazy jerks from being sleazy jerks, you are just greatly lessening the chances of a man having the balls to come to your defense and protect you from the sleazy jerks.