I finally found it! I found the essay I was looking for-yes! This is good stuff, stuff that needs to be shared with my readers. Enjoy...
Intent: To legislate etiquette rather than leave such behaviors up to culture and wait for them to work themselves out in an orderly fashion.
Methods: change the laws, and definitions of “harassment” with an eye on some arbitrary goal of reduction. In other words, tally the number of “incidents” and if its too high, keep expanding till you can scoop up the fish. Change the standard from reasonable person / reasonable woman, to victims standard. This means that whatever a nutcase thinks is the problem, that’s the problem, regardless if others in the community feel the same way. in this women were made “change agents”. a womans accusation was, and became equivalent to, truth
Desired outcome: that women who were fearful (far from the majority), and helpless socially (far from the majority), and more, would then have a “safe” environment that even granny could come to work and not feel threatened by the testosterone atmosphere. That when this offensiveness is removed, what will be left is a angel bright, strawberry shortcake clean world of friends and help meets.
Actual Outcome: given that the limitation was the victim, any nutcase could snag any guy. Given the presumption of guilt on one side and the presumption of innocence on the other, reverse harassment was ignored. Women in power quickly learned that unless their actions were extreme and singled out one person, they could draconically assign things and pocket men at will.
Given that there is no defense from the imaginations of a “victim”, the men endeavored to find ways to protect themselves from LIABILITY.
The really funny thing about it all is that the solution is direct from sibling rivalry. What happens when one child gets favored over another child unduly? What happens when one is believed and the other not believed?
Well, shows you how well women can raise kids too when they make a playground of the work place. what you have is the girls in the sandbox can tattle at will and be believed. The boys have no recourse. So what happens? Well, once in a while a boy will go postal and feel the punishment is worth all the get backs (in adults its murder suicide, in kids its dumping sand on her head). Some will become subjugated to the will to avoid problems and garner adult accolades (mangina’s in adult life, who have no will to play their own games in life, but make womens games and desires their own. Empty people).
But the vast majority will segregate. They will, like spanky and the rest, create the he man women haters club.
Rather than invite the ones with some unbalancing force into their midst, they will link up to create an opposition force. This force may even have other women in it that feel differently as to the situation, or in their real fairness were punished.
So the men, and the few women, link up and in passive aggressive means they work to undo and get rid of the opposition. This is why a woman that makes an allegation ends up living in a SOCIAL atmosphere that is even less tolerable. Her actions don’t just jeopardize or correct the issue at hands; it’s a nuclear weapon for a fly swatter that decimates the office for several years afterwards.
So now you have the outcome of never intended results. That women are hurt more and more by twiddling with things than the pain they get from leaving them alone. They refuse to look back to who told them the pain would be resolved by the misery.
Game theory says that the safest play is to not participate at work any more. period. if the allegations start from a belief and can be supported by the unique belief of an individual, then there is no appeal to the greater mass of reasonable people. The individual becomes your largest liability, and so you avoid them. you avoid all interpersonal contact that is not work related.
In order to do this you have to foster an atmosphere of paranoia. What would be considered paranoia years ago become the defacto norm. taping conversations for future reference, taping meetings for proof of innocence (since this type of conflict is guilty till proven innocent).
And just like in patent law, you avoid with prejudice the one situation that allows someone to do something. Opportunity
American companies will not open up envelopes of product ideas so that their labs don’t create the opportunity for a connection that can lead to a law suit for duplicate work.
Well, this is the natural outcome. Don’t want to pay $100 for a diner date? Then don’t go to dinner! Want to avoid death in a horrible incident, then be someplace else.
If you and I have no interaction, then there can be no misconstrued contact. Without misconstrued contact, or construed contact, there can be no incident and no bad outcome for the man.
The asymmetry of the situation creates an asymmetry in strategies. The women, who have always found work to be a good fishing ground for mates have now found their source dried up. (lesbians tactics win again… how many will turn to women to get their needs filled?).
If you go to wall street this is very evident. The hottest secretaries in the world work wall street. They also have the most chance at the one thing that they need to make or find a mate, and that’s opportunity.
But wait. Opportunity to meet is opportunity to be taken advantage of.
men are a lot more keen on risk assessment than women. they split the risk hairs closer to the margins. Women like a margin of safety larger than men do, and so men need to be better at assessment.
Risk assessment is easy to understand, an art in practice.
Basically you assess the outcomes and the prospective risks with the payoffs and losses involved. it’s a total fudge in the real world.
If you look at the landscape of relationships at work, the men really gain no advantage by participating. In fact in the past it was considered risky, but that risk was balanced by the rewards.
Today, that risk is no longer balanced by any reward.
Even if the relationship works out in the office, a third jealous party can be offended by it happening and sue that she was harassed by the others actions that created a hostile environment where their collusion was an advantage over her single position.
The main thing is that the definition has been expanded to the point where two people who have no power connection can commit harassment in a single incident based on arbitrary content and attribution of meanings.
Go look up harassment….
Despite recent attention, sexual harassment -- defined as offensive, unwanted sexual attention -- remains one of the most persistent problems in the workplace. Nurses are not immune to this insidious form of sex discrimination.
harassment need not come from a supervisor, but could be from a coworker or other person who you encounter at work (physician, patient, salesperson).
So a nurse can file a harassment suit if a patient tells off color jokes when nervous. Would you think that that would make hospital administrators favor male nurses as safer liaisons with the public? (nope, cause then they are worried about the male nurse harassing the female patients – lesbians get a free ticket to the show!).
Here is an example of the new load of concerns that a corporate owner has to worry about because he is the government’s agent in mediating interpersonal relationships and problems. We are no longer fit to handle such things ourselves.
reading the above you realize that draconian response is the safest course for a company as they are penalized for less if the accusation is later found to be warranted, and they are no punished for such action in the case of application to innocent people. This means that its safer to kill all the dogs in case of rabies because we only get punished for successful cases of rabies, not for killing dogs.
5. Interview the parties and witnesses: This is most crucial part of the investigation. Here are some tips on interviewing the parties and witnesses:
Reading the article you will notice that a manager is now supposed to be an interrogator with no knowledge of doing so. the other thing you find out is that at any time a large portion of work productivity can be sucked away by endless investigations and constantly putting out fires.
This legislation makes the craziest bitch the most powerful.
Keep The Parties Apart: If it is possible to do so, modify the work while the investigation is in process so the accused is not in direct contact with the accuser. But don't modify the work of the accuser if it could be interpreted as retaliatory. Talk with the accuser before making a change, asking him or her for suggestions on how best to reasonably accommodate his or her work duties during the investigation.
Assume the accused is telling the truth and act on such to the assumed guilty party.
Sort Out The Facts: This is the hardest part of the investigation. When discrepancies exist between the statements, conduct a second round of interviews. In the final analysis, ask these types of questions: .
While keeping things completely secret have many rounds of investigations that call people away from their work for hours on end until all the stories match. If not, then what?
Well, then you have to use the facts around the information to make a choice, right?
C. Does your "gut" instinct tell you who is telling the truth? Do the facts support your "gut" instinct? And do the parties' past histories (work records, prior disciplinary incidents, performance problems) support it?
Ah, yes… so a female manager will have a different gut reaction than a male… (but here will be womens intuition, a more powerful version of GUT than men have installed).
And if regular work relations are not bad enough.
can anyone say, third job? Overseeing the artificial mother
Claims of Sexual Harassment
To keep safe from a charge of sexual harassment by the nanny, take great care to maintain your relationship with her on a professional level. Sometimes, especially with a live-in nanny or a working relationship in which the nanny is considered one of the family, the line between familiarity and impropriety can be a bit blurry.
In general, the federal laws that prohibit sexual harassment apply only to employers with at least 15 employees; therefore, they will not apply to a nanny situation. However, some states have human rights laws of their own that make essentially all employers liable for harassing conduct of a sexual nature. Examples of conduct that may amount to sexual harassment include: overt sexual advances; obscene comments; language or jokes (verbal or writ¬ten); unwanted physical contact, such as grabbing, rubbing against, or other touching; personal questions of a sexual nature; and, the display of obscene or pornographic material in the work area of the employee.
State laws against sexual harassment usually also prohibit retaliation by an employer if the employee reports harassment to the proper state agency. Typical penalties for a finding of liability for sexual harassment are fines, restitution for lost wages or benefits, reinstatement if the employee has been wrongfully terminated, and punitive damages. The safe course of action, if you have any doubt, is to completely avoid the above types of behavior around the nanny.
So upon hiring a nanny, ones verbal life is curtailed at home!!! Yes, its true… the hiring of an outside person puts a lock on your freedoms to associate, to speak, and to act in your own home.
Bottom line… they have made it a liability to hire women.
Hire a woman and you may have to pay salary for someone who isn’t working (maternity leave)
Hire a woman and you may have to field harassment programs and point people, and lawyer costs
Hire a woman and you will have to allow her to be paid in full during her breast feedings
Hire a woman and you will have to allow her to dress as disruptively as she wants without any recourse
Hire a woman and it becomes dangerous to get rid of her the nuttier she turns out to be.
Hire a woman and she will link up with other nuts and increase the legal load and outcome liability
Like…. Do anything to mitigate this risk, and suffer punishment too…
No wonder offshoring is appealing on many levels.
you want to see destruction due to feminism?
THE ABSURDITY OF REGULATING MODELS' WEIGHT.
by Michelle Cottle
all it Revenge of the Carb Lovers. While much of the Middle East continues to devour itself, the hot controversy to come out of the West this week is Madrid's decision to ban super-skinny models from its fashion week, the Pasarela Cibeles, which begins on September 18th. Responding to complaints from women's groups and health associations about the negative impact of emaciated models on the body image of young women, the Madrid regional government, which sponsors the Pasarela Cibeles, demanded that the show's organizers go with fuller-figured gals, asserting that the industry has a responsibility to portray healthy body images. As Concha Guerra, the deputy finance minister for the regional administration, eloquently put it, "Fashion is a mirror and many teenagers imitate what they see on the catwalk."
Activists' concerns are easy to understand. With ultra-thinness all the rage on the catwalk, your average model is about 5' 9" and 110 pounds. But henceforth, following the body mass index standard set by Madrid, a 5' 9" model must weigh at least 123 pounds. (To ensure there's no cheating, physicians will be on site to examine anyone looking suspiciously svelte.) Intrigued by the move, other venues are considering similar restrictions--notably the city of Milan, whose annual show is considerably more prestigious than Madrid's.
Modeling agencies, meanwhile, are decidedly unamused. Cathy Gould of New York's Elite agency publicly denounced the ban as an attempt to scapegoat the fashion world for eatings disorders--not to mention as gross discrimination against both "the freedom of the designer" and "gazelle-like" models. (Yeah, I laughed, too.) Pro-ban activists acknowledge that many designers and models will attempt to flout the new rules. But in that case, declared Carmen Gonzalez of Spain's Association in Defense of Attention for Anorexia and Bulimia, "the next step is to seek legislation, just like with tobacco."
hoa, there, Carmen. I dislike catwalk freaks--pardon me, I mean human-gazelle hybrids--as much as the next normal woman. But surely most governments have better things to do than pass laws about what constitutes an acceptable butt size. Yes, without the coiffed tresses and acres of eyeliner, many models could be mistaken for those Third World kids that ex-celebs like Sally Struthers are always collecting money to feed. But that, ultimately, is their business. These women are paid to be models--not role models. The fashion world, no matter how unhealthy, is not Big Tobacco. (Though, come to think of it, Donatella Versace does bear a disturbing resemblance to Joe Camel.) And, with all due respect to the Madrid regional government, it is not the job of the industry to promote a healthy body image.
Indeed, there seems to be increasing confusion about what it is the "responsibility" of private industry to do. It is, for example, not the business of McDonald's to promote heart healthiness or slim waistlines. The company's central mission is, in fact, to sell enough fast, cheap, convenient eats to keep its stockholders rolling in dough. If this means loading up the food with salt and grease--because, as a chef friend once put it, "fat is flavor"--then that's what they're gonna do. Likewise, the fashion industry's goal has never been to make women feel good about themselves. (Stoking insecurity about consumers' stylishness--or lack thereof--is what the biz is all about.) Rather, the fashion industry's raison d'être is to sell glamour--to dazzle women with fantastical standards of beauty that, whether we're talking about a malnourished model or a $10,000 pair of gauchos, are, by design, far beyond the reach of regular people.
This is not to suggest that companies should be able to do whatever they like in the name of maximizing profits. False advertising, for instance, is a no-no. But long ago we decided that manufacturing and marketing products that could pose a significant risk to consumers' personal health and well-being--guns, booze, motorcycles, Ann Coulter--was okay so long as the dangers were fairly obvious (which is one reason Big Tobacco's secretly manipulating the nicotine levels in cigarettes to make them more addictive--not to mention lying about their health risks--was such bad form). The notion that the fashion industry should endure government meddling because its products or marketing techniques may pose an indirect risk to consumers by promoting an unhealthy desire for thinness seems dubious at best. More often than not, in the recognized trade-off between safety and freedom of choice, consumers tend to go with Option B.
Of course, whenever the issue of personal choice comes up, advocates of regulation typically point to the damage being done to impressionable young people. Be it consuming alcohol, overeating, smoking, watching violent movies, having anything other than straight, married, strictly procreation-aimed sex--whenever something is happening that certain people don't like, the first response is to decry the damage being done to our kids and start exploring legislative/regulatory remedies.
ut here, again, the fashion industry's admittedly troubling affinity for women built like little boys doesn't seem to clear the hurdle for intervention. It was one thing for R.J. Reynolds to specifically target teens with its cigarette advertising. And, while I disagree with the attempts to make the war on fat the next war on smoking (for more on why, see here and here), you could at least make a similar argument that junk-food peddlers use kid-targeted advertising to sell youngsters everything from cupcakes to soda to french fries. But there's a difference between industries that specifically go after young consumers and those that happen to catch their eye--like, say, the fashion industry or Hollywood.
So let's give all those chain-smoking, Evian-guzzling, "gazelle-like" human-coatracks a break. In another couple of years, their metabolisms will slow down or they'll accidentally ingest some real food, and they'll be unceremoniously tossed off the catwalk like a bad pantsuit. Until then, in the name of personal choice, they should be allowed to strut their stuff--no matter how hideously skinny they are.
Good stuff, wouldn't you agree? Til next time...