This. I have had to sit through training where the same thing was said.
Interestingly, first it was called "sexual harassment training" and that led to snickers because it means how to do it right. Then it was renamed to "anti-sexual harassment training" and it's ironically wrong because it means against sex, or maybe against men, whereas it SHOULD be "anti-harassment" training and guess what... sexual is just one kind of harassment and none of them are ok.
What we ended up with, was guidelines brought up specifically by the women. They included obvious things like groping, and demanding sex for one thing or another. Another that many of the normal guys never thought of was the "doorway block", where a person would block a doorway, leaving the (usually) woman no choice if she wanted to exit than to brush against him. Well now, that's just fucking creepy.
Touching was not intrinsically harassment unless you asked them not to touch you, and they repeatedly did, or the touch was obviously related to sex. That even manke sense, as I worked with a few women who were "touchers". I knew what they were about, it was a matter of communication, and their choice.
A guy was allowed to tell a woman her earrings were nice.
After the cold war precipitated by the women's studies majors - who were obviously misandrysts, it was a much better situation. #metoo with it's guilt by accusation, destroying men's careers with no due process is merely a step way backwards.
My eddycayted guess is that just like the misandrysts found out, you can't beat passive avoidance, this is either going to fail, or women will have to put up without much interaction with men in the workplace.
I don't know what to say, but I think following their logic, such as it is, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that women are simultaneously strong independent victims, and as such, they must be separated from men.
That is a spectacularly stupid thing to say when women's groups everywhere are fighting for more inclusion.
I am indeed spectacularly stupid, of that there can be no doubt - guilty as charged.
It might be important to remember however, that separation need not be physical. It can take the form of refusal to interact except as required to get the work done, and no socializing, no being alone with. No small talk, no friendship. Nothing other than business. I lived through that cold war scenario during the late 80's, early 90's. Even the people we worked for figured out that they turned a problem into a toxic mess. So they changed it - largely at the direction of the women in the workforce. And this present day avoidance is happening as we speak, many feminists are very concerned about it because it's passive avoidance, which is darned difficult to fight, especially given the tools used so often in the past, like shaming and calling men immature and awful.
I like my female friends. We get along just fine, I even had them during those dark days, but we'd been friends a log time. But anyone new simply wasn't trusted. And people in the workplace need to trust each other if they are going to do anything other than just the work at hand.
Is this passive avoidance not an acceptable solution to the problem? Why not? That inclusion thing is a bit of a problem, but what is the answer to that? Forced friendliness? Firing men because they don't socialize with the women?
Now just between you, me, and the chachalacas in the back yard, the women where I worked knew exactly who every guy who was annoying them was. Report the assholes, and get them either counseling or a free no expensive paid permanent vacation. As my wife did when she had a bad problem with a guy - she immediately took care of the problem - called the owner the next morning - the owner flies in that day, and the guy gets hammered. There was no questioning her veracity. no silly questions used as excuses for not reporting like "Were you wearing a short dress?".
That is how you take care of the problem. Immediately - no waiting until the statute of limitations passes. No painting all men as harassers.
I only give my spectacularly stupid experience, which no doubt is not even wrong. And I think you would have to admit that men are horribly mistreating women, and the liberal solutions have taken that down to zero, amirite? Don't dare try my suggestions, they are spectacularly stupid. All crimes should be accepted on one person's say so no trial needed, and long after the stature of limitations ends that's what the smart people do. Pardon the sarcasm, but seriously, you think the present tack makes good sense and is working?
Incidentally, it works like that in all human interaction and apparently, women can do this to others just as well.
My wife had much more problem with women than men. From the old school "Must have laid the boss to get her position" to skinny shaming, other women's harassment wasn't about engaging in sex so much, but happened much more often. Some had to go away.
"A male student makes vulgar remarks about your breasts? Don't slink off to whimper with the campus shrinking violets. Deal with it. On the spot. Say, "Shut up, you jerk! And crawl back to the barnyard where you belong!" In general, women who project this take-charge attitude towards life get harassed less often. I see too many dopey, immature, self-pitying young women walking around like melting sticks of butter. "
Great Bolshy Yarblockos THIS!
An actual liberated woman simply won't put up with shit. Today's version of feminism is that women are weak, and must be protected from any and all men. I much prefer my wife's version of feminism in that some guy wants to harass her, the situation is taken care of immediately, just like you noted.
Classic societal overcorrection â" but make no mistake, it is an overcorrection, not simply coming out of nowhere. The current state is a direct result of how risky it has been for women to be alone with a male coworker all along.
Every time I think you and the other/. SJWs can't possibly get any more deluded and disconnected from reality you prove me wrong. You sound exactly like the breathless and hysterical way klansmen talk about black men being a threat to white women.
Point to the part you disagree with instead of whining, and I'll provide a citation.
A woman is completely safe working alone with me. Well, at least during the time that I would consent to working alone with women. She still would be, but now I do not give consent to that.
I think that we almost all of us, fall into double standards when dealing with women and men.
If a woman does not give consent to working alone with a man, does she have that right? Most people would say "Of course!"
A man who does not give consent to working alone with a woman, does he have that right? I don't know for certain, but I suspect many people would think that is odd or wrong or sexist. While I think Mike Pence is a white haired turd, I support his not wishing to be alone with another woman not his wife is a right of his, while most liberals castigate him for it.
Consent and choices should be for both male and female, wouldn't you think?
Classic societal overcorrection — but make no mistake, it is an overcorrection, not simply coming out of nowhere. The current state is a direct result of how risky it has been for women to be alone with a male coworker all along.
Every time I think you and the other/. SJWs can't possibly get any more deluded and disconnected from reality you prove me wrong. You sound exactly like the breathless and hysterical way klansmen talk about black men being a threat to white women.
The incredible thing about the far left third wave feminists is that they now operate from a position that women are too weak to be around men. It is just not possible for a woman to withstand what all men do, soooooo......
I don't know what to say, but I think following their logic, such as it is, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that women are simultaneously strong independent victims, and as such, they must be separated from men.
I think that is awful, and it reeks of fundamentalist Islam.
And I don't know how it happened either. I recall back in the late 1970's, the female engineers and scientists I worked with could go toe to toe with any old fashioned male chauvinist that was stupid enough to challenge them. And heaven help any guy thinking to take liberties with them.
Then there was a period of insanity in the 80's led by the woman's studies majors (in my workplace at least) it calmed down for a bit as more rational guidelines were put in place, now all it takes is the accusation, no due process. So we're back to looney tunes time again.
To me it's pretty simple. As long as there are people who have career terminating powers over me, I'm going to make certain I don't invoke their nuclear option.
This isn't likely to happen, that much is true. But a prudent person evaluates the situation, and the odds, and makes a decision based on that. Since there is no upside, and a huge downside to associating with those who have the career terminating power over you, I'll choose to avoid the issue altogether.
The weird thing is that this should be celebrated by the victims, as their odds of becoming victims should go way down. If a man doesn't talk to you, he cannot talk suggestively to you. If a man puts a lot of physical distance from you, he cannot physically harass you. Why this would not be considered a complete win is beyond me.
You know what I'm going to say. It's the same thing I always say when you make these bold claims of
You are alleging a grand conspiracy to manufacture sexual harassment claims. That's gonna need some proof.
Proof? You will accept a woman's accusations without proof. Seems a bit like a double standard to me.
Anyhow, the ladies at work would chat about their hucband's penis size, how good he was or wasn't in the sack, and sex toys, techniques and all manner of sex related subjects. I have no more proof than any offered by most of the #metoo movement.
I have been goosed repeatedly - apparently because I have a "skater's butt" and I'm pretty certain that's been mentioned in their chatting.
Because there are men and there are women. Sex appears to not have been over-represented in one or the other, perhaps the concept of the pure woman and the depraved man is a social construct by the same people who claim all gender differences are social constructs?
But th epure and innocent meme is the politically acceptable one at the moment.
what about touching the bare skin on the back when you take a group selfie? or what about complimenting a coworker on their outfit? or what about walking around in your bathing suit at a company pool party?
Where are these stories of people being accused of sexual harassment by touching a coworkers bare shoulder during a group picture?
We had a department head who was disciplined - as in forced to retire, when he employed a new staff assistant and asked her to get him a cup of coffee. His offense was sexual harassment, The rule at that time - mid 80's - was anything a woman thinks is sexual harassment - is sexual harassment.
Or occasionally complimenting an outfit?
We were told by our sexual harassment counseler that this was not allowed, because it could be interpreted as wanting to have sex with the woman.
Or wearing a conservative bathing suit at a company pool party?
Company pool party?
It really isn't hard for most people who function around the opposite sex without being creepy.
As a lady friend I worked with told me when I asked her what she thought was sexual harassment: "It depends on my mood." This is th problem. She though nothing of pinching my ass on multiple occasions, I guess I have "ice skater's butt" from all of the Ice hockey, but I would never even dare mention her backside. I um, have a suspicion that she was interested in a little more than a work relationship, but I value my career more than any relation, and it wasn't worth the risk in any event.
But most of us know the difference between a touch and caressing.
You are getting hung up on words. If a guy is a creeper, and has been annoying a woman, she won't like any touch at all. That only makes sense. The problem is, with a career in the balance, how does a man know if a woman thinks he is a creep. Until our harassment guidelines were changed from the late 1980's insanity where saying hello might be a problem, you don't know. So now are you doing to put your arm around the woman, even if she's wearing a trenchcoat? A prudent, career oriented man certainly won't.
We know the difference between dancing at an after-hours party and grinding against someone.
Kinda depends on the dance, eh? Some not-touching dancing can be pretty suggestive.
This really isn't rocket science.
No, it really isn't. The problem though, is we have a rules change. There is no due process, an accusation is sufficient. There is no statute of limitations, something from 25 years ago is sufficient. The accusation happens, and you are gone, a perhaps brilliant career finished.
Just be respectful and you will be fine. You are probably more likely of being killed by a drunk driver than being accused of sexual harassment when not doing anything wrong.
And yet, people are killed by drunk drivers. You're pretty damn awful, I hope you know - that saying it is okay to be accused of sexual harassment because drunk drivers.
Well now, I like to be careful to not get killed by drunk drivers too, perhaps you purposefully drive arounf in the wee hours of the weekends . I also am pretty careful to never put myself in any situation where a woman can accuse me of offending her. Don't like it? Than agitate for a law that not being friendly to women is also sexual harassment. In the meantime, I'll just continue being careful.
Now the big question:
If a man, or group of men, choose to not associate with or put themselves in possible compromising situations with women at work, is that not accomplishing what the women want? The goal is not being harassed, and that largely achieves that. Isn't that success?
If you are too stupid to know when you are getting in the gray zone where harassment could be considered then you really should stay out of society. Just because that woman is friendly doesn’t mean there is anything more from it.
I was told that you could get fired for telling a woman her earrings were nice. It that a gray enough area for you?
It isn't like in the work environment we are hugging and touching the other guys or rating their sexual assets. We can focus on work. We can have friendly relations with employees without crossing that line.
You do know that women do that all of the time, don't you? I've been working in areas and listened to women rather analytically compare the lenght of mans penises, and one noting that men with really big dicks hardly know what to do with them - just stick it in, and he thing's you're siupposed to cum just because it's so big. How horney they were when the y were [pregnant, and guessing the dick size of various guys in the office. Sorry, but it isn't like women are these saintly pure mental veigens who will swoon if the "s" word is mentioned.
And actually, the guys I worked with never mentioned much about sex, because if we were overheard, we could be fired.
We live in a world where one wrong word, one accidental brushing against a woman can result in you getting fired. And there is no due process, and no statute of limitations.
So whether you like or not, a chilling is going to happen, I lived through an earlier version of it. It's pretty simple. In a reasoned analysis, there are two genders in a workplace. One of them holds a very powerful trump card, and can destroy you. And since that particular gender is human, that gender has all of the frailties that men do. If a man can be wrong or dissemble, it is naive to believe that a female is incaplble of inaccuracies.
If you don't believe that, ask a judge if females always tell the truth because they are female.
Anyhow, prudent men taking an avoidance approach isn't harassing women, so it would seem a good thing, yes no? It doesn't actually solve it because the actual harassers don't stop. Maybe going after them instead of all of us would work better.
The ladies know who these people are. The trick, as my wife notes through personal experience - is immediate reportage. You don't wait until the now apparently defunct statute of limitations has passed, you take care of the problem, and you do it when it happens.
Nobody is saying that Trump is great and I can grab pussies with impunity now because a few women are vocal about their sexual repression.
I certainly imagine not. In fact, something quite opposite might be happening.
and those of us who are well will continue to show respect while simultaneously appreciating the female form.
I went through an early version of sexual harassment training in a college environment. I might note that the first directive and metric was that "Anything a woman feels is sexual harassment is by default sexual harassment." That is not scare quotes - it is a statement from the sexual harassment counselor.
The results? In a workplace with a lot of career driven men, many decided that our careers were more important than any interaction with women. So an intense chill descended. Having a chat with the boss that might necessitate closed doors would not be done with a female. Interactions between men and women became minimal, just enough to assign or get assignments, and the unwritten rule was never ever be in a situation where there were no witnesses. You would see a man exit the elevator on the wrong floor if a woman stepped into it.
Meanwhile this self protection strategy really pissed off 99 percent of the women, who claimed some version of "I didn't want any of this disaster!"
When in fact, those 99 percent of women could point out every asshole who was harassing them.
When in fact, those assholes didn't miss a stride. They just kept on doing what they always did.
The small minority of women who saw sexual harassment as a smile and a hello, and the gender studies majors who simply hated all men were happy.
It didn't cure the problem - it made it much much worse. The touchy feely jackasses continued, and normal guys were ghosting.
Fortunately, after the horrid results of the first efforts, sane people who understood human nature took over, and noting a woman's nice new hairstyle was not grounds fo rgetting fired.
Now what we have is a total breakdown of due process, where the accusation is enough, where there is no questioning the accuser, her word is above reproach. If she say you did it, there is no defense - you did it.
Well, it will be back to the future, where normal men will protect their careers by avoiding those things that will destroy it, and those creeps? They'll still do what they always do. I might question that, but I already lived through it years ago.
Not only do batteries need charging but they also wear out. Li are no exception.
This! Mechanical engines all last forever. Mechanical Internal combustion engines use no fuel either, they are powered by the tears of liberals guess. Finally, they are free.
Remember: never trust some bullshit click bail green washing headline when you can easily check the facts for yourself.
Yeah, about that... Let's look at this "China FAQs" site you linked to. If you just go to the front page we see a series of stories...
Chinaâ(TM)s Decline in Coal Consumption Drives Global Slowdown in Emissions
China is Leaving the U.S. Behind on Clean Energy Investment
At least at this point in history, China, whatever else thy are understands the issues with coal. The dangers of mining it, using it, and understanding that it will not last forever.
Here in America, we have political truths that trump physics. Coal is clean, and safe, and will last forever, so there is no need to explore other alternatives, as supply side jeebuz will provide.
They probably have a windmill generator on the roof, so as they speed through the ocean the wind recharges the batteries. If they go super fast, the extra generated power is used to create bitcoin, which in turn pays for the cost of the batteries and windmill.
Very clever those Chinese!
Good to see that someone figured it out!
Anyhow, I'm impressed with the high dudgeon humor - well played, sir.
They actually do already. Rather than big cloth sails they use vertical spinning ones now, which reduce the load on the engines. They have also experimented with kites.
Natural gas is a fossil fuel, that is cheaper to extract, burns cleaner than coal, and is plentiful, and in general requires less workers to extract than coal or oil.
You have the gift of understatement! Anyhow, that's spot on. Natgas is a transition fuel, and a cleaner alternative until the technology involved in the alternatives is more mature.
Some folks look at it as the devil itself, but this will allow humans to transition to clean energy without distrupting the word's economy.
Maybe Asia, but solar is offline across NA, SA, Europe, Africa and Australia for most of the night, as they don't span enough of the solar footprint - especially in winter months.
And yet they have solar installations even in Alaska, where the nights get pretty long. Obviously it isn't much use in the dark months, but they save a lot of money, and conserve their diesel fuel for the times its desperately needed.
The technical issues of utilizing solar are largely overrated, and shrinking constantly.
The main issue with solar and wind, the main replacements for fossil fuels, is that their output is affected by weather conditions
In the area I live in, we use a lot of wind power. Enough power that depending on demand, turbines will switch on and off to meet it or reserve their output.
And where they are, the wind is basically constant. This is along the Allegheny Front. Which has a huge influence on weather patterns. It can be a still hot day down here in the valley, but the turbines still turn.
Solar is certainly feasible, but at the moment it is more on the individual scale, which I really like. Off-gridding, and yeah, storage batteries.
A lot of the fire problem has to do with the sorts of people moving onto the land. In the past, land like this would probably have been used as ranch land. And the people responsible for it would have allowed fires to burn through it occasionally. Now, it's the hipsters. And just look at all that beautiful desert scrub growing right up to my back door!
While you leave no doubt that you hate these "Hipsters" with a white hot passion, the concept of total fire suppression was in effect long before Hipsters were ever around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We even parachuted people into the middle of nowhere to fight pointless fires.
It wasn't until the 1960's when this policy was questioned. Now at least here in the east, we have controlled fires to keep the woods healthy. Ugly as sin for a year, but the regrowth is a joy to watch, and it apparently hels control the Emerald Ash Borer, which makes a hellava mess. There is some opposition, but it isn't by hipsters, usually by some of the less informed hunters. The ones who know what nature is about just find a different place to hunt for a couple years.
I have no sockpuppets, I'm actually happy I got an answer for a change. Thank you.
The arguments sound valid so far, I'll have to look into it.
Although they can take away my physics when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers, and remember, you are asking another version of my "Give me the science behind the reason that the energy retention effects of certin gases fail on a global level" - I'm not one to say that the intensity of the wildfires are due to global warming.
However, it doesn't negate the fact that the effects exists.
So now that I got that bit of run on setnce out of the way, AC has some points that make it difficult to pin this on AGW.
The West of the USA has some big issues with being able to handle the population we are trying to impose on it. Wildfires are a part of the neighborhood.
People are living in areas that are really subject to wildfires. Those canyons and hills are pretty, but just ready to burn. The burning is a natural process that actually makes the ground more productive, sweetening and enriching the soil.
We've tried to suppress fires as well, which builds up flammable material.
The places where people want ot live are closer to desert than woodland.
So it becomes a little difficult to say with any certainty that any one fire is related to greenhouse gas levels.
Over time, we might measure differences in the Santa Ana winds which can whip these fires into a frenzy, We might find weather pattern instability related to temperatures averaging up.
But for now? I'll note it with interest, but make no claims other than hoping people don't get harmed.
Slashdot Mirror
This. I have had to sit through training where the same thing was said.
Interestingly, first it was called "sexual harassment training" and that led to snickers because it means how to do it right. Then it was renamed to "anti-sexual harassment training" and it's ironically wrong because it means against sex, or maybe against men, whereas it SHOULD be "anti-harassment" training and guess what ... sexual is just one kind of harassment and none of them are ok.
What we ended up with, was guidelines brought up specifically by the women. They included obvious things like groping, and demanding sex for one thing or another. Another that many of the normal guys never thought of was the "doorway block", where a person would block a doorway, leaving the (usually) woman no choice if she wanted to exit than to brush against him. Well now, that's just fucking creepy.
Touching was not intrinsically harassment unless you asked them not to touch you, and they repeatedly did, or the touch was obviously related to sex. That even manke sense, as I worked with a few women who were "touchers". I knew what they were about, it was a matter of communication, and their choice.
A guy was allowed to tell a woman her earrings were nice.
After the cold war precipitated by the women's studies majors - who were obviously misandrysts, it was a much better situation. #metoo with it's guilt by accusation, destroying men's careers with no due process is merely a step way backwards.
My eddycayted guess is that just like the misandrysts found out, you can't beat passive avoidance, this is either going to fail, or women will have to put up without much interaction with men in the workplace.
I don't know what to say, but I think following their logic, such as it is, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that women are simultaneously strong independent victims, and as such, they must be separated from men.
That is a spectacularly stupid thing to say when women's groups everywhere are fighting for more inclusion.
I am indeed spectacularly stupid, of that there can be no doubt - guilty as charged.
It might be important to remember however, that separation need not be physical. It can take the form of refusal to interact except as required to get the work done, and no socializing, no being alone with. No small talk, no friendship. Nothing other than business. I lived through that cold war scenario during the late 80's, early 90's. Even the people we worked for figured out that they turned a problem into a toxic mess. So they changed it - largely at the direction of the women in the workforce. And this present day avoidance is happening as we speak, many feminists are very concerned about it because it's passive avoidance, which is darned difficult to fight, especially given the tools used so often in the past, like shaming and calling men immature and awful.
I like my female friends. We get along just fine, I even had them during those dark days, but we'd been friends a log time. But anyone new simply wasn't trusted. And people in the workplace need to trust each other if they are going to do anything other than just the work at hand. Is this passive avoidance not an acceptable solution to the problem? Why not? That inclusion thing is a bit of a problem, but what is the answer to that? Forced friendliness? Firing men because they don't socialize with the women?
Now just between you, me, and the chachalacas in the back yard, the women where I worked knew exactly who every guy who was annoying them was. Report the assholes, and get them either counseling or a free no expensive paid permanent vacation. As my wife did when she had a bad problem with a guy - she immediately took care of the problem - called the owner the next morning - the owner flies in that day, and the guy gets hammered. There was no questioning her veracity. no silly questions used as excuses for not reporting like "Were you wearing a short dress?".
That is how you take care of the problem. Immediately - no waiting until the statute of limitations passes. No painting all men as harassers.
I only give my spectacularly stupid experience, which no doubt is not even wrong. And I think you would have to admit that men are horribly mistreating women, and the liberal solutions have taken that down to zero, amirite? Don't dare try my suggestions, they are spectacularly stupid. All crimes should be accepted on one person's say so no trial needed, and long after the stature of limitations ends that's what the smart people do. Pardon the sarcasm, but seriously, you think the present tack makes good sense and is working?
Incidentally, it works like that in all human interaction and apparently, women can do this to others just as well.
My wife had much more problem with women than men. From the old school "Must have laid the boss to get her position" to skinny shaming, other women's harassment wasn't about engaging in sex so much, but happened much more often. Some had to go away.
This one is particularly biting:
"A male student makes vulgar remarks about your breasts? Don't slink off to whimper with the campus shrinking violets. Deal with it. On the spot. Say, "Shut up, you jerk! And crawl back to the barnyard where you belong!" In general, women who project this take-charge attitude towards life get harassed less often. I see too many dopey, immature, self-pitying young women walking around like melting sticks of butter. "
Great Bolshy Yarblockos THIS!
An actual liberated woman simply won't put up with shit. Today's version of feminism is that women are weak, and must be protected from any and all men. I much prefer my wife's version of feminism in that some guy wants to harass her, the situation is taken care of immediately, just like you noted.
Classic societal overcorrection â" but make no mistake, it is an overcorrection, not simply coming out of nowhere. The current state is a direct result of how risky it has been for women to be alone with a male coworker all along.
Every time I think you and the other /. SJWs can't possibly get any more deluded and disconnected from reality you prove me wrong. You sound exactly like the breathless and hysterical way klansmen talk about black men being a threat to white women.
Point to the part you disagree with instead of whining, and I'll provide a citation.
A woman is completely safe working alone with me. Well, at least during the time that I would consent to working alone with women. She still would be, but now I do not give consent to that.
I think that we almost all of us, fall into double standards when dealing with women and men.
If a woman does not give consent to working alone with a man, does she have that right? Most people would say "Of course!"
A man who does not give consent to working alone with a woman, does he have that right? I don't know for certain, but I suspect many people would think that is odd or wrong or sexist. While I think Mike Pence is a white haired turd, I support his not wishing to be alone with another woman not his wife is a right of his, while most liberals castigate him for it.
Consent and choices should be for both male and female, wouldn't you think?
Classic societal overcorrection — but make no mistake, it is an overcorrection, not simply coming out of nowhere. The current state is a direct result of how risky it has been for women to be alone with a male coworker all along.
Every time I think you and the other /. SJWs can't possibly get any more deluded and disconnected from reality you prove me wrong. You sound exactly like the breathless and hysterical way klansmen talk about black men being a threat to white women.
The incredible thing about the far left third wave feminists is that they now operate from a position that women are too weak to be around men. It is just not possible for a woman to withstand what all men do, soooooo......
I don't know what to say, but I think following their logic, such as it is, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that women are simultaneously strong independent victims, and as such, they must be separated from men.
I think that is awful, and it reeks of fundamentalist Islam.
And I don't know how it happened either. I recall back in the late 1970's, the female engineers and scientists I worked with could go toe to toe with any old fashioned male chauvinist that was stupid enough to challenge them. And heaven help any guy thinking to take liberties with them.
Then there was a period of insanity in the 80's led by the woman's studies majors (in my workplace at least) it calmed down for a bit as more rational guidelines were put in place, now all it takes is the accusation, no due process. So we're back to looney tunes time again.
To me it's pretty simple. As long as there are people who have career terminating powers over me, I'm going to make certain I don't invoke their nuclear option.
This isn't likely to happen, that much is true. But a prudent person evaluates the situation, and the odds, and makes a decision based on that. Since there is no upside, and a huge downside to associating with those who have the career terminating power over you, I'll choose to avoid the issue altogether.
The weird thing is that this should be celebrated by the victims, as their odds of becoming victims should go way down. If a man doesn't talk to you, he cannot talk suggestively to you. If a man puts a lot of physical distance from you, he cannot physically harass you. Why this would not be considered a complete win is beyond me.
You know what I'm going to say. It's the same thing I always say when you make these bold claims of
You are alleging a grand conspiracy to manufacture sexual harassment claims. That's gonna need some proof.
Proof? You will accept a woman's accusations without proof. Seems a bit like a double standard to me.
Anyhow, the ladies at work would chat about their hucband's penis size, how good he was or wasn't in the sack, and sex toys, techniques and all manner of sex related subjects. I have no more proof than any offered by most of the #metoo movement.
I have been goosed repeatedly - apparently because I have a "skater's butt" and I'm pretty certain that's been mentioned in their chatting.
Because there are men and there are women. Sex appears to not have been over-represented in one or the other, perhaps the concept of the pure woman and the depraved man is a social construct by the same people who claim all gender differences are social constructs?
But th epure and innocent meme is the politically acceptable one at the moment.
what about touching the bare skin on the back when you take a group selfie? or what about complimenting a coworker on their outfit? or what about walking around in your bathing suit at a company pool party?
Where are these stories of people being accused of sexual harassment by touching a coworkers bare shoulder during a group picture?
We had a department head who was disciplined - as in forced to retire, when he employed a new staff assistant and asked her to get him a cup of coffee. His offense was sexual harassment, The rule at that time - mid 80's - was anything a woman thinks is sexual harassment - is sexual harassment.
Or occasionally complimenting an outfit?
We were told by our sexual harassment counseler that this was not allowed, because it could be interpreted as wanting to have sex with the woman.
Or wearing a conservative bathing suit at a company pool party?
Company pool party?
It really isn't hard for most people who function around the opposite sex without being creepy.
As a lady friend I worked with told me when I asked her what she thought was sexual harassment: "It depends on my mood." This is th problem. She though nothing of pinching my ass on multiple occasions, I guess I have "ice skater's butt" from all of the Ice hockey, but I would never even dare mention her backside. I um, have a suspicion that she was interested in a little more than a work relationship, but I value my career more than any relation, and it wasn't worth the risk in any event.
But most of us know the difference between a touch and caressing.
You are getting hung up on words. If a guy is a creeper, and has been annoying a woman, she won't like any touch at all. That only makes sense. The problem is, with a career in the balance, how does a man know if a woman thinks he is a creep. Until our harassment guidelines were changed from the late 1980's insanity where saying hello might be a problem, you don't know. So now are you doing to put your arm around the woman, even if she's wearing a trenchcoat? A prudent, career oriented man certainly won't.
We know the difference between dancing at an after-hours party and grinding against someone.
Kinda depends on the dance, eh? Some not-touching dancing can be pretty suggestive.
This really isn't rocket science.
No, it really isn't. The problem though, is we have a rules change. There is no due process, an accusation is sufficient. There is no statute of limitations, something from 25 years ago is sufficient. The accusation happens, and you are gone, a perhaps brilliant career finished.
Just be respectful and you will be fine. You are probably more likely of being killed by a drunk driver than being accused of sexual harassment when not doing anything wrong.
And yet, people are killed by drunk drivers. You're pretty damn awful, I hope you know - that saying it is okay to be accused of sexual harassment because drunk drivers.
Well now, I like to be careful to not get killed by drunk drivers too, perhaps you purposefully drive arounf in the wee hours of the weekends . I also am pretty careful to never put myself in any situation where a woman can accuse me of offending her. Don't like it? Than agitate for a law that not being friendly to women is also sexual harassment. In the meantime, I'll just continue being careful.
Now the big question:
If a man, or group of men, choose to not associate with or put themselves in possible compromising situations with women at work, is that not accomplishing what the women want? The goal is not being harassed, and that largely achieves that. Isn't that success?
If you are too stupid to know when you are getting in the gray zone where harassment could be considered then you really should stay out of society. Just because that woman is friendly doesn’t mean there is anything more from it.
I was told that you could get fired for telling a woman her earrings were nice. It that a gray enough area for you?
It isn't like in the work environment we are hugging and touching the other guys or rating their sexual assets. We can focus on work. We can have friendly relations with employees without crossing that line.
You do know that women do that all of the time, don't you? I've been working in areas and listened to women rather analytically compare the lenght of mans penises, and one noting that men with really big dicks hardly know what to do with them - just stick it in, and he thing's you're siupposed to cum just because it's so big. How horney they were when the y were [pregnant, and guessing the dick size of various guys in the office. Sorry, but it isn't like women are these saintly pure mental veigens who will swoon if the "s" word is mentioned.
And actually, the guys I worked with never mentioned much about sex, because if we were overheard, we could be fired.
We live in a world where one wrong word, one accidental brushing against a woman can result in you getting fired. And there is no due process, and no statute of limitations.
So whether you like or not, a chilling is going to happen, I lived through an earlier version of it. It's pretty simple. In a reasoned analysis, there are two genders in a workplace. One of them holds a very powerful trump card, and can destroy you. And since that particular gender is human, that gender has all of the frailties that men do. If a man can be wrong or dissemble, it is naive to believe that a female is incaplble of inaccuracies.
If you don't believe that, ask a judge if females always tell the truth because they are female.
Anyhow, prudent men taking an avoidance approach isn't harassing women, so it would seem a good thing, yes no? It doesn't actually solve it because the actual harassers don't stop. Maybe going after them instead of all of us would work better.
The ladies know who these people are. The trick, as my wife notes through personal experience - is immediate reportage. You don't wait until the now apparently defunct statute of limitations has passed, you take care of the problem, and you do it when it happens.
Nobody is saying that Trump is great and I can grab pussies with impunity now because a few women are vocal about their sexual repression.
I certainly imagine not. In fact, something quite opposite might be happening.
and those of us who are well will continue to show respect while simultaneously appreciating the female form.
I went through an early version of sexual harassment training in a college environment. I might note that the first directive and metric was that "Anything a woman feels is sexual harassment is by default sexual harassment." That is not scare quotes - it is a statement from the sexual harassment counselor.
The results? In a workplace with a lot of career driven men, many decided that our careers were more important than any interaction with women. So an intense chill descended. Having a chat with the boss that might necessitate closed doors would not be done with a female. Interactions between men and women became minimal, just enough to assign or get assignments, and the unwritten rule was never ever be in a situation where there were no witnesses. You would see a man exit the elevator on the wrong floor if a woman stepped into it.
Meanwhile this self protection strategy really pissed off 99 percent of the women, who claimed some version of "I didn't want any of this disaster!"
When in fact, those 99 percent of women could point out every asshole who was harassing them.
When in fact, those assholes didn't miss a stride. They just kept on doing what they always did.
The small minority of women who saw sexual harassment as a smile and a hello, and the gender studies majors who simply hated all men were happy.
It didn't cure the problem - it made it much much worse. The touchy feely jackasses continued, and normal guys were ghosting. Fortunately, after the horrid results of the first efforts, sane people who understood human nature took over, and noting a woman's nice new hairstyle was not grounds fo rgetting fired.
Now what we have is a total breakdown of due process, where the accusation is enough, where there is no questioning the accuser, her word is above reproach. If she say you did it, there is no defense - you did it.
Well, it will be back to the future, where normal men will protect their careers by avoiding those things that will destroy it, and those creeps? They'll still do what they always do. I might question that, but I already lived through it years ago.
Not only do batteries need charging but they also wear out. Li are no exception.
This! Mechanical engines all last forever. Mechanical Internal combustion engines use no fuel either, they are powered by the tears of liberals guess. Finally, they are free.
Remember: never trust some bullshit click bail green washing headline when you can easily check the facts for yourself.
Yeah, about that... Let's look at this "China FAQs" site you linked to. If you just go to the front page we see a series of stories...
Chinaâ(TM)s Decline in Coal Consumption Drives Global Slowdown in Emissions China is Leaving the U.S. Behind on Clean Energy Investment
At least at this point in history, China, whatever else thy are understands the issues with coal. The dangers of mining it, using it, and understanding that it will not last forever.
Here in America, we have political truths that trump physics. Coal is clean, and safe, and will last forever, so there is no need to explore other alternatives, as supply side jeebuz will provide.
They're not stupid, you know.
They probably have a windmill generator on the roof, so as they speed through the ocean the wind recharges the batteries. If they go super fast, the extra generated power is used to create bitcoin, which in turn pays for the cost of the batteries and windmill.
Very clever those Chinese!
Good to see that someone figured it out!
Anyhow, I'm impressed with the high dudgeon humor - well played, sir.
Because at least check China produces about 80% of it's power generation from burning coal.
So what's your point? That China can never experiment with new motive power sources because coal?
That the laws of physics tell us that only coal generated electricity can run this ship?
They actually do already. Rather than big cloth sails they use vertical spinning ones now, which reduce the load on the engines. They have also experimented with kites.
Like this bad boy - interestingly enough, used to transport wind turbine blades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's been out since 2010.
Natural gas is a fossil fuel, that is cheaper to extract, burns cleaner than coal, and is plentiful, and in general requires less workers to extract than coal or oil.
You have the gift of understatement! Anyhow, that's spot on. Natgas is a transition fuel, and a cleaner alternative until the technology involved in the alternatives is more mature.
Some folks look at it as the devil itself, but this will allow humans to transition to clean energy without distrupting the word's economy.
Solar is predictable at a grid level days in advance, at least +/- 10%. Wind isn’t, even 4 hours in advance.
Depends on where you are. Along the Allegheny front here in PA, the wind is FAIAP, constant..
Maybe Asia, but solar is offline across NA, SA, Europe, Africa and Australia for most of the night, as they don't span enough of the solar footprint - especially in winter months.
And yet they have solar installations even in Alaska, where the nights get pretty long. Obviously it isn't much use in the dark months, but they save a lot of money, and conserve their diesel fuel for the times its desperately needed.
The technical issues of utilizing solar are largely overrated, and shrinking constantly.
The main issue with solar and wind, the main replacements for fossil fuels, is that their output is affected by weather conditions
In the area I live in, we use a lot of wind power. Enough power that depending on demand, turbines will switch on and off to meet it or reserve their output.
And where they are, the wind is basically constant. This is along the Allegheny Front. Which has a huge influence on weather patterns. It can be a still hot day down here in the valley, but the turbines still turn.
Solar is certainly feasible, but at the moment it is more on the individual scale, which I really like. Off-gridding, and yeah, storage batteries.
I look forward to Shogun37's good mannered response. I might have to wait a while, lol. Good response anyhow Rakarra.
I think he's doing some research to figure out this great Lakes aqueduct he's talking about is located.
How about the fact that California has so ruined its own environment so badly that it has to pull water from as far as the Great Lakes?
Where is this aqueduct and from which lake is the water coming from?
A lot of the fire problem has to do with the sorts of people moving onto the land. In the past, land like this would probably have been used as ranch land. And the people responsible for it would have allowed fires to burn through it occasionally. Now, it's the hipsters. And just look at all that beautiful desert scrub growing right up to my back door!
While you leave no doubt that you hate these "Hipsters" with a white hot passion, the concept of total fire suppression was in effect long before Hipsters were ever around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We even parachuted people into the middle of nowhere to fight pointless fires.
It wasn't until the 1960's when this policy was questioned. Now at least here in the east, we have controlled fires to keep the woods healthy. Ugly as sin for a year, but the regrowth is a joy to watch, and it apparently hels control the Emerald Ash Borer, which makes a hellava mess. There is some opposition, but it isn't by hipsters, usually by some of the less informed hunters. The ones who know what nature is about just find a different place to hunt for a couple years.
These are the good old days.
Damn, makes me think of most excellent Carly Simon.
I remember those "Helpful Links" attached to most discussions mostly pointed to Goatse, lol.
There Was an 'eternal september' for Slashdot; the debate is When it Was. :)
Actually, Netcraft confirms there was a Beowulf Cluster of Eternal Septembers, you insensitive clod. 8^)
I have no sockpuppets, I'm actually happy I got an answer for a change. Thank you.
The arguments sound valid so far, I'll have to look into it.
Although they can take away my physics when they pry it out of my cold dead fingers, and remember, you are asking another version of my "Give me the science behind the reason that the energy retention effects of certin gases fail on a global level" - I'm not one to say that the intensity of the wildfires are due to global warming.
However, it doesn't negate the fact that the effects exists.
So now that I got that bit of run on setnce out of the way, AC has some points that make it difficult to pin this on AGW.
The West of the USA has some big issues with being able to handle the population we are trying to impose on it. Wildfires are a part of the neighborhood.
People are living in areas that are really subject to wildfires. Those canyons and hills are pretty, but just ready to burn. The burning is a natural process that actually makes the ground more productive, sweetening and enriching the soil.
We've tried to suppress fires as well, which builds up flammable material.
The places where people want ot live are closer to desert than woodland. So it becomes a little difficult to say with any certainty that any one fire is related to greenhouse gas levels. Over time, we might measure differences in the Santa Ana winds which can whip these fires into a frenzy, We might find weather pattern instability related to temperatures averaging up.
But for now? I'll note it with interest, but make no claims other than hoping people don't get harmed.