What All The Harassment Stories In Astronomy Really Mean (Synopsis)

Looking at this from the sidelines, it almost seems that academia is years, if not decades behind the business world in terms of inter-personal relations and in general individuals rights/freedoms.

Not saying that discrimination in the business workplace doesn't exist, but am saying that there are instruments and mechanisms that deal with that. And in general the awareness is very much alive. Getting a notice for harrasment of any kind in a corporation is as good as getting fired immediately.

While in the academia, having talked with people in it, usually nothing like that exists. In fact, I don't know of any academic institutions that puts any points or even inquires about persons.... well, personality or anything for that matter.. other than his academic rating. So, as long as you have the system which doesn't pay attention to individuals traits, and/or only requires or recognizes no. of papers published or grants won, it will come as no surprise that things like this happen and continue to happen for years. Shame really. But not surprising. Hard thing is to face the facts, then the healing can begin :)

Not at all, SL.

If 10% of men are assholes, to some defined level of "asshole", then in an industry equally represented by men and women, each woman gets 1/10th of an asshole's attention, on average. In an industry with 91% men and 9% women, each woman gets 100% of an asshole's full time attention, again on average.

Therefore it will "appear" that men in the latter case are 10x the asshole rate of the former.

When it's still just the same 10%.

Now add in confirmation bias and the mantra that there are scads and scads of "evil" men in whatever industry you choose to deride. Cases confirming this suspicion will be lumped together into "proof they're all assholes". Cases disproving it will be discarded as "Only what they should be doing". And add that if there are two ways to interpret someone's actions or words, that you will pick the one that most comforts your preconceptions, then you get an entirely fictitious problem, caused by the assertion that there is a problem.

See Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs Women, where there is nothing but re-framing anything and everything to conform to "the evil patriarchy is real!".

The best thing for women to do is to get into these jobs. PUT UP WITH THE UNWANTED ATTENTION. Just like everyone else has to who doesn't have a social preconstructed excuse to not take any crap.

The healing can't go ahead when you want those who aren't the problem to believe they are the problem.

When women outnumbered see a full-time-asshole latched onto them, then propose that 100% of men therefore are assholes, then 90% of the men can't do anything other than look about in concerned wonderment at what the hell you're going on about, because they only see about 10% of men being assholes.

"So, as long as you have the system which doesn’t pay attention to individuals traits"

Such as gender? Sexism arises when you don't make a note of gender????

@Sinisa #1

Academia is absolutely decades behind the business world in sexual harassment. In the business world, employees don't have tenure. Academic harassers are so much more protected than those in the commercial private sector. The news articles, surveys, and martyrs allow Academia to put on a show about a culture change, but the protective framework that is a large part of the problem remains mostly intact. At the end of the article, it was said that it would be a failure if we're still having the same discussions in 5-10 years. Here's my prediction: Get ready for failure. Human nature is what it is and unless there is a constant imminent threat to their economic livelihood then we will still be having this discussion in 5-10 years.

Yeah, right.

But who needs tenure when you can steer 10 businesses into the tarpits, declare bankrupcy and get the same or better job elsewhere before the golden parachute has even deployed?

But here's me thinking you'd be all for tenured professors, because the government would be unable to coerce them and force them to only say what the government wants, as they work under the government dollar. That's what you claim as being why 97% and more of climate scientists agree AGW is a real and present danger: the government pays for their salary and will withdraw it.

Do you think you could make up your mind as to whether science needs to be independent of the employers' whims or not?

Or is it just that you completely fail at the task of being intelligent, therefore those most prominently educated must be just plain bad people, and all you have to do is find an excuse as to why?

Ethan,

In your Forbes article you say
“Other fields, where sexism, racism and other forms of bigotry are far worse, including:
•physics,
•computer science,
•engineering,
•philosophy,
•and economics,
are still hotbeds for this type of unacceptable behavior.”

Relating to Wow’s points in #2, what is the percentage female representation in astronomy vs. those other fields?

Secondly, if sexually-harassing males are still with us today after millions of years, as are LGBTQ, maybe they just evolved that way. That’s who they ARE. If so, aren’t you unfairly discriminating against the evolutionary nature of these men?

sn, being an asshole and congenital liar like you isn't an evolutionary behavior, it's a choice you make - and sadly, exercise everywhere you go.
It's the same is being someone who chooses to sexually harass others.

It wouldn't be any more right for a gay or lesbian person to harass someone of their own sex.

The problem as I see it is that it's EXPECTED that only men do it and only to women.

Women only fitness classes?

So no such thing as lesbians, then. Remember, the idea is that women are uncomfortable around men because they're all sex beasts. And apparently none of them are gay.

I think that a large part of what's "going wrong" here is that what is being defined as unacceptable when counted up as a general figure is one thing, and the examples of such unacceptable behaviour is being brought up only where they meet a different, and much more widely recognised as bad, definition.

The widely touted study showing 20% of women are raped in US campuses includes "coerced sexual intercourse", which could be seen as "rapey", But what counts as coercion is as little as "being visibly sad at being told no". Which totally isn't.

When child molestation is made unlawful, the hue and cry for punishment is for the most heinous version, where some middle aged male (it's always male, despite the huge minority [or even equality] of women doing it) against some primary school six-year old girl (it's always a girl, despite boys being bummed in huge numbers: ask your RC priest). But the law as written, so as not to appear "weak" on kiddie fiddlers, is so wide ranging that it covers far far more than that scenario, even down to the post-pubescent (therefore not paedophilia) taking photos of themselves naked being arrested. AND FACING THE FULL PUNISHMENT.

But that many cases are held against a presumption of something far worse than it is doesn't make those actually bad cases OK.

But in a toxic environment where even questioning what went on is shouted down by a violent mob as "rape apology", its absolutely not possible to make any discussion on where it is.

Because one group is just as justified by taking the segment that supports their conclusion as the other is. And discussion on what is acceptable cannot take in at least one of those scenarios, because it will shout it down as "RAPE!".

Sexual harassment is wrong. Period.

The discussion has to be what IS sexual harassment. And it can't rely on presupposition.

Because the definition, if weak or broad enough, means that it's absolutely valid to say Sexual harassment isn't wrong, period.

So if we wish to make it wrong, we need to know what it is that IS wrong. And agree to that definition, broadly enough that it carries the same weight as the other laws.

After all, bans on violence don't count in self defence. Murder doesn't mean arresting every soldier.

dean, thing is you are right.

FOR SOME DEFINITION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT. For example, handing over dick pics or phoning with sexual advances late at night, or sending your soiled frilly panties through the post, are all wrong and not "inherent" in men or women.

If saying "Hey, smile, pretty lady" on the street is sexual harassment, YOU ARE WRONG.

Computer science is an interesting case. Not only is it one where one of the founding giants of the field was a woman (Adm. Grace Hopper) but 25 years ago CS students were approximately 50% women, and to begin with the "leakage" from the CS pipeline was fairly modest, with the graduating PhDs not too far from parity.

Over time, that changed. Today, CS has one of the worst disparities in the physical sciences, with most of the female professors being well along towards retirement.

Something happened. But whatever it was, the just-so stories told about women in academia have to confront that particular history.

PS: the rocket scientists in the Forbes web team are still rejecting browsers that don't even have ad blockers. If they're really worried about false negatives, they could try rejecting all traffic.

@D.C. Sessions #11

If you are using Google Chrome, install this extension:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/forbes-splash-screen-bypa/gji…

It will solve your problem.

Wow using the extreme position of some feminists to support your point does not do anything to give it credibility and smacks of a lack of confidence.

I was certainly subject to sexual harrassment as a biology major - it is not acceptable for a lecturer to fondle the bottoms or breasts of his female students - we all knew who he was, but how can you avoid someone who will cheerfully do this in a lab class he is running? Well apart from moving away any time he came near, which did lead to the 'amusing' spectacle of all the female students surging away from where ever he was; not conducive to learning anything. And when we made a formal complaint we were disgusted to discover that ours was by no means the first and that no action had been taken at all, nor was it as a result of our complaint. Neither I nor any of my fellow female students thought there was any problem with the other male staff, because of the behaviour of one lecturer, there wasn't, they treated us with the respect due to any student

"If saying “Hey, smile, pretty lady” on the street is sexual harassment, YOU ARE WRONG."

Well no, I'm not, but then apparently I was raised to be a better person than you.

Sinisa:

Looking at this from the sidelines, it almost seems that academia is years, if not decades behind the business world in terms of inter-personal relations and in general individuals rights/freedoms.

I would tend to agree. I've seen people fired for inappropriately yelling at a junior employee. I've also seen people fired for inappropriate comments about co-worker clothing. Typically after one warning, but no long-term pattern of this sort of behavior would have been tolerated in the corporate 'at-will' places I've worked in, oh, about the last 15 years or so.

Getting a notice for harrasment of any kind in a corporation is as good as getting fired immediately.

Well here I would disagree. Most people at least get a warning to shape up. But they rarely get three or four.

See Noevo:

Secondly, if sexually-harassing males are still with us today after millions of years, as are LGBTQ, maybe they just evolved that way. That’s who they ARE. If so, aren’t you unfairly discriminating against the evolutionary nature of these men?

If two gay people are having sex on a desk in the middle of work, they're going to get fired. If straight people are having sex on a desk in the middle of work, they're going to get fired. And if some guy indulges in some baser instinct and inappropriately touches a female (or male) co-worker, they're going to get fired.

See how everyone is getting treated equally SN? Nobody is fired for mind crimes, but everyone is responsible for their on the job behavior.

"Wow using the extreme position of some feminists to support your point does not do anything to give it credibility and smacks of a lack of confidence. "

And, jezlet, using the extreme actions of some harassers to support your pogrom does not do anything to give it credibility and smacks of a lack of confidence.

Not defining terms removes credibility and smacks of weasel wording.

Needing to attack the person rather than the argument is yet more confidence destroying rhetoric that smacks of a lack of confidence in your veracity.

"we all knew who he was, but how can you avoid someone who will cheerfully do this in a lab class he is running?"

Tell him to stop.

Duh.

At least as a woman it's fine to say no, whereas, to quote Zapp Brannigan, if you don't want sex right here right now with any woman, "What are you? Gay???".

But you're not a man, so you've never lived as a man. Those who aren't male must TRY to imagine it and must put aside their preconceptions, hard as this is.

But if you don't try, it's easy to make up "just so stories" that fit your preferred narrative.

Which is precisely what that lecturer is doing, likely enough: none of you bothered to tell him no, so you must want it. After all, you KNOW how sex mad young people are when first allowed away from home, right? And it's harmless enough, after all, men being ass-grabbed like it, right? 'cos men just love sex, can't get enough, amirite?

It's easier for the coward to not ask or not even bother thinking about others and just insert some palliative story into the narrative to make them a good person or the other a bad one.

Attempting to empathise can easily end with you being the bad person, and that's really not wanted.

"Neither I nor any of my fellow female students thought there was any problem with the other male staff"

So there wasn't a problem with the entire field of study? So what your story REALLY means is that there are a very few people who are assholes, and there's not a huge problem with myscogyny in that field that everyone else must assume guilt for.

Your story is just another extreme position of some lecturers...

I'm sure you can fill the rest in.

"Typically after one warning, but no long-term pattern of this sort of behavior would have been tolerated in the corporate ‘at-will’ places I’ve worked in"

Except with important employees. E.g. the C*O.

When you're fungible, and your work not wanted, and they're downsizing and don't have to pay, of course they won't bother with the expense of seeing justice done. Just railroad out on the claim, it's cheaper.

Look at the faked rape charges at universities to see why summary punishment is the opposite of justice.

"If two gay people are having sex on a desk in the middle of work, they’re going to get fired."

See Nowt may not be thinking of having sex in the middle of work as the example, though. To quote someone earlier, can't remember who, "using the extreme position of some sexual misconduct cases to support your point does not do anything to give it credibility and smacks of a lack of confidence.”

Just like any other gradation, there will be some cases both of you agree on are wrong. There are some you will agree on are not wrong. And the bits between will be agreed on by one or the other but not both.

Two gay men kissing? See Nowt thinks is really wrong and should be banned. It's as "bad" as having sex at work. You probably think it fine. The French wouldn't see what the damn fuss is about.

If you think sexual harassment is having sex at work, then there's almost no problem anywhere.

"“If saying “Hey, smile, pretty lady” on the street is sexual harassment, YOU ARE WRONG.”

Well no, I’m not,"

Well, no, you are.

"apparently I was raised to be a better person than you."

Apparently you think being grumpy and not caring about other people's feelings and state of mind is "being a better person"!

LOL!

@ Wow #2

I understand what you are saying with the statistics, and agree. I do agree as well, that it won't be any better until the scales equal on average.

I do not agree however that the "wronged" side should just put up with it until such time as there is "safety in numbers".

Eric mentioned something interesting about business world, which IMO is important and different than in academia.. it's not just sexual harassment.. but any harassment. Has any professor ever been fired for bad language or shouting or basically treating students as crap? If there are.. I would be interested in numbers fired vs. complaints filed.

@Wow #3
I didn't mean those traits.. I meant psychological/social traits... what kind of person they are, virtues, faults, character traits in other words.

@Denier #4

I agree that until there is a clear mechanism within the institutions, where the ones commiting the harassment don't feel untouchable... it will continue to be this way even in 10 years.

@DC
concerning computer sciences and fall of female professors.... just a thought.. but maybe most of the 80's post-grad women went in the private sector... 90's were a grand time for IT. Why would stay in the academia when you could earn 10x more in a short period of time in the dot com era... you still get patents, you still can publish.... and you don't have to teach or do paperwork. Microsoft alone created some 1000+ millioners.. in the 90's from within their own employees.. Not saying that is the cause.. just thinking out aloud that it might be to a certain degree.

@ Eric #15
overall we agree.. as far as harassment notice.. You are correct.. one usually does get a warning to clean his/her act, but if they don't.. like you said.. 3rd or 4th time simply doesn't happen.

But Wow is correct in one point... and it's true for any field.. private or government.. the higher you are in the food chain, the more you can get away with.. or in other words.. more things will be tolerated for longer.. but since that applies to a CEO as well as to a university dean or professor emeritus.. like good physicists.. we can disregard that as a constant to both systems, and focus on the variables :)

"II do agree as well, that it won’t be any better until the scales equal on average. "

Actually, it won't be any better in itself. It'll be just as bad. What WILL be better is the life of the women in the field. Men won't get "less harassing" because of a lot of women. Or if this is the claim, that claim *needs to be proven*. Not just asserted.

For example, if it were high-power sports, I could see it being worse, by issue of the higher levels of testosterone in male sports making more aggressive attitudes likely, and that could be constituted by those not wishing the aggression to be harassing.

Of course, it could just as easily be proclaimed that women-heavy industries tend to be much more harassing to women than male dominated ones because of the social heirachy requires social standing rather than physical objective differences (wealth, strength, position, whatever), therefore the method to "reorg" is harassment with women rather than violence with men.

After all, the alpha male can point to their possessions as "proof" of their status. There's no object to point at for female alphas, only the size of the group professing subjugation by the putative alpha female. Which means to reorg you have to destroy the standing via social engineering, aka harassment.

But this would require evidence if I wished to proffer it as fact, not mere personal experience and a hand wave.

"I do not agree however that the “wronged” side should just put up with it until such time as there is “safety in numbers”."

It IS, however, what those without protected status have to do. Put up with it.

"man up", "grow a pair". "You're bigger than that".

It's wrong for all sides.

Moreover, sufferage had to put up with not being able to vote. For men as well as for women: one of the overlooked facts is that universal sufferage for women wasn't really that long after universal sufferage for men. And the former was "justified" with the draft: if you could be forced by the political class to go to war and risk your life, you should have some say in the political class, right? Women refused the draft. Moreover, many of the prominent in the sufferage movement for women shamed men into going to WWI. "Put up with it" for the draft.

The thing is that NOT putting up with it WILL ACTUALLY MAKE THE LIVES OF OTHERS WORSE, because if you leave or refuse to enter, those who do go in will see a higher prevalence of stalkers per woman.

This, though, may be another case of "I will think of what I think that word means, then argue as if that were the meaning". Because "putting up with it" is NOT the same as "lie back and think of England". IOW NOT accepting sexual assault or giving in to sexual advances. It's not bothering to make a big song and dance about casual thoughtlessness or your feelings of "offence".

After all, gay pride parades offend many christians. This is not enough to ban them, and christians are told, rightly, that they must put up with it. They have no right not to be offended.

Yet the definition of harassment in these extralegal conditions ARE a codification of "(some of you) have a right not to be offended".

"but since that applies to a CEO as well as to a university dean or professor emeritus."

True, but my point wasn't that it didn't happen in academia, but that the proposition that businesses providing "at will" were "more proactive" (a word I loath: who is against activity? it's a shit word) was IRRELEVANT COMPARISON.

For the reasons you accorded agreement with.

Professor is to academia what C*O is to business.

And in that regard, there's no evidence that academia is worse. And may be a hell of a lot better, since academia tends to be more left/liberal and business right/conservative.

"Has any professor ever been fired for bad language or shouting or basically treating students as crap?"

As Billy Conolly once said: show me the English equivalent of "Fuck off" and I'll happily use it. It certainly isn't "Go away". Bad language isn't harassment. Being offended is the one being offended's problem. Shouting isn't harassment. Drop something heavy on your foot and see how you harass gravity...

Treating your students like crap?

a) that isn't shouting at them, therefore why conflate or contain both things in one statement?
b) "every" employer treats their employees like crap. We just have to put up with it, because they can just fire us and hire someone else, because it's an "at will" state, and we're LUCKY to have a job that nearly pays for a roof over our heads.

"@Wow #3
I didn’t mean those traits.."

Those were the traits in the article subject: sexual and harassment. And why are these traits, which AREN'T in the papers, not a cause for this "problem"?

"what kind of person they are, virtues, faults, character traits in other words."

Who gives a shit? Newton was a class-A asshole.

Principia Mathematica isn't a POS just because Newton was a twat.

Do you know where such traits ARE used? In the hiring process. It shouldn't have, as the abstract for Newtonian Mechanics, "Sir Isaac Newton is an overbearing loudmouth with a vendetta against several prominent scientists for not accepting his authority". Why? Because it's pointless.

"Eric mentioned something interesting about business world, which IMO is important and different than in academia"

Steve Jobs.
Steve "Developers developers developers" Ballmer.
Linus Torvalds.
Theo deRaadt.
Donald Trump.

"Yet the definition of harassment in these extralegal conditions ARE a codification of “(some of you) have a right not to be offended”."

Yep. and that's the rub of the leftist weaponization of "victimhood":
The Rise of Victimhood Culture:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimh…

"Yep. and that’s the rub of the leftist weaponization of “victimhood”:"

Nope, it's the rightwing co-option of left wing liberalism.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/opinions/costello-gotcha-questions-debates

See also Trump's "That's so offensive" speech to Cruz. Rightwing are first to the "You can't say THAT!" pump.

CBN TV - Atheist Billboards Anger Las Vegas Christians - CBN.com

http://www.cbn.com/tv/1367394629001

leftist organisation???

"Nope, it’s the right wing co-option of left wing liberalism."
Which proves my point. Your reply is not a rebuttal but only a confirmation of successful tactics to which I already affirmed.

."CBN TV – Atheist Billboards Anger Las Vegas Christians – CBN.com"

Ethan, can you please change Wowzers name from Wow to Cherry Picker? She has certainly earned it.

Oh! and Trump is the next US President

"“Nope, it’s the right wing co-option of left wing liberalism.”
Which proves my point."

No it doesn't. PC didn't take off as a workable strategy until the right also embraced it.

But it's no a leftwing thing any more.

By your acceptance that the right use it widely, you are proving my claim and disproving the validity of yours.

"Ethan, can you please change Wowzers name from Wow to Cherry Picker?"

That's not a cherry. It's a black swan to your assertion that all swans are white, teabagger.

"Oh! and Trump is the next US President"

Absolutely not. Even Hilary wins by 8 points against Trumping. Bernie wins by 19.

Your best bet to win is for Trump to lose and Hilary to win the selection. Your worst bet is for Trumpeter to win.

"PC didn’t take off as a workable strategy until the right also embraced it."

How do ya figure?
Hell there is a shit load of evangelicals that are not united. Gay Marriage, ect not much uniting God fearing folks anymore as the fix is in. You Atheist should be all giddy that folks of faith are saying "Fuckit" have your world.

"Absolutely not. Even Hilary wins by 8 points against Trumping. Bernie wins by 19."
Nein Boudicca Nein, . Hitlary is about to be indicted. If not formally, certainly privately. Even 20% of Demtards vote Trump over her.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/democrats-vote-for-trump/2016/01/09/id…

"How do ya figure?"

That it's now everywhere and even into law, when at the heyday of liberalism as a power (the 60's), it wasn't in any shape or form.

But in the 90s and more in the 2000s+, there's a shitload of law coming out with it, and the poltics are even further to the right than at any time in the recent industrialised past.

Even Ronnie Reagan was to the left of Obama and Hilary.

Only while the right had the stage and could boo everyone off did "PC" get legislated into existence.

Duh.

"Hitlary is about to be indicted. If"

No more than Shrub is for war crimes against humanity.

"Even 20% of Demtards vote Trump over her."

But in a bipartisan vote, Hilary gets near 45% and Trumping gets 38%.

Hilary v Cruz? Cruz wins by a couple of points.

Trumping would be the best thing to happen for the democrats: they'd win handily. And it would be manna from heaven for Bernie: he would win a LANDSLIDE.

"God fearing folks anymore as the fix is in."

What a retarded claim!

Alabama Justice: Order Against Gay Marriage Still in Place - ABC ...
abcnews.go.com/.../alabama-justice-judges-refuse-gay-marriage-licenses-36124910
6 Jan 2016 ... Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore on Wednesday said state probate ... the state's probate judges to refuse to issue marriage licenses to all ...

And Kim Davis, 'nuff said.

"Even Ronnie Reagan was to the left of Obama and Hilary."
Rock On Cherry picker...

Wow you are imputing actions to me that I have never taken, I have no progrom against men, I have made one formal complaint against one man who when in a position of power over me abused me physically. You might want to check the meaning of progrom before you use it again. Why didn't we say no to the lecturer concerned? We were young, frightened and he gave us marks that would contribute to our final degree grade, none of us wanted to risk getting a fail because we complained which is why we waited until after that year was marked to make the formal complaint. He kenw damn well he shouldnt have been touching his students (and incidentally it would have been no more aceptable had it been male students he lied to cop a feel of), he had been told not to previously, but took no notice. As for the narrative that all men want sex all the time, well I may have been being lied to by a lot of men over the years, but I think you are talking rubbish and generalising your experience to every other man; apart from anything else if all men really spent all their time thinking about sex they wouldn't get anything done. The point of my anecdote was to demonstrate that it is possible to object to harrassment without hating all men, just as the amount men think about sex varies, you seem to be trying to fit all humans into one of two boxes when on most things sex included there is a spectrum. The fact that you are thinking about having sex all the time does explain your disjointed posting style, you can choose what you think about, if you want to convince with coherent arguments you could try thinking about your oints more and sex less.

Wow I am sorry that you have never had a decent boss, it probably goes a long way to explain your attitudes as work takes up so much of our lives. I have had decent bosses, people who understood that they got more out of their wokers by treating them well than they would have by abusing them. There are numerous behavioural experiments showing this, but from the way you are talking I am not sure you'd accept the evidence however strong it is.

"“Even Ronnie Reagan was to the left of Obama and Hilary.”
Rock On Cherry picker…"

Please read up on what cherry picking means, retardo.

"Wow you are imputing actions to me "

No I'm not. Please stop trying to play the victim card and lay the villain one down on me.

"I have no progrom against men"

A hyperbole is an extreme exaggeration used to make a point. It is like the opposite of “understatement.” It is from a Greek word meaning “excess.” Hyperboles can be found in literature and oral communication.

Learn to read.

"when in a position of power over me abused me physically"

Yeah, right. But that covers a HELL of a lot of ground. All the way from touching your shoulder (a common thing to do when you either wish to comfort them or to direct them to a precise position) up to beating the crap out of you. Seems like you love hyperbole, but just can't recognise it...

"We were young, frightened and he gave us marks that would contribute to our final degree grade"

So you used your sex to get better grades without having to do the work, and abused the weakness of a man brought up to think that he has to do all the moves because women have no agency, they're only and always the victim. Something feminism insists on spinning as absolute impervious truth.

"He kenw damn well he shouldnt have been touching his students"

And not being a boy, you won't know whether he touched the male students the same way. You know, to get them to stand where they need to be. Can you account for confirmation bias in your anecdote?

"As for the narrative that all men want sex all the time, well I may have been being lied to by a lot of men over the years, but I think you are talking rubbish and generalising your experience to every other man"

Not me, toots. Women want a man to do the asking, do the chasing, and are always the aggressive. Funny how you decide that a pogrom is what you're not doing, yet will do the same thing to me as you whined about in your opening gambit.

Definitely not a genuine disputant.

"The point of my anecdote was to demonstrate that it is possible to object to harrassment without hating all men"

The point was to show that women are being harassed. However, what your VERY TINY SECTION that I even pointed out, shows that this isn't a widespread problem. Since the god damned subject of this thread is how endemic this crap is, you REALLY need to know what the hell we're talking about before you leap to unfounded accusations, girl.

"Wow I am sorry that you have never had a decent boss"

Goodness. More fake concern. Where the fucking hell do you get THAT from??? Your ass?

"Please read up on what cherry picking means, retardo."
Umm perhaps you should read up on it dipshit, cuz you ALWAYS do it. In fact, you take it a another step further which I would term you a Syllogistic Cherry Picker (as well as booger eater).

"Cherry picking, when used figuratively, refers to selective extraction of points in an argument in order to refute or affirm them while ignoring others which will not support the point(s) being made".

"Funny how you decide that a pogrom is what you’re not doing, yet will do the same thing to me as you whined about in your opening gambit."

Nope, Your the time tested Anti-Semite who hates Gods people and persecutes them. Not Jazzlet.

"“Please read up on what cherry picking means, retardo.”
Umm perhaps you should read up on it "

Ummm. No, already done. Now piss off to the dump thread where your idiocy won't clutter up this thread where the adults can talk.

A counterexample is a special kind of example that disproves a statement or proposition. Counterexamples are often used in math to prove the boundaries of possible theorems. In algebra, geometry, and other branches of mathematics, a theorem is a rule expressed by symbols or a formula.

"Wow you are imputing actions to me that I have never taken,"
Jazzlet, You are correct. You just have to view Wozer's comments as those's of a scorned woman and then they make sense. All be it irrational but context helps understand her irrationality.

"Now piss off to the dump thread where your idiocy won’t clutter up this thread where the adults can talk."

Perhaps you should follow your own advise since your childish rebuttal antics have already soiled this thread into the adolescent abyss.

Wow:

Two gay men kissing? See Nowt thinks is really wrong and should be banned. It’s as “bad” as having sex at work. You probably think it fine. The French wouldn’t see what the damn fuss is about.

Its not harassment obviously, but its still inappropriate behavior in a lot of business circumstances. Obviously if it's a company picnic nobody's going to care if you're kissing your spouse, but if you're in a formal meeting with clients and you do it, no that's generally not tolerated. Its like falling asleep or having a personal conversation on your cell phone; it shows unprofessionalism. So non-harassment kissing could also be a firing offense, depending on the specific circumstances. Of course where you, Sinisia and I all agree and where See Noevo would probably not, is that we would treat gay and straight couples the same (both okay to kiss at the picnic, both not okay to kiss in the meeting., etc.), whereas he might not.

Sinisa [paraphrasing Wow]:

But Wow is correct in one point… and it’s true for any field.. private or government.. the higher you are in the food chain, the more you can get away with

Yes agreed. However in terms of academia vs. corporate worlds, if academic harassment only really occurred at the President and Provost level and all the professors did as little of it as managers do in the corporate world, I think that would still be a significant improvement over today. Still not perfect at any level, but certainly better.

"Its not harassment obviously, but its still inappropriate behavior in a lot of business circumstances"

Why? Two married people kiss goodbye when they leave. What's wrong about two men, voluntarily kissing?

"Obviously if it’s a company picnic nobody’s going to care if you’re kissing your spouse"

Why is that obvious? It's still supposed to be business, right?

"So non-harassment kissing could also be a firing offense"

Well, yeah, in "at will" states, it being a monday can be a firing offence. I don't think you really know why, you just doff your cap and say "thank you, m'lud". Rather pathetic for a country that founded itself on discarding royalty and promoting egality.

"However in terms of academia vs. corporate worlds, if academic harassment only really occurred at the President and Provost level"

However, if those were the only "essential" posts who get away with all the crap in the business world, you'd have a point. But since this is nowhere near the case, you don't.

Also note as an aside, C*O aren't the president of a company, and it's not even just the CEO. The asterisk is a placehoder for other characters, a metacharacter.

"Why? Two married people kiss goodbye when they leave. What’s wrong about two men, voluntarily kissing?"

Because it violates a physiological and social norm.

"Why is that obvious? It’s still supposed to be business, right?"

Nope, it's called a work relaxed casual environment.
Would 99% of companies allow you to sit at your desk working while sipping on a margarita? No, but having one at the company dinner is fine.
It's perspective. A few drinks at the company party is fine. Getting sloshed and hitting on the bosses wife is not.

"Well, yeah, in “at will” states, it being a monday can be a firing offence. I don’t think you really know why, you just doff your cap and say “thank you, m’lud”. Rather pathetic for a country that founded itself on discarding royalty and promoting egality."

Well No, you can't just fire people in at will work states or any with out just cause otherwise you risk headaches from Lawyers and Labor boards.
Firing someone "through no fault of your own." is bad. What is done is called a "Layoff".
So yes you can part your employee in at work states but how you label the separation IS a big deal.

"However, if those were the only “essential” posts who get away with all the crap in the business world, you’d have a point. But since this is nowhere near the case, you don’t."

Funny thing here is that if these same C*O get away with poisoning children of African mining locations to bring you rare earths to have your Ipads and iphones folks could care less.

"Because it violates a physiological and social norm."

No it doesn't. AT ALL. IN THE LEAST. It's only a christian norm, and that only for the last few decades.

Kiss your son goodnight? "Violates a physiological and social norm!"???

And what physiological norm would it violate???

"Nope, it’s called a work relaxed casual environment."

Nope, it's called work. Try sexually harassing someone at a works do. Let us know if you get jailed or just sacked.

"Would 99% of companies allow you to sit at your desk working while sipping on a margarita?"

Unless that's some sort of code word for kissing someone, who gives a shit?

"Well No, you can’t just fire people in at will work states or any with out just cause otherwise you risk headaches from Lawyers and Labor boards."

All you need to do is fire them and not fill the post. Job done. All the reason is "It's a monday". And what headache? You need money to hire a lawyer and there's nothing about "headache" that means you win even your cost of lawsuit back for being fired.

It would be different if you had a *union* to defend you, but you don't want that because you've all been brainwashed into thinking that's just one tiny step away from Stalinist Russia.

"Funny thing here is ..."

Funny thing there is that you're just proving my damn point.

In academia you're not producing new ipods or whatever, so you don't get the general public fighting for you because they want the new shiny. Indeed you'll get the opposite. See LHC.

Additionally, what if your spouse is the same sex?

See Nowt would still find that as uncomfortable as dry humping your wife at the works picnic.

“Its not harassment obviously, but its still inappropriate behavior in a lot of business circumstances”

Why? Two married people kiss goodbye when they leave. What’s wrong about two men, voluntarily kissing?

Nothing, in that circumstance. Thus the last six words of my quote. A lot /= all.

Well, yeah, in “at will” states, it being a monday can be a firing offence. I don’t think you really know why, you just doff your cap and say “thank you, m’lud”. Rather pathetic for a country that founded itself on discarding royalty and promoting egality.

Wow you argue about just about everything and I have no intention of getting into a 'value of job security' debate with you. Yep, the system is flawed and open to abuse. So is the tenure system. So are median solutions. There is probably no job security solution that is a "best" fit for everyone; job security is a form of benefit and different employees will value it differently just as different employees value health and retirement benefits differently. Personally I like being an at-will employee but I certainly don't expect everyone to share my preference. If you don't, that's fine by me.

"Nothing, in that circumstance. Thus the last six words of my quote. A lot /= all."

But See Nowt would see it as inappropriate, offensive and extremely harassing. See also the Trump supporter. Given that this sexual harassment is defined by the mens rea of the VICTIM, not the "assailant", why would this NOT be harassment?

"Yep, the system is flawed and open to abuse."

Yet you proffer this abuse as "proof" that business does better in punishing harassment, when it's not proven that this is the case AT ALL.

Is your reason not to get into an argument so that your preconceptions and biases don't get challenged, so that you can hold them to your breast and cherish them without qualm or worry about them being mere shibboleths?

(apologies, put this on the wrong thread)

Oh, and before you go claiming that those two gay men are kissing each other, not kissing See Nowt or the trumpeter

a) If you were kissing your wife, this would be the same thing too: unless your wife is See Nowt…
b) Donglegate. Jokes overheard, eavesdropper offended, one person fired. Not a joke to that eavesdropper.

Is your reason not to get into an argument so that your preconceptions and biases don’t get challenged, so that you can hold them to your breast and cherish them without qualm or worry about them being mere shibboleths?

Yes wow, that is exactly it. You have nailed me completely. You may now declare a complete victory and go tilt at people on other threads.

"Yes wow, that is exactly it"

So you really mean it, or are you trying to be "sarcastic"?

Because the latter, though more likely, merely indicates how little you know or care about whether your bigotries and preconceptions are right, you will hold on to them and if that requires demonising any dissent or summarily dismissing any contrary idea or view as being somehow so utterly broken that you don't need to even consider neither why it is nor whether there's any problem in your own blinkered view.

This is really no different to what creationists, flat earthers, truthers (of whatever stripe) and climate deniers do.

It's no better when you do it, eric.