Posted on 01/02/2012 7:22:04 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Texas Representative Ron Paul today stood by statements he made in his 1987 book arguing that someone who is a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace should bear some responsibility for resolving the problem and that society should not bear the burden of paying for the care of AIDS victims.
In his 1987 book “Freedom Under Siege: The US Constitution after 200-Plus Years,” Paul wrote about sexual harassment in the workplace, “Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?’’
In another passage, Paul wrote, “The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim - frequently a victim of his own lifestyle - but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care.”
On Fox News Sunday this morning, host Chris Wallace asked Paul, now a top contender in the Republican presidential race, whether he still agreed with those statements.
On the sexual harassment issue, Paul distinguished between verbal and physical harassment but said neither one warranted a federal law to prevent it.
“If it’s just because somebody told a joke to somebody who was offended, they don’t have a right to go to the federal government and have a policeman come in and put penalties on those individuals,” Paul said of verbal harassment. “They have to say maybe this is not a very good environment. They have the right to work there or not work there.”
Paul continued: “Because people are insulted by rude behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case about it. I don’t think we need federal laws to deal with that. People should deal with that at home.”
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Any woman who makes a false allegation against a guy is making it that much worse for other women in the workplace. They are a disgrace. As I said in one of my earlier posts, I saw it happen to a friend of mine. Luckily, no one believed the girl.
I have worked for a few “screamers” in my time.... I know how to handle these types, you simply piss them off even more... here is how you do it.....
First, simply ignore the entire conversation, until the screamer asks, “Did you hear me?” or some other comment...
Second, kinda shake your head as if waking up, look blankly at them and calmly state, “ Oh, i’m sorry. I wasn’t listening. Is this the part where I fall to my knees and beg your forgiveness?”....
At this point the screamer will lose their minds, and eventually tell you that you have a bad attitude....
You then get your mean voice on, and state, “ ATTITUDE??? Let me tell you something about attitudes, pal. Attitudes start at the top and work their way down. If you don’t like my attitude, carry your butt into the bathroom, and take a good long look in the mirror. You will SEE where my attitude originates!”....
This will effectively shut them down, and most times they will never bother you again. If they write you up, all you have to do is tell the HR person that publically being screamed at constitues a hostile work environment, and suggest that the friedly HR person have a little chat with your screamer. Remind HR that you are fully aware that you still have to work in this town, but the next person may not be so patient.
Works like a charm..
Whenever I’ve been lectured to by some pro-abortion guy on my anti-abortion stance, I always say to him: “Well, of course, you like abortion! It really benefits you guys, doesn’t it?” Only one honest man ever told me I was right.
When a women, or guy makes a claim, they don’t give a dam about others similarly situated. They are focused on their own situation. Don’t get me wrong, I’m on your side, but this is one of those topics that gets me riled. The fact that the laws so heavily favor the harassee irritates the hell outta me. False claims should be jail sentences, just as proven claims.
Sounds like a plan!
I often find that women who make false charges are just not very bright; dangerous, but not very bright. And I agree: jail terms for all of them!
Sorry they don't "like" it. Not "liking" something isn't a cause to involve the federal government. And, no, it isn't easy to get another job, but that isn't a reason to involve the government, either.
Now, if the touching is sexual, there are laws to deal with assault.
No one should be harrassed on the job. Harrassment means constant unwanted attention; not one dumb joke by a crude guy. And, of course, I don’t mean a tap on the shoulder - I mean a sexual or violent physical encounter. Sorry, but it DOES happen in the workforce.
If employers dealt with these situations properly, no one would have to go to the police or “government.” The problem with employers is that they like to bury the dirt rather than expose it.
Ahh so I’m a liar.
From the article - “They have to say maybe this is not a very good environment. They have the right to work there or not work there.”
He and U can KMA
*******And, what if the "idiot" has some or total control over the "dumb girl's" compensation, assignment, promotion or very employment?*******
__________________________________________
Sergeants would come up to me and say stupid stuff like “Ma’am, I probably shouldn’t say this but” and I would cut them off with “then don’t”. I would walk away and close the door.
*******How many Lt. Colonels did you treat the same way?*******
*** Oh, so "Hey girl, you want that assignment then come over here and laugh at my joke about the nun, the rabbi and the vibrator" is ok?***
_________________________________
If you work in an enviornment where there is (in your opinion) offensive verbal dialogue, then bring it up with management and/or go work where you feel more comfortable.
***What if the offensive person is the management? What if the situation is in Detroit or Syracuse or Toledo where there are no other jobs?***
“Another option is to never hire any women, ever!”
Given all the caterwauling by the feminists on this thread that would usually be a good idea ... except they also have a federal anti-discrimination law so you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. This is why we’re loosing all of our freedoms one by one to the nanny state, because women are demanding that big daddy government come in and beat everyone into submission to their every whim. Strange to see on a conservative web site but the feminists and white knights have taken over everywhere, why not here as well.
It does with me. People have the freedom of speech and if they want to be rude—and offensive—that is allowed in our Constitution. There can be NO LAWS which prevent rudeness. NONE. People used to have the right to do that —and those people would reap their rewards-—no decent person would work for them. We have DESTROYED decency with government intervention. It encourages lies—cheating—immoral behavior, etc.
Paul is absolutely right and we need to get back to original intent of the freedom of association and freedom of thought and speech.
Government interference breeds immorality and evil and corruption and distrust of individuals.
“common sense to suggest women being harassed should quit their job?”
Yes, unless you’re a socialist who wants the government in charge of every aspect of your life. It’s a free country and if you can’t handle it and management doesn’t care then leave. Guy have to put up with all sorts of garbage as well, they make the same decisions as to whether or not the good out weighs the bad. If women want to participate in the work place on an even footing then they need to grow up and start acting like adults rather than whinny children.
Broken clock- right twice a day. “Victims” of diseases spread by BEHAVIOR, like AIDS, should not be cared for with public funds. Charity is around for that purpose.
This is absolutely correct. The federal government has no constitutional authority to intrude in these matters. The States are responsible.
OK, fine. Hire them and stick them in an office with someone that farts constantly. The same damn Fed laws that says you can't discriminate against them in hiring, says you can't discriminate against those with a medical handicap, such as farting constantly.
I'll bet they don't stay long.
OK, fine. Hire them and stick them in an office with someone that farts constantly. The same damn Fed laws that says you can't discriminate againt them in hiring, says you can't discriminate against those with a medical handicap, such as farting constantly.
I'll bet they don't stay long.
back in the old days, women could work but if they were found to be pregnant, had to quit their job. I worked with a gal who told me she had to bind herself up to keep from showing as long as possible to keep working. Her hus left her with all the kids, sole supporter.
His statement shows an astounding level of stupidity. Your willingness jump in and blame the victim is on the same level.
Are allegations of sexual harassment abused? Yes, but 99% of all cases are settled outside of the federal courts.
He didn’t say the system was corrupt, he said if you don’t like it quit. Big difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.