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 ...
Yeah, ask Hermain Cain how that all turned out for him.
I blame the HR departments and the Feministas, which have been taken over by the radical Libs.
My sis in law is a hs teacher. She told a young man he looked nice in his new shirt...he reported her, she was investigated, almost lost her job for that comment.
I had a great female boss years ago. Well one of the other bosses at her level, use to come around to the workers ask how you doing, then rub your shoulders. He did this to me. He was married, older man, but very nice. He was the big teddy bear type allways laughing smiling, etc.
So one day I smoked with the female boss on break and just happened to mention how Don likes to give the ladies a shoulder rub. Next thing I know, he stopped doing it...to everyone one of us.
I didn’t threaten him, go to HR, file a lawsuit, etc.
That is truly a sick story!
I teach acting and lately I’m afraid to even approach these young adults. Acting is a physical profession and when you “block” scenes you sometimes have to touch or twist an actor’s position to get the look that you want. I don’t know where it’s all going to end...except that Ron Paul is STILL a freak!
Sadly most women don’t have husbands any more, so they turn to gov where in the past they would have told thier bigger stronger half if things at work or in town were getting beyond their ability to coup. Nothing shuts up a loud mouth bore like a big strong husband pissed as hell.
“He didn’t say the system was corrupt, he said if you don’t like it quit. Big difference.”
Oh but the system is corrupt, women use this all the time to squeeze a little extra from a business. And even though not too many of these see federal court the threat is enough to have business spending an outrageous amount of time and money trying to insulate themselves from actually ending up in federal court. I’ll bet you have no idea how much this costs businesses in training employees, legal and human resource personnel that administer this and the paying off of the occasional hypersensitive/money grubbing woman that files a complaint.
As far as “blaming the victim” non-sense, I’ve heard that tired old rational so many times that I want to puke and it’s a standard shaming tactic that feminist have used for decades. Doesn’t work with me any more so shove it, women need to grow up and start accepting responsibility if they want to participate in the work place, just like men have for centuries. If they can’t handle it unless they have big daddy government beating everyone into submission then they should just go back to the kitchen.
I don’t know what jobs you’ve worked at but I don’t know one decent workplace that doesn’t have some rules about behavior. A good company discourages rudeness and immoral behavior and a lousy one - usually - looks the other way. We can see how that’s working out for Penn State.
You don’t seem to like ladies very much...
Sadly, some guys with a real dislike of women are coming on this thread. I’ve seen this happen before with sex harrassment issues, Sarah Palin & Michele Bachmann. Gets kinda spooky.
“I’ll bet you have no idea how much this costs businesses in training employees, legal and human resource personnel that administer this and the paying off of the occasional hypersensitive/money grubbing woman that files a complaint.”
Well since I own a small business I would bet you are wrong.
“As far as “blaming the victim” non-sense, I’ve heard that tired old rational so many times that I want to puke and it’s a standard shaming tactic that feminist have used for decades.”
Well he said if the woman doesn’t like being harassed she should quit. So the woman, or man in some cases, is expected to quit because someone else is breaking the law. You are brilliant.
“You don’t seem to like ladies very much...”
Not true, I just don’t like feminist very much. I also don’t like having big daddy government in my nickers all day long, which for some reason most women just love ;)
The system is abused, no doubt. Anytime people are involved there will be problems. IMO the problem is the legal system.
Lawyers make money off other peoples hardships.
“... expected to quit because someone else is breaking the law. You are brilliant.”
You seem to not be the brightest bulb in the room here, Ron Paul’s whole point was that there shouldn’t BE a federal law dealing with this.
You can always quit if you dont like working in that environment.
Classy response, lol!
“You seem to not be the brightest bulb in the room here, Ron Paul’s whole point was that there shouldn’t BE a federal law dealing with this.”
Then why did he say women should quit if they don’t like being harassed? See its really quite simple. He says what he really means, Paulbots read what they wanted him to say. Others read the actual words and realize Ron Paul is NUTS!
No, let's create Federal laws and language police to outlaw all offensive language.
OTOH, what happens when you say something contoversial which is deemed offensive to someone else.
For example, we know that much of what Rush Limbaugh says is very offensive to many folks. Who gets to determine what is offensive? When you give the power to the Feds, be careful you don't get a hell of a lot more than you asked for.
Look at the homeland security laws. Who foresaw that would eventually entail young girls and grandmas being groped by federal airport security agents in order to keep you safe.
This is the creeping nanny state.
There’s offensive language and behavior in society but the focus of the laws is offensive language and behavior in the workplace.
Well there was one Colonel that kept following me around and asked me out my first week on duty. I went to my adviser (I was in a school) and asked if I had to go out with him, then another young officer told me the Colonel was trying to “get over on” me, so I finally told him no.
Not exactly the same thing. And, how would you have handled it if he were persistant and played the “I can make or ruin your career” card. It is for these very real situations that the laws are there, and, imo, reasonable.
One job I had for 8 months is a good example of my point. I worked in a flower shop—sales. The boss was not very friendly. It was ok with me—I took the job. He was rude to some of the workers-—and they quit. He was rude to me and I quit. He had a high turn over -—it cost him tons of money to train new people all the time. It hurt him-—but it was his right to run his business how he saw fit.
Free markets should have little govt. say and regulations. The owner of the business takes the risks and fronts the money—and should be able to run the business as he sees fit. He could hire all men and government has no right to force him to hire women—or blacks or whomever. They can start their own competing business. If the guy is racist—he will lose business—and hopefully go bankrupt. BUT that is up to choice of the consumers.
We used to have freedom of association and freedom of speech and freedom to fail or flourish. Having government force anything is more evil than the so called “evil” it is trying to prevent——and it is WAY TOO COSTLY!!!!!!!!! and ends up benefiting the politicians and lawyers and judges never the minorities or whomever. It destroys free markets.
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.