According to most of the news Google could find on the subject, men file approximately 15% of all sexual harassment suits, and that number is growing.
Likely as not...the reason for this is to get in on the money train like the women have....not that it really bothers or offends most guys. But hey, why let the chicks get all the money for just for litigating against some off color jokes, equal opportunity for men to get in on some of the money now too.
Its called Political Correctness...and it is taking the fun out of everything. You combine that with such a litigious society...and the last thing you have to fear after that.....is anything ever being said again.
What about us responsible people who decide not to shit out any children, shouldn't we be exempt from paying school taxes?
No, because those schools benefit you in the following ways:
1) They prevent most of the kids from spending their free time vandalizing your property (by keeping them busy).
2) They keep the economy supplied with a basically-competent labor force, which helps support your job and also reduces crime.
Ok, I'll give you that...I believe most school taxes are paid by local property taxes...and I could consider that infrastructure...I am cool with that.
However, I am against people with kids getting tax deductions...for having kids. That essentially makes those people with few or no kids....subsidizing those that do.
If anything...people with kids should pay MORE TAX than those that have few or none.
And please don't use the argument, that this deduction is in the interest of the nation, for people to have kids...etc.
I cannot imagine a couple in bed at night...feeling amorous, wondering if they want to have another kid, the wife goes "hey, we'll get new deductions....whip that rubber off and lets go at it bareback"!!
Sorry..people will fuck, and will have kids....there is no need for the rest of us to have to subsidize their family choices. Infrastructure is one thing....people's household choices and behavior is quite a different matter.
It's just not that difficult to leave a lot of sexual innuendo and horseplay out of a workplace.
But...why should you have to leave it out?
Seems like the group dynamic was working fine....and now, with one new member, you have to basically destroy the group dynamic, because a woman might not be able to take a joke or ribbing...that EVERYONE else has apparently been working with just fine, and made for what sounds like a fun and productive work environment prior to this one new external factor coming in yet?
Not talking about the legal aspects, that has made this whole situation totally out of hand.....but just really, why can't woman work in a group wher guys can be guys and joke around. What these guys were doing likely isn't harassment....just joking around, but sadly....any woman walking into that group can likely immediately have $$ signs in her eyes, regardless if the atmosphere is truly hostile...
The situation is just too hard these days. Hell, no wonder many IT groups won't hire women in JUST for this reason. Definitely hard to prove...but likely justified by many in their hiring decisions....
I agree with this poast. Zero tolerance. End of story. First asshole to fuck up gets the gate and serves as an example to the rest of the staff. If your people can't be professional than you've hired the wrong people and need to replace them with professionals.
Great..so, now, the group turns into a souless, business only work entity...no more joking around, camaraderie, or for that matter....discussing many things as innocuous as what was on TV last night...because someone might get offended.
Zero tolerance sucks the life out of just about any situation that it is declared in.
Genuine, prolonged harassment is one thing...not to be tolerated, but the zero tolerance thing you posit....just kills fun and friendship, and generally makes the workplace a drudge.
So you work with a bunch of unprofessional animals?
No...sounds like a typical group of guys that have been working together for a long period of time, without having to artificially censor themselves, or walk on eggshells in how they naturally converse with each other within the group.
We went through a couple sessions, mandated by management. We'll have another one in a few months. Key point to make is that people who do not act approrpiately will be pulled from the team and possibly sacked. Fear works pretty effectively.
Why not re-assign the disrupting factor (the new incoming female employee) to another group where it won't be a problem?
Sounds like the original, all male group was working just fine....why break that up?
At the very least....you put her in, and everyone has to walk on eggshells....she's gonna be pretty much totally isolated from the group dynamic...and the group itself.
Why should the group have to change for one new incommer?
A real world example: most of us will remember Jeff Dunham's "Silence I kill you". I was mimicking this play in the office a couple of years ago. This was outside of the U.S., but I had American colleagues present. One of them had not seen the show, and was offended. This also happened to be a female, and by the end of the afternoon, my manager and the local HR were involved, and I had to talk to a crying co-worker who was really, really offended. And I had no clue why.
And what should have been the proper response to this?
Tell the crying woman, after an explanation (maybe she didn't 'get it' for some reason)...after a point, to get over it. It is a fucking joke.
It isn't your fault someone misunderstands things or has such a thin skin and likely will cry if too many flies are swatted on the window sill.
In the case you laid out...there was no harassment....they need to get over it, and quit wasting company time crying over nothing...and get some work done.
Really...why should a group/team that has been working for ages, all of a sudden have to stop and change and stifle themselves just because a woman is joining the group?
Unfortunately, these days...legal reasons are the bottom line, which is sad. I mean, shouldn't all adults be able to have a bit of thick skin and do their job. Even in a bunch of just guys....individual guys get razzed and all, that's just normal. And yet...no one get sued, and work gets done...etc.
If a guy joins a group of previously all women, do they have to stifle themselves, go to mixed workplace training, etc? And really...if the women started making double entendre comments and the like...does anyone think the typical man entering that group would get upset in the least bit?
hear a lot of sanctimonious claims about "lazy parents" and "bad parents" from people who either aren't parents, or who have a partner acting as a stay-at-home parent (the stay-at-home parents themselves don't make these claims too often.) Which are you?
Hey, don't have kids if you aren't equipped to support them financially, or responsibility/time wise....pretty simple, no?
Just because you can fuck, doesn't mean you could have kids if you can't spend the time to parent them or afford them....
Yep..the govt should not be involved in the decision for what genes are in the pool.
However, it seems they are meddling here...looks like these magnets are letting nature put a little chlorine in the gene pool by having stupid kids remove themselves from it....?
Yeah...I can't imagine that hostel thing would go over too well in the US....we like our space and don't really want to share a room overnight with total strangers.
I went to Europe once...and was shocked to find in one hotel there...there was only ONE bathroom per floor, that everyone had to share, rather than every room having its own bathroom and shower/bath.....
Working in IT for a few decades, one should at least be close to 6 figures....
If you make in the $80K-$90K range, which is normal for my age in this field....you pay that amount, and you are certainly NOT rich by any stretch of the imagination.
That basically gives you a middle income level lifestyle, with money to save for retirement.....if you budget, and don't spend everything as fast as you make it, and live within your means.
Now I don't judge people who wear suits negatively, as they might be decent people who have made a simple tradeoff and are fighting the good fight in other ways. But I don't see any way to justify any sort of positive assocation with so called "nice" clothes, which are generally less functional and less comfortable (and therefore less nice) than casual wear.
I'm guessing you're still in school and/or don't have a 'real job' yet.....?
You're speaking from an extremely academic or idealistic point of view....which really clashes badly with reality once you've been out in it awhile.
Civilization would be better served if instead of trying to avoid paying your share, you demanded that you got a fair return on your investment in society.
I think I pay likely MORE than my fair share. With Federal, State, Parish and city taxes...I'm easily in the upper to mid 40% area.....I should not have to pay nearly half my wages for fucking city, state and federal services.
And make it easy...get rid of ALL deductions, and quit trying to steer behavior through taxation...and everyone gets a simple form to fill out, no one works to get through the loopholes (I mean, if they're there, you're a fool not to use them)....and life is simpler and you can rest assured that everyone is paying their fair share.
Chances are the kids in suits who work for powerful corporations have victimized far more people than some hoods on a street corner. This is exactly why it's so harmful to judge people based on appearances.
I think you missed the point that anyone else would have picked up on....I'd not be afraid of the kids in suits causing me immediate, physical harm.
Not all corporations are bad. Hell, they are a God send for small businesses.....I incorporated myself for contract and other work, and it is the ONLY way to keep your hard earned dollars from the tax man. The W2 employee, is at such a huge disadvantage in that respect....
I saved, and bought a very nice 59" Plasma....and have the sound system to go with it. When I want to watch a good movie, I want BR, so that I can get the best resolution and sound, something that you just are not gonna get from streaming.
Streaming is ok, for documentaries and such, which I do enjoy watching...but for a good, well produced movie, I want BR.....and now that all the brick and mortar stores for rental are gone...if NF goes, that will blow.
Redbox is ok, but they ONLY have recent releases....I don't wanna buy most movies, I want to rent them, but I like the BR versions to stretch my AV set up.
Not to mentiion...the streaming selection from Netflix is pretty dismal.....good documentaries, but when scanning through movies...it looks like a cornucopia of fodder for future MST3K episodes, most of them I'd never even heard of before.
I quit the NF streaming. I do have amazon prime..and found that it comes WITH some streaming, so I got a cheap roku from woot, and found that PS3 now streams amazon. I watch some of that....again, not for my primary high end movie content...but since it comes with amazon prime which I do enjoy for free monthly books and cheap fast shipping....I'll keep that.
Wouldn't it be better to encourage the 'majority' to get off their asses and learn to be better workers/negotiators....and generally better look out for themselves, rather than depend on someone else or, even worse...the govt?
I don't think I'd be comfortable sleeping in a room full of strangers...I'd be afraid of getting my stuff stolen, or maybe eve worse...?
And I can't really see bringing a girl along on a vacation and doing something like this....doesn't seem like it would make that good of an impression on her....or even picking one up in a bar, and coming back to a non-private room.
Many employers are only too happy to replace you with an incompetent. They usually fit the corporate culture better and your good work will take years to unravel.
In this day in age, that shouldn't matter really. I mean, the days of 'job for life' are long, long gone.
About the only way to get ahead in todays W2 work world...is to job hop every 3 years or so....you do your negotiating for each hop.....not with the same employer.
Slashdot Mirror
Likely as not...the reason for this is to get in on the money train like the women have....not that it really bothers or offends most guys. But hey, why let the chicks get all the money for just for litigating against some off color jokes, equal opportunity for men to get in on some of the money now too.
And?
Were you going somewhere with this....?
Its called Political Correctness...and it is taking the fun out of everything. You combine that with such a litigious society...and the last thing you have to fear after that.....is anything ever being said again.
Ok, I'll give you that...I believe most school taxes are paid by local property taxes...and I could consider that infrastructure...I am cool with that.
However, I am against people with kids getting tax deductions...for having kids. That essentially makes those people with few or no kids....subsidizing those that do.
If anything...people with kids should pay MORE TAX than those that have few or none.
And please don't use the argument, that this deduction is in the interest of the nation, for people to have kids...etc.
I cannot imagine a couple in bed at night...feeling amorous, wondering if they want to have another kid, the wife goes "hey, we'll get new deductions....whip that rubber off and lets go at it bareback"!!
Sorry..people will fuck, and will have kids....there is no need for the rest of us to have to subsidize their family choices. Infrastructure is one thing....people's household choices and behavior is quite a different matter.
But...why should you have to leave it out?
Seems like the group dynamic was working fine....and now, with one new member, you have to basically destroy the group dynamic, because a woman might not be able to take a joke or ribbing...that EVERYONE else has apparently been working with just fine, and made for what sounds like a fun and productive work environment prior to this one new external factor coming in yet?
Not talking about the legal aspects, that has made this whole situation totally out of hand.....but just really, why can't woman work in a group wher guys can be guys and joke around. What these guys were doing likely isn't harassment....just joking around, but sadly....any woman walking into that group can likely immediately have $$ signs in her eyes, regardless if the atmosphere is truly hostile...
The situation is just too hard these days. Hell, no wonder many IT groups won't hire women in JUST for this reason. Definitely hard to prove...but likely justified by many in their hiring decisions....
Great..so, now, the group turns into a souless, business only work entity...no more joking around, camaraderie, or for that matter....discussing many things as innocuous as what was on TV last night...because someone might get offended.
Zero tolerance sucks the life out of just about any situation that it is declared in.
Genuine, prolonged harassment is one thing...not to be tolerated, but the zero tolerance thing you posit....just kills fun and friendship, and generally makes the workplace a drudge.
No...sounds like a typical group of guys that have been working together for a long period of time, without having to artificially censor themselves, or walk on eggshells in how they naturally converse with each other within the group.
Pretty common to all male working groups....
Why not re-assign the disrupting factor (the new incoming female employee) to another group where it won't be a problem?
Sounds like the original, all male group was working just fine....why break that up?
At the very least....you put her in, and everyone has to walk on eggshells....she's gonna be pretty much totally isolated from the group dynamic...and the group itself.
Why should the group have to change for one new incommer?
And what should have been the proper response to this?
Tell the crying woman, after an explanation (maybe she didn't 'get it' for some reason)...after a point, to get over it. It is a fucking joke.
It isn't your fault someone misunderstands things or has such a thin skin and likely will cry if too many flies are swatted on the window sill.
In the case you laid out...there was no harassment....they need to get over it, and quit wasting company time crying over nothing...and get some work done.
No wonder men don't care often for working with women. You have to bend to the lowest common denominator as far as 'feelings' go....legally.
Guys can't be guys in the workplace....
Really...why should a group/team that has been working for ages, all of a sudden have to stop and change and stifle themselves just because a woman is joining the group?
Unfortunately, these days...legal reasons are the bottom line, which is sad. I mean, shouldn't all adults be able to have a bit of thick skin and do their job. Even in a bunch of just guys....individual guys get razzed and all, that's just normal. And yet...no one get sued, and work gets done...etc.
If a guy joins a group of previously all women, do they have to stifle themselves, go to mixed workplace training, etc? And really...if the women started making double entendre comments and the like...does anyone think the typical man entering that group would get upset in the least bit?
There are two statements in that sentence...one about a well regulated militia....and one about the right of people (the general public) bearing arms.
It isn't saying that only people IN a militia can bear arms.....
Hey, don't have kids if you aren't equipped to support them financially, or responsibility/time wise....pretty simple, no?
Just because you can fuck, doesn't mean you could have kids if you can't spend the time to parent them or afford them....
However, it seems they are meddling here...looks like these magnets are letting nature put a little chlorine in the gene pool by having stupid kids remove themselves from it....?
I went to Europe once...and was shocked to find in one hotel there...there was only ONE bathroom per floor, that everyone had to share, rather than every room having its own bathroom and shower/bath.....
Working in IT for a few decades, one should at least be close to 6 figures....
If you make in the $80K-$90K range, which is normal for my age in this field....you pay that amount, and you are certainly NOT rich by any stretch of the imagination.
That basically gives you a middle income level lifestyle, with money to save for retirement.....if you budget, and don't spend everything as fast as you make it, and live within your means.
I'm guessing you're still in school and/or don't have a 'real job' yet.....?
You're speaking from an extremely academic or idealistic point of view....which really clashes badly with reality once you've been out in it awhile.
I think I pay likely MORE than my fair share. With Federal, State, Parish and city taxes...I'm easily in the upper to mid 40% area.....I should not have to pay nearly half my wages for fucking city, state and federal services.
And make it easy...get rid of ALL deductions, and quit trying to steer behavior through taxation...and everyone gets a simple form to fill out, no one works to get through the loopholes (I mean, if they're there, you're a fool not to use them)....and life is simpler and you can rest assured that everyone is paying their fair share.
Actually close...I think to be totally 'hack proof' you'd have to be Marty Feldman
As long as it doesn't harm dogs!!!
I think you missed the point that anyone else would have picked up on....I'd not be afraid of the kids in suits causing me immediate, physical harm.
Not all corporations are bad. Hell, they are a God send for small businesses.....I incorporated myself for contract and other work, and it is the ONLY way to keep your hard earned dollars from the tax man. The W2 employee, is at such a huge disadvantage in that respect....
I saved, and bought a very nice 59" Plasma....and have the sound system to go with it. When I want to watch a good movie, I want BR, so that I can get the best resolution and sound, something that you just are not gonna get from streaming.
Streaming is ok, for documentaries and such, which I do enjoy watching...but for a good, well produced movie, I want BR.....and now that all the brick and mortar stores for rental are gone...if NF goes, that will blow.
Redbox is ok, but they ONLY have recent releases....I don't wanna buy most movies, I want to rent them, but I like the BR versions to stretch my AV set up.
Not to mentiion...the streaming selection from Netflix is pretty dismal.....good documentaries, but when scanning through movies...it looks like a cornucopia of fodder for future MST3K episodes, most of them I'd never even heard of before.
I quit the NF streaming. I do have amazon prime..and found that it comes WITH some streaming, so I got a cheap roku from woot, and found that PS3 now streams amazon. I watch some of that....again, not for my primary high end movie content...but since it comes with amazon prime which I do enjoy for free monthly books and cheap fast shipping....I'll keep that.
I'll miss NF tho...for hard copy rental.
Wouldn't it be better to encourage the 'majority' to get off their asses and learn to be better workers/negotiators....and generally better look out for themselves, rather than depend on someone else or, even worse...the govt?
Wow..people actually DO this?
I don't think I'd be comfortable sleeping in a room full of strangers...I'd be afraid of getting my stuff stolen, or maybe eve worse...?
And I can't really see bringing a girl along on a vacation and doing something like this....doesn't seem like it would make that good of an impression on her....or even picking one up in a bar, and coming back to a non-private room.
In this day in age, that shouldn't matter really. I mean, the days of 'job for life' are long, long gone.
About the only way to get ahead in todays W2 work world...is to job hop every 3 years or so....you do your negotiating for each hop.....not with the same employer.