This topic has been locked by a moderator.
Crazy idea: maybe it’s up to all of us to promote a culture with less sexual harrassment no matter what someone is wearing. Maybe raise kids with better ideas of autonomy, consent, and respect? Idk, just a thought.
Get out of here with that nonsense.
I absolutely agree with suspifciouscoffee (which also is exactly in line with my previous post). And I really don’t think it’s a “crazy idea” or that anyone reasonable would disagree with that.
At least I hope not.
And that’s the whole point of my last post. I basically agree to a certain extent with what you guys are both saying (not Peterson).
I absolutely agree with suspifciouscoffee (which also is exactly in line with my previous post). And I really don’t think it’s a “crazy idea” or that anyone reasonable would disagree with that.
At least I hope not.
And that’s the whole point of my last post. I basically agree to a certain extent with what you guys are both saying (not Peterson).
I’m with you. I’m not sure why anyone would feel the need to point it out. There are many things that could be the “cause.” Being nice to someone, smiling, being mean to someone, ignoring someone, etc. Pointing out “causes” seems fruitless and only serves to shift at least some of the blame on the victims.
I absolutely agree with suspifciouscoffee (which also is exactly in line with my previous post). And I really don’t think it’s a “crazy idea” or that anyone reasonable would disagree with that.
At least I hope not.
And that’s the whole point of my last post. I basically agree to a certain extent with what you guys are both saying (not Peterson).
I’m with you. I’m not sure why anyone would feel the need to point it out. There are many things that could be the “cause.” Being nice to someone, smiling, being mean to someone, ignoring someone, etc. Pointing out “causes” seems fruitless and only serves to shift at least some of the blame on the victims.
This.
I find it amazing that Republicans still try to blame movies and video games for school shootings. Remind me again of how these people are the pro-freedom of speech side?
When they try to ban them, let me know.
The argument that troubled individuals engaging in simulated violence can lead to real life violence is plausible.
There is something to be said for the effect of a poor mental diet on one’s choices.
I have amassed a combined library of 420 video games
Hehehe 420
I have an ongoing discussion with someone close to me about other people in their life not acting/responding as they would like. I agree those other people can be unreasonable but I stress that we can’t just make people act as we would like them. We can try, and in many situations should, but at the end of the day one can only control oneself. To avoid unhappy interactions that can mean changing one’s own behavior and how one communicates with others. I understand the anger and belief that others should change, but that’s a foolhardy way to go through life.
Most people do make adjustments, limit their own freedom. Not saying it’s good, just is.
Talking about causes allows one to avoid risk. Doesn’t mean anything else.
The anger that anyone would feel entitled to harass or assault someone because they look good is obvious. The idea that makeup is some kind of trigger should seem absurd to right-thinking people. Obviously we take steps to educate/punish. But the ugly reality is there and willful ignorance about it does not help.
The blue elephant in the room.
On video games, I’ve killed my fair share of Nazis and don’t think video games are detrimental in the main. If you’re a troubled person and they fill your life, I can see the danger. I agree I don’t see any reasonable way of addressing that. Some bad apples will be bad no matter what.
I think there are warning signs we should be attuned to and violent games could be one among many. It’s angering how in so many of these shootings there are an abundance of major clues that go ignored. In Texas the kid actually threatened a girl he was going to kill her, two weeks before he did.
The blue elephant in the room.
In response to your post Mrebo, I would say that women should be able to wear makeup for whatever reason they see fit, without a fear of being harassed. Let women choose how they want to express themselves and put the pressure upon us as a society to change, not the makeup choices of a women.
I have an ongoing discussion with someone close to me about other people in their life not acting/responding as they would like. I agree those other people can be unreasonable but I stress that we can’t just make people act as we would like them.
Sure, you can’t make Bob in accounting stop wearing that Members Only jacket. But if he sexually harasses someone? Fire his ass. See? You can make a difference! Bob may or may not change his ways, but the people in your life no longer include him.
I have an ongoing discussion with someone close to me about other people in their life not acting/responding as they would like. I agree those other people can be unreasonable but I stress that we can’t just make people act as we would like them.
Sure, you can’t make Bob in accounting stop wearing that Members Only jacket. But if he sexually harasses someone? Fire his ass. See? You can make a difference! Bob may or may not change his ways, but the people in your life no longer include him.
Depends on the circumstances. If men smile a bit more at you, CatBus, it won’t be so easy. Maybe you don’t mind or maybe it’s horribly objectifying. If it’s the former, then no problem! If you’re walking down the street there’s less control over reactions.
The basic principle is sound that others will behave badly and there’s no easy fix and a person might choose to go about things a certain way.
The blue elephant in the room.
I have an ongoing discussion with someone close to me about other people in their life not acting/responding as they would like. I agree those other people can be unreasonable but I stress that we can’t just make people act as we would like them.
Sure, you can’t make Bob in accounting stop wearing that Members Only jacket. But if he sexually harasses someone? Fire his ass. See? You can make a difference! Bob may or may not change his ways, but the people in your life no longer include him.
Depends on the circumstances. If men smile a bit more at you, CatBus, it won’t be so easy. Maybe you don’t mind or maybe it’s horribly objectifying. If it’s the former, then no problem! If you’re walking down the street there’s less control over reactions.
Sexual harassment has two legal yardsticks: quid pro quo (which is usually an unprovably high hurdle, so it’s safe to ignore) and hostile environment. Convincing people smiling is of a nature that it caused a hostile environment is either also a really high hurdle, or else “smiling” isn’t the best term for describing the behavior in question. Either way, go for it. Offending people has never been the issue. Creating a hostile work environment is. The law knows the difference.
You are correct that crimes and civil offenses can happen anywhere. You can get mugged at work or in the street. You can implement security at work to prevent muggings, but on the street you have less control.
The basic principle is sound that others will behave badly and there’s no easy fix and a person might choose to go about things a certain way.
Sure, and there are penalties for when your behavior crosses a line of civil society. That’s reasonable.
In response to your post Mrebo, I would say that women should be able to wear makeup for whatever reason they see fit, without a fear of being harassed. Let women choose how they want to express themselves and put the pressure upon us as a society to change, not the makeup choices of a women.
Exactly.
I have an ongoing discussion with someone close to me about other people in their life not acting/responding as they would like. I agree those other people can be unreasonable but I stress that we can’t just make people act as we would like them.
Sure, you can’t make Bob in accounting stop wearing that Members Only jacket. But if he sexually harasses someone? Fire his ass. See? You can make a difference! Bob may or may not change his ways, but the people in your life no longer include him.
Depends on the circumstances. If men smile a bit more at you, CatBus, it won’t be so easy. Maybe you don’t mind or maybe it’s horribly objectifying. If it’s the former, then no problem! If you’re walking down the street there’s less control over reactions.
Sexual harassment has two legal yardsticks: quid pro quo (which is usually an unprovably high hurdle, so it’s safe to ignore) and hostile environment. Convincing people smiling is of a nature that it caused a hostile environment is either also a really high hurdle, or else “smiling” isn’t the best term for describing the behavior in question. Either way, go for it. Offending people has never been the issue. Creating a hostile work environment is. The law knows the difference.
You are correct that crimes and civil offenses can happen anywhere. You can get mugged at work or in the street. You can implement security at work to prevent muggings, but on the street you have less control.
The basic principle is sound that others will behave badly and there’s no easy fix and a person might choose to go about things a certain way.
Sure, and there are penalties for when your behavior crosses a line of civil society. That’s reasonable.
Forget the law! Extreme cases are assault and harassment (as legally defined) but that’s not the whole story here. If a man whistles at you on the street, that’s not harassment. If 5 men whistle at you, still no. If a man creeps you out at work for smiling and being friendly and you think it has something to do with you looking good, that’s not legally actionable, but all these things are relevant to Peterson’s ill-made argument.
If you’re a person who objects to even minor displays of sexual interest or feel you’re not being taken seriously, you might choose to put yourself together more modestly. Or not. I don’t see anyone demanding or blaming women either way.
The blue elephant in the room.
In response to your post Mrebo, I would say that women should be able to wear makeup for whatever reason they see fit, without a fear of being harassed. Let women choose how they want to express themselves and put the pressure upon us as a society to change, not the makeup choices of a women.
Exactly.
I also agree.
The blue elephant in the room.
I have an ongoing discussion with someone close to me about other people in their life not acting/responding as they would like. I agree those other people can be unreasonable but I stress that we can’t just make people act as we would like them.
Sure, you can’t make Bob in accounting stop wearing that Members Only jacket. But if he sexually harasses someone? Fire his ass. See? You can make a difference! Bob may or may not change his ways, but the people in your life no longer include him.
Depends on the circumstances. If men smile a bit more at you, CatBus, it won’t be so easy. Maybe you don’t mind or maybe it’s horribly objectifying. If it’s the former, then no problem! If you’re walking down the street there’s less control over reactions.
Sexual harassment has two legal yardsticks: quid pro quo (which is usually an unprovably high hurdle, so it’s safe to ignore) and hostile environment. Convincing people smiling is of a nature that it caused a hostile environment is either also a really high hurdle, or else “smiling” isn’t the best term for describing the behavior in question. Either way, go for it. Offending people has never been the issue. Creating a hostile work environment is. The law knows the difference.
You are correct that crimes and civil offenses can happen anywhere. You can get mugged at work or in the street. You can implement security at work to prevent muggings, but on the street you have less control.
The basic principle is sound that others will behave badly and there’s no easy fix and a person might choose to go about things a certain way.
Sure, and there are penalties for when your behavior crosses a line of civil society. That’s reasonable.
Forget the law! Extreme cases are assault and harassment (as legally defined) but that’s not the whole story here. If a man whistles at you on the street, that’s not harassment. If 5 men whistle at you, still no. If a man creeps you out at work for smiling and being friendly and you think it has something to do with you looking good, that’s not legally actionable,
Sure, you’re talking layman’s harassment vs. legal harassment. The thing is, as far as sexual harassment goes, the significant difference to the law is location, not behavior. In a workplace, a behavior is harassment in the legal sense. Outside the workplace, the exact same behavior is harassment in the layman’s sense, just not actionable under (current) law. If the behavior you see in the street fails the legal test in a workplace, I’m not sure you’re going to run into many people calling it harassment.
but all these things are relevant to Peterson’s ill-made argument.
Seems there’s not much difference aside from the codification.
If you’re a person who objects to even minor displays of sexual interest or feel you’re not being taken seriously, you might choose to put yourself together more modestly. Or not. I don’t see anyone demanding or blaming women either way.
It’s not about being offended, it’s about harassment. If Employee A engages in harassing behavior with Employee B and Employee B doesn’t mind, that can still create a hostile work environment for Employee C. Harassment and being offended are not related. For that matter, so are harassment and makeup, or harassment and clothing.
The thought that men are governed by their penises and therefore can’t be expected to behave like decent people is a really convenient lie, and the thought that you have to curb your own behavior simply to avoid setting off a man is similar.
In summary: Do what you like as long as it doesn’t hurt other people. If someone near you is a jerk, it’s because they’re a jerk. If they’re such a jerk that they sexually harass you, it’s not because your bra strap is showing.
CatBus, your cat teeth are showing, and it’s making me…feel things.
This Jordan Peterson thing is just a clear example of someone with an unintelligent opinion that is obviously lacking in any kind of ethical or rational value. I don’t get why we have to go out of our way to find value in opinions that are obviously dumb. The same can be said about the violent video games. The violent video games causing violence myth has been debunked so many times that there’s no reason to address it in conversation. It should be ignored as the distraction that it is.
Even if Peterson is right that makeup brings more sexual harassment (and he justifies the harassment by claiming that men are too stupid to know the rules), that doesn’t make women hypocrites in the actual definition of the word. It would be hypocritical to say that makeup is wrong and then choose to wear makeup. It isn’t hypocritical to wear makeup and not want sexual harassment. So Peterson doesn’t even have the premise of hypocrisy right. So much for academia.
The Person in Question
I find it amazing that Republicans still try to blame movies and video games for school shootings. Remind me again of how these people are the pro-freedom of speech side?
When they try to ban them, let me know.
The argument that troubled individuals engaging in simulated violence can lead to real life violence is plausible.
There is something to be said for the effect of a poor mental diet on one’s choices.
I have amassed a combined library of 420 video games
Hehehe 420
I figured someone would make that connection.
Though actually it is higher now given that I’ve bought games since updating Backloggery (which is where I got that number from.)
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
Even if Peterson is right that makeup brings more sexual harassment
He never said that.
(and he justifies the harassment by claiming that men are too stupid to know the rules)
He didn’t do this. He never at any point says harassment is justified, only that we shouldn’t be surprised that it happens given the lack of a clear rulebook.
that doesn’t make women hypocrites in the actual definition of the word. It would be hypocritical to say that makeup is wrong and then choose to wear makeup. It isn’t hypocritical to wear makeup and not want sexual harassment. So Peterson doesn’t even have the premise of hypocrisy right. So much for academia.
In his argument, the hypocrisy comes from — again, his argument, not mine — wearing makeup to enhance your attractiveness and then being upset at drawing unwanted attention over your attractiveness. What CatBus addresses is crucial: the rules on the street are different than the rules in the office, which adds to the confusion. What a coworker deems “unwanted” will vary from person to person. I told a female coworker years ago that her hair looked great (she’d just had it cut and colored), and she was flattered. Not a chance in hell I’d even mention it in a professional setting today. No way. Maybe that sort of thing isn’t necessary in the workplace, so no big deal, but I think it’s a loss all around when an innocent compliment can be twisted into something that wasn’t intended and saying nice things becomes risky. As CatBus also mentions, a third party who’s offended by someone’s behavior can also file a complaint, so even if you have a good working relationship with a coworker that allows for friendly — or even flirty — behavior, someone within earshot can still fuck up your life by filing a harassment claim.
Also, just a bit more about the enforced monogamy thing (trigger warning for the squeamish: JP video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=185&v=gNwIYOBpvLg
MTFBWY…A
I told a female coworker years ago that her hair looked great (she’d just had it cut and colored), and she was flattered.
Maybe she was flattered.
I told a female coworker years ago that her hair looked great (she’d just had it cut and colored), and she was flattered.
Maybe she was flattered.
She was cool like that.
MTFBWY…A
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/glenn-beck-dons-maga-hat-i-will-vote-for-trump-in-2020
Glenn Beck sells out and embarrasses himself.
The Person in Question
Even if Peterson is right that makeup brings more sexual harassment
He never said that.
It’s the obvious implication. It’s easy to tell what he means.
(and he justifies the harassment by claiming that men are too stupid to know the rules)
He didn’t do this. He never at any point says harassment is justified, only that we shouldn’t be surprised that it happens given the lack of a clear rulebook.
I think we’re never going to see eye to eye on what his statements mean, but I don’t understand this idea that there isn’t a “clear rulebook.” Like I said, not sexually harassing someone is incredibly easy. Here’s how the rules work. If a person’s behavior makes someone uncomfortable, and they continue to do it even after being told that it makes a coworker uncomfortable, then it gets turned over to HR to deal with, and the HR department decides if any disciplinary action needs to take place. That’s a very simple rulebook that anyone at any level of the career ladder can easily understand. There’s no epidemic of people getting fired over completely asexual compliments, especially since businesses can easily get sued for wrongful termination.
The Person in Question
Also, just a bit more about the enforced monogamy thing (trigger warning for the squeamish: JP video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=185&v=gNwIYOBpvLg
This doesn’t address the notion that violence from men is the result of a lack of enforced monogamy, which was a part of his original statement. He also is incredibly prudish, which goes against my ethics, and anti-casual sex, which is something I condone. It also ignores the fact that most people that are married are miserable and a huge percentage of marriages end in divorce. It’s that 1950s notion that marriage and family are inherently meaningful and are the cornerstone to a happy life.
The Person in Question
Conservatives again trying to collapse the economy. Trump, like Bush, has already done the horrible tax plan and is set to deregulate the banks further. All the current right-wing government needs to do is start another war in the Middle East and we’ll be all set for a repeat of the 2008 recession.
The Person in Question