Former Engineer Says Uber Is a Nightmare of Sexism

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
Did you even read the article? The very first paragraph of her account says her manager tried to proposition her for sex.
So he hit on her... Does that mean we allow women to define what is sexual harassment by whether they find the guy attractive? If a dorky guy hits on a girl it is harassment but if a cool guy hits on her it is ok? When radical feminists and SJW promote "men are always wrong and women are always right" than men must unify and stand up to these neo-fascists.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
This reminds me of when I got "sexually harassed" by two different women at a job I had. One of them sat there for about 15 minutes telling me the story of how her doctor prescribed a large dildo to restore her birth canal size after cancer treatment (?). The second one ended with her actually bringing me a computer (a c64) as an excuse to give me a ride home (I don't drive, was too much to take on the bus) in hopes I would invite her in so she could cheat on her husband.
I'm just curious if they were bosses/management or coworkers. There's a world of difference between the two.
When managers proposition you for sex, you have to assume if you respond negatively they will give you a hard time/mark your review lower.

This person went to HR who said they weren't going to do anything about it because the manager was a top performer and this was the first complaint.
After she transferred departments, she met others who filed similar complaints, meaning this wasn't a one time issue.
She was then basically stone walled at the company even after getting good reviews and told that her review score was changed lower for no reason after the fact.
Basically it was a hostile work environment from the get go. HR was complicit and she was even threatened with illegal action by her manager when she complained near the end.

I'm sure Eric holder will find no issues. I mean it's Eric Holder.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
So he hit on her... Does that mean we allow women to define what is sexual harassment by whether they find the guy attractive? If a dorky guy hits on a girl it is harassment but if a cool guy hits on her it is ok? When radical feminists and SJW promote "men are always wrong and women are always right" than men must unify and stand up to these neo-fascists.
Being propositioned for sex by your manager, regardless of gender is sexual harassment in the workplace.
If it's not a person that's in charge of you, like a coworker or someone in a different department it's not.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,508
If it's not a person that's in charge of you, like a coworker or someone in a different department it's not.
Pretty sure it still is dude, if it happens at work. Try it out on a coworker from a different dept. in the break room; "Soooooo, I heard you're into anal". *raises eyebrows* Any unwanted sexual advances or remarks towards a female in the work place is sexual harassment. Any. Don't poop where you eat is a good motto to live by.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
Pretty sure it still is dude, if it happens at work. Try it out on a coworker from a different dept. in the break room; "Soooooo, I heard you're into anal". *raises eyebrows* Any unwanted sexual advances or remarks towards a female in the work place is sexual harassment. Any. Don't poop where you eat is a good motto to live by.
That could be considered harassment by anyone. Typically people don't lunge for the kill. They ask someone out to dinner or coffee or something else.
Case in point is the guy above who said a female gave him a c64 and asked to drive them home in hopes for them to invite them in. I don't consider that sexual harassment.
 

lilbabycat

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
3,810
Some random blog =/= the truth. Feel like I'm repeating myself here. Shit, she had to put out a correction even:

Correction: This article original said that the APA style manual called for one space, but this information was based on the previous edition of the manual. They changed their style from one space after a period to two spaces for manuscripts in the new, sixth edition.
 

Crimson

Gawd
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
558
So he hit on her... Does that mean we allow women to define what is sexual harassment by whether they find the guy attractive? If a dorky guy hits on a girl it is harassment but if a cool guy hits on her it is ok? When radical feminists and SJW promote "men are always wrong and women are always right" than men must unify and stand up to these neo-fascists.
You have never been to family court, where male judges routinely fuck over other men. Unify, ha. Fine, woman want to burn the bra, fathers want equal rights in family court.

I digress,

Nothing is fair except death and taxes <s>.
 

nomu

Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
818
That could be considered harassment by anyone. Typically people don't lunge for the kill. They ask someone out to dinner or coffee or something else.
Case in point is the guy above who said a female gave him a c64 and asked to drive them home in hopes for them to invite them in. I don't consider that sexual harassment.
I've seen multiple workplace harassment videos that show one employee asking another out for coffee and call that harassment.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,605
Being propositioned for sex by your manager, regardless of gender is sexual harassment in the workplace.
If it's not a person that's in charge of you, like a coworker or someone in a different department it's not.
I bet the number of couples, now married, that had a reporting relationship is not small. And if you remove those that kept it in their pants until they no longer had that situation, it won't get much smaller . I think this is an ill-defined situation.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
So he hit on her... Does that mean we allow women to define what is sexual harassment by whether they find the guy attractive? If a dorky guy hits on a girl it is harassment but if a cool guy hits on her it is ok? When radical feminists and SJW promote "men are always wrong and women are always right" than men must unify and stand up to these neo-fascists.
If you are a manager of other employees, employees who are your subordinates, you can get away with "hitting on them" once, rarely. The most important word to know about the entire thing is "unwanted". Yes, if they don't want you hitting on them and they say so, you fucked up. Then if it continues it becomes harassment. If they like it then it's not unwanted and therefor it's not harassment, but it can still become a problem because it can turn into a "sexual favors" thing. Other employees claim unfair treatment because the boss is boinking his underling.

What this translates to is problems for the company. Companies have problems enough so in simplest terms, managers and leaders need to understand and simply accept that relationships with their subordinates is a very bad idea. If you are a boss and you have a thing for one of your workers and you think it's mutual, the best thing you can do is ask them if they would like a transfer to another department so that the two of you can go have dinner, see a movie, get to know each other.

Sending a subordinate an email on the first day of her new job and being so completely forward with it? That's poor judgement, that creates problems for the company, that is risky behavior.

And it's not just women that get to define sexual harassment, it works for men too.

None of this means some people don't go too far and that there are not some people who abuse these protective laws and policies.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I'm just curious if they were bosses/management or coworkers. There's a world of difference between the two.
When managers proposition you for sex, you have to assume if you respond negatively they will give you a hard time/mark your review lower.

This person went to HR who said they weren't going to do anything about it because the manager was a top performer and this was the first complaint.
After she transferred departments, she met others who filed similar complaints, meaning this wasn't a one time issue.
She was then basically stone walled at the company even after getting good reviews and told that her review score was changed lower for no reason after the fact.
Basically it was a hostile work environment from the get go. HR was complicit and she was even threatened with illegal action by her manager when she complained near the end.

I'm sure Eric holder will find no issues. I mean it's Eric Holder.
It may not be a one time issue, and multiple instances may sound like a big problem. But the fact is simple that he has to do this to the same people more than once for it to become a real problem legally. The man's email was not that over the top. For it to become sexual harassment it must be "unwanted" and therefor the woman has to either tell him directly or go to HR, which she did, and give them the opportunity to make it clear to the manager that she ain't interested. If the manager continues then there is a problem and it becomes harassment which is why they are telling the woman it's the first time so they can't really do anything about it. Even then, they did take it seriously, they did recommend that she move to another team. I am sure there are some States that have stronger restrictions or companies with stronger protective policies. But it's not universal and one size doesn't fit all. That's reality.

All this being said, my post before this explains how I personally feel about this. I think any manager that hits on a subordinate is not doing his company any favors and it's poor judgement. I was in the Army and the Army is pretty damn strict on this. Yes there are still assholes that push it and worse there are some real dickheads that go far beyond what is correct or even legal. But that isn't the civilian world and it isn't the law in California or whatever state this happened in.

Take a moment and think about this from HR's position. A brand new employee comes in and is making a sexual harassment complaint on her first day at work. In simple terms it's potentially much easier all the way around to just offer her a different position on another team and remove her from this guy's reach management wise. She could have sent a reply and told him she was already really involved with someone else or that she doesn't do workplace relationships, that she was excited to have this opportunity for great work challenges but that she didn't want to start anything up with him personally. Then if the manager pursues it the problem becomes more real for HR because she let him know and it's now two times and she let him know it is unwanted.

http://www.employees-lawyer.com/sexual-harassment-law-california/

Might as well dig into California Law to know for sure. I haven't read this site yet so don't point to it as proof I am wrong, I am just now checking myself.
 
Last edited:

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
Pretty sure it still is dude, if it happens at work. Try it out on a coworker from a different dept. in the break room; "Soooooo, I heard you're into anal". *raises eyebrows* Any unwanted sexual advances or remarks towards a female in the work place is sexual harassment. Any. Don't poop where you eat is a good motto to live by.
"Office romances" have been happening for a long, long time. To pretend that it doesn't happen or is somehow wrong goes against human nature. This is about sexual power and about feminist domination. Men are not automatically wrong and women are not automatically right.
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
If you are a manager of other employees, employees who are your subordinates, you can get away with "hitting on them" once, rarely. The most important word to know about the entire thing is "unwanted". Yes, if they don't want you hitting on them and they say so, you fucked up. Then if it continues it becomes harassment. If they like it then it's not unwanted and therefor it's not harassment, but it can still become a problem because it can turn into a "sexual favors" thing. Other employees claim unfair treatment because the boss is boinking his underling.

What this translates to is problems for the company. Companies have problems enough so in simplest terms, managers and leaders need to understand and simply accept that relationships with their subordinates is a very bad idea. If you are a boss and you have a thing for one of your workers and you think it's mutual, the best thing you can do is ask them if they would like a transfer to another department so that the two of you can go have dinner, see a movie, get to know each other.

Sending a subordinate an email on the first day of her new job and being so completely forward with it? That's poor judgement, that creates problems for the company, that is risky behavior.

And it's not just women that get to define sexual harassment, it works for men too.

None of this means some people don't go too far and that there are not some people who abuse these protective laws and policies.
A reasonable response. My initial response to the article was the guy is an ass and the woman reacted hysterically (as feminists are prone to do). Neither should be praised or defended.
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,012
"Office romances" have been happening for a long, long time. To pretend that it doesn't happen or is somehow wrong goes against human nature. This is about sexual power and about feminist domination. Men are not automatically wrong and women are not automatically right.
It sure would be nice if people could control their hormones at work, never does anyone any favors.

I agree with you, but there really is no correct way to handle a 'he said she said' fight when there are no witnesses. And HR is not a judicial branch, they really don't care who is at fault, just make it stop so the company can make money.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I agree, just skimming the website I linked points out two things from a legal perspective, one, Sexual Harassment under the law isn't a catch-all phrase. You have to define what kind of sexual harassment is occurring to know how to deal with it in a courtroom. By this woman's blog, if supported by fact or corroborating testimony, there was more then one type of sexual harassment going on. The opening email, depending on just how it was worded, could possibly be what California would call;
Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when a term of employment is conditioned on submission to unwelcome sexual advances.6 These kinds of situations usually take one of two forms:

An offer. The employer or supervisor offers a job benefit—like a raise or a promotion—in exchange for some kind of sexual conduct on the part of the employee.
A threat. The employer or supervisor makes a threat of a work-related punishment—like a demotion, pay reduction, or termination—unless the employee gives in to the employer or supervisor’s sexual demands.
A single instance of quid pro quo sexual harassment can be enough to support a lawsuit.
Without the actual text of the email I couldn't say if an offer, or a treat, was made or implied.

The other type of sexual harassment that this woman has claimed is;
A hostile work environment is created when harassment is serious and repeated. More technically, hostile work environment sexual harassment occurs where the victim’s work environment is made hostile, offensive, oppressive, intimidating, or abusive due to pervasive sexual harassment.9 Because conduct must be “pervasive,” there usually must be more than one instance of unlawful conduct to create a hostile work environment. To make a case under this theory, victims must show a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine, or a generalized nature.
I hate to quote Tom Cruze for much, "but it doesn't matter what you she knows, it matters what she can prove."

Yea I changed it a little, sue me :sneaky:
 

Tawnos

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
3,807
Some random blog =/= the truth. Feel like I'm repeating myself here. Shit, she had to put out a correction even:
You'll probably keep feeling like that as long as you approach the world with that attitude of condescending superiority. No sweat off my back, but if you took the time to actually look at the s you're still wrong:

The rule "Use two spaces after punctuation marks at the end of a sentence" has been changed to "Use one space after punctuation marks at the end of a sentence." The two space rule was based on a misreading of section 4.01 in the APA 6th edition manual on page 88 where it states "Exceptions:… Spacing twice after punctuation marks at the end of a sentence aids readers of draft manuscripts." To clarify the meaning of this, CDD Curriculum editors emailed APA manual editors, who informed them that two spaces after punctuation is optional for drafts, and , more importantly, that any paper submitted to instructors is not considered a draft. Therefore, the one-space-after-punctuation rule applies to all written assignments.
The "correction" was based on the "What's new in the Sixth Edition", and the errata clarifies that it is only meant for drafts. What's silly is that you do it even on the web, where unless the rendered HTML is marked as white-space: pre additional spaces are collapsed into one to properly allow proportional fonts to render the spaces after sentences.

Now, do you have anything insightful to contribute? The spittle-flecked ranting you've already brought to the table isn't very conducive to learning, and when multiple sources were provided, you nitpicked one aspect of the first source. Have you ever asked women in the workplace whether they've encountered negative reactions to the same assertiveness that gets many guys praise? Stepping back, do you meaningfully interact with any women? Or do you treat them like you do people on forums, and thus get as banned from their lives for your behavior as you did on the steam forums?
 

Killahurtz

Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
646
If the story is true.......

So sexual harassment is now defined as not getting swag?
So she has a manager she doesn't get along with......ask for a transfer.....or resign.....

I agree it's not polite to pick on people, or imagine that men are different in the workplace than women, or bully them physically or mentally....

But this sort of hints at sour grapes......sorry.....

hahaha...that's the best description of todays leftist leaning democrats!...good one
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
In english this translates to "we discriminate against white people and skilled people that are more suited for the job".



When i was taught typing in grade 9 and 10 i as taught to put two spaces after a fullstop and the next sentence. Has the official rules changed?

Ummmm no. We sit as a group and interview and vote. But we are encouraged to vote for an equal candidate skill wise if they come from a different background.

We once had a guy come in who was 75 who had an incredible background in engineering. He was still programming. But we didn't hire him simply because he lacked the skills. He never programmed embedded, C++ or .NET
 

HoffY

Gawd
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
938
It sure would be nice if people could control their hormones at work, never does anyone any favors.
Two former co-workers of mine would beg to differ. They've now been together for nearly 10 years and have two young children since they could not control their hormones at work.

I best get the main stream media onto them so they can completely obliterate the male's credibility, job prospects, and life for such a heinous crime, pronto!
 

Darunion

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,012
Two former co-workers of mine would beg to differ. They've now been together for nearly 10 years and have two young children since they could not control their hormones at work.

I best get the main stream media onto them so they can completely obliterate the male's credibility, job prospects, and life for such a heinous crime, pronto!
With everything there are exceptions, but overall most of the time it is not a good thing for the company. There are success stories based on heroin but that doesn't make it okay for everyone.
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
It sure would be nice if people could control their hormones at work, never does anyone any favors.

I agree with you, but there really is no correct way to handle a 'he said she said' fight when there are no witnesses. And HR is not a judicial branch, they really don't care who is at fault, just make it stop so the company can make money.
I'm one who believes in not shitting where you eat but I also have known several people who have had an office romance that lead to a very long term marriage so I cannot condemn the practice. Those who choose to redefine human nature and attempt to force people to comply with their new definitions (hint: SJW's) are doomed to failure...
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
I agree, just skimming the website I linked points out two things from a legal perspective, one, Sexual Harassment under the law isn't a catch-all phrase. You have to define what kind of sexual harassment is occurring to know how to deal with it in a courtroom. By this woman's blog, if supported by fact or corroborating testimony, there was more then one type of sexual harassment going on. The opening email, depending on just how it was worded, could possibly be what California would call;


Without the actual text of the email I couldn't say if an offer, or a treat, was made or implied.

The other type of sexual harassment that this woman has claimed is;


I hate to quote Tom Cruze for much, "but it doesn't matter what you she knows, it matters what she can prove."

Yea I changed it a little, sue me :sneaky:
This is where I have a problem. "Who" gets to define what is a hostile workplace? There is a big brouhaha about some NASCAR girls:
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/02/mon...ional-speedway-brad-keselowski-jamie-mcmurray

Lets say an AutoParts store, which is all male and the guys have a poster of the NASCAR girls in the back, hires a woman. The new hire declares the poster to be offensive. Who exactly is creating the hostile work environment? Feminists have no problem invalidating the male experience. Men "must" stand up to, and push back, against feminist misandrists!
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
This is where I have a problem. "Who" gets to define what is a hostile workplace? There is a big brouhaha about some NASCAR girls:
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/02/mon...ional-speedway-brad-keselowski-jamie-mcmurray

Lets say an AutoParts store, which is all male and the guys have a poster of the NASCAR girls in the back, hires a woman. The new hire declares the poster to be offensive. Who exactly is creating the hostile work environment? Feminists have no problem invalidating the male experience. Men "must" stand up to, and push back, against feminist misandrists!
Sexual harassment law in California arises from two sources. On the state level, California has adopted the Fair Employment and Housing Act (commonly called “FEHA”), which expressly prohibits sexual harassment.1 On the federal level, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes discrimination on the basis of a person’s sex unlawful.2 For the most part, FEHA provides greater protection for employees than Title VII. So, when bringing a lawsuit, California employees usually seek relief exclusively under FEHA.
Under the article I linked, they suggest that the most likely governing law in this woman's story would be California's FEHA.
Here is a wiki on the FEHA;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Fair_Employment_and_Housing_Act_of_1959

The direction I am heading is that this law is civil and not criminal in nature. Therefore the "Who" gets to define what is a hostile workplace?" is answer in the courtroom, a plaintive makes charges that "whatever" is a violation of FEHA, Plaintive present's evidence, defendant's counsel presents evidence, there are arguments, a Judge referees and interprets Law, and a Jury makes decisions and awards damages when appropriate. There are variations. But no one is setting a definition beyond what is already defined in the State Statute and what occurs in the courtroom afterwards.

Now I am not a lawyer, this is my own understanding. Someone else may want to add something, or even correct me. It's not like I'm always right.

Now I am going to look at your link, and I see where you are going with your example. The single poster in the back is not what makes a hostile work environment. An employee making a complaint about the poster is also, not creating a hostile work environment. Not according to the law, or this California law in any case.

But anyone saying that something is bothering them, in particular when it is sexual in nature, deserves a little consideration from their boss. It don't mean to say that a manager always has to give an employee their way, but a manager needs to listen and decide smartly.

I'll take your example and I'll play store manager, I hired this girl and now she is complaining to me about the poster. She is going to have to tell me why she is offended by the poster. I'm going to ask her if a similar poster with all men or a mix of men and women would still bother her. But the biggest thing I am going to do is listen and not blow her off or make her think I don't care how she feels about it cause that is a sure fire way to make a woman have bad feelings about everything connected to you. My wife remained jealous for years of a 3000GT that I bought, because when I bought it, I called it "my baby". A car, the woman was jealous of a fucking car.

I want to look at this poster and your linked article but the Army has the site blocked :(, I'm looking to see if I can find the correct story somewhere else..... I can't seem to find anything other than some atheists trying to stop pre-race prayers.

Ahh, I think I found it;
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ster-energy-girls-revealing-outfits/98131774/

Sounds simple, you can't make everyone happy all the time and people can bitch about whatever they want. This really isn't a hostile work environment issue. This is a simple issue of a business and it's fans. If enough fans don't like how the girls dress then the businesses involved show think about making changes. If it's a minority then tell them that you have looked into the issue and that if it bothers enough people then you'll change it and let the prudes stew.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
OMG, are you for real? This still means "not discriminating against whites" in your minds?

Its no wonder this snow ball is growing larger and the backlash ever larger than said snowball.
Look, if they are EQUALLY qualified then studies show that hiring someone with a different background is more likely to be of benefit to the company. This gives the minority candidate an edge up because they are worth more for their unique thinking patterns/experience.

I'm sorry statistics butt hurt you so much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
Two former co-workers of mine would beg to differ. They've now been together for nearly 10 years and have two young children since they could not control their hormones at work.

I best get the main stream media onto them so they can completely obliterate the male's credibility, job prospects, and life for such a heinous crime, pronto!
As per policy said companions in not be in a heir achy relationship at work. In other words, one person can not have the ability to affect the other persons job or compensation. Otherwise HR has to go through a ton of legal paperwork they have to both sign saying the relationship is voluntary, and neither one can sue if the relationship goes bad no matter what happens.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
This is where I have a problem. "Who" gets to define what is a hostile workplace? There is a big brouhaha about some NASCAR girls:
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/02/mon...ional-speedway-brad-keselowski-jamie-mcmurray

Lets say an AutoParts store, which is all male and the guys have a poster of the NASCAR girls in the back, hires a woman. The new hire declares the poster to be offensive. Who exactly is creating the hostile work environment? Feminists have no problem invalidating the male experience. Men "must" stand up to, and push back, against feminist misandrists!
As much as I hate to tell you this, "NASCAR girls" is in no way mandatory to completing said job in any shape or form. That poster in no way helps you sell car parts.

It's NOT your workplace. It is the company's workplace. And that company consist of men and women who don't want to be objectified.

If you want to see scantily clad women at work, go to the beach, hooters, vegas, or a gentlemen's club. That is part of their business model to cater towards men.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
As much as I hate to tell you this, "NASCAR girls" is in no way mandatory to completing said job in any shape or form. That poster in no way helps you sell car parts.

It's NOT your workplace. It is the company's workplace. And that company consist of men and women who don't want to be objectified.

If you want to see scantily clad women at work, go to the beach, hooters, vegas, or a gentlemen's club. That is part of their business model to cater towards men.
No... You are making assumptions. Suppose this is a privately owned business? I specifically used the example of an Auto Parts store because for decades it was common for auto part companies to give away promotional calendars featuring attractive women. It is recent occurrence for women to go to into male oriented businesses and force a culture change. Why does a culture change "always" favor feminine sensibilities? "You" are promoting an agenda whereby "men are always wrong and women are always right".

There is nothing offensive about the NASCAR girls cited above. "Many" women choose to dress that way when clubbing on Friday and Saturday nights. If some women are offended by inoffensive male behaviors than they should seek employment elsewhere rather than force their misandrist views on others.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
No... You are making assumptions. Suppose this is a privately owned business? I specifically used the example of an Auto Parts store because for decades it was common for auto part companies to give away promotional calendars featuring attractive women. It is recent occurrence for women to go to into male oriented businesses and force a culture change. Why does a culture change "always" favor feminine sensibilities? "You" are promoting an agenda whereby "men are always wrong and women are always right".

There is nothing offensive about the NASCAR girls cited above. "Many" women choose to dress that way when clubbing on Friday and Saturday nights. If some women are offended by inoffensive male behaviors than they should seek employment elsewhere rather than force their misandrist views on others.
No. Women by the same token are not allowed to objectify you. It's a two way street. I had this odd perv lady at my last job who was about 60 invite me over to her house and watch pr0n movies with her on more than one occasion. And she offered other things too. If I said anything to HR she would have been reprimanded at the very least.

And quite frankly posters are not needed to sell car parts. Broken or worn out car parts are needed to sell car parts. Imagine that...not replacing worn out parts will leave you with a worn out broken car that isn't fixed....AMAZING. But I guess you stand on principal that you need a poster of a half clothed woman before you buy those parts because that will make the car run better.

"Many" women choose to dress that way when clubbing on Friday and Saturday nights.
That's as stupid as saying women want to be r@ped because they wear short skirts and tight tops. There's a difference between wanting to look good and being forcibly advanced against. And a club is free will to visit. It's not a workplace where you make a living.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
As much as I hate to tell you this, "NASCAR girls" is in no way mandatory to completing said job in any shape or form. That poster in no way helps you sell car parts.

It's NOT your workplace. It is the company's workplace. And that company consist of men and women who don't want to be objectified.

If you want to see scantily clad women at work, go to the beach, hooters, vegas, or a gentlemen's club. That is part of their business model to cater towards men.
I like to point a couple of things out here.

First off, the NASCAR girls issue thejoker brought up really isn't about sexual harassment or hostile workplace issues. When I replied I didn't want to bring that up, but it is the case. I also think I understand that thejoker mentioned them for a specific reason, that he was focused on the concept that sometimes the complainer is the source of the discord.

I offer exhibit A;


Now his example about the poster in the workplace, it was hypothetical so I think you are going a bit far in stating how the hypothetical and fictitious employees feel or what the don't want. But what I really want to point out is that I think your taking his question a little too seriously, ease off mate, let him breath.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
............And quite frankly posters are not needed to sell car parts. Broken or worn out car parts are needed to sell car parts. Imagine that.................
Where are you coming from on this poster selling car parts line of reasoning?

The hypothetical question was, the poster is in the back of the shop, you know, the back were customers don't go, the back where the stock is kept until it needs to go on the shelves. The reality is that such posters and calendars were advertising tools to promote wholesale parts and tools distributors or brand names and it most definitely was part of the automotive cultures which were male dominated for decades.

It was advertising, and it continues today even if some don't like it.
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
Under the article I linked, they suggest that the most likely governing law in this woman's story would be California's FEHA.
Here is a wiki on the FEHA;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Fair_Employment_and_Housing_Act_of_1959

The direction I am heading is that this law is civil and not criminal in nature. Therefore the "Who" gets to define what is a hostile workplace?" is answer in the courtroom, a plaintive makes charges that "whatever" is a violation of FEHA, Plaintive present's evidence, defendant's counsel presents evidence, there are arguments, a Judge referees and interprets Law, and a Jury makes decisions and awards damages when appropriate. There are variations. But no one is setting a definition beyond what is already defined in the State Statute and what occurs in the courtroom afterwards.

Now I am not a lawyer, this is my own understanding. Someone else may want to add something, or even correct me. It's not like I'm always right.

Now I am going to look at your link, and I see where you are going with your example. The single poster in the back is not what makes a hostile work environment. An employee making a complaint about the poster is also, not creating a hostile work environment. Not according to the law, or this California law in any case.

But anyone saying that something is bothering them, in particular when it is sexual in nature, deserves a little consideration from their boss. It don't mean to say that a manager always has to give an employee their way, but a manager needs to listen and decide smartly.

I'll take your example and I'll play store manager, I hired this girl and now she is complaining to me about the poster. She is going to have to tell me why she is offended by the poster. I'm going to ask her if a similar poster with all men or a mix of men and women would still bother her. But the biggest thing I am going to do is listen and not blow her off or make her think I don't care how she feels about it cause that is a sure fire way to make a woman have bad feelings about everything connected to you. My wife remained jealous for years of a 3000GT that I bought, because when I bought it, I called it "my baby". A car, the woman was jealous of a fucking car.

I want to look at this poster and your linked article but the Army has the site blocked :(, I'm looking to see if I can find the correct story somewhere else..... I can't seem to find anything other than some atheists trying to stop pre-race prayers.

Ahh, I think I found it;
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ster-energy-girls-revealing-outfits/98131774/

Sounds simple, you can't make everyone happy all the time and people can bitch about whatever they want. This really isn't a hostile work environment issue. This is a simple issue of a business and it's fans. If enough fans don't like how the girls dress then the businesses involved show think about making changes. If it's a minority then tell them that you have looked into the issue and that if it bothers enough people then you'll change it and let the prudes stew.
Again; a reasonable response. Part of the problem is that while the law is in theory blind often political activists can still impose a radical agenda upon the majority. If feminist activists are aggressive enough and pick their legal battles in favorable districts and by consequence favorable judges they can create legal precedents and impose their will upon an unwilling population.

As noted by the feminist Camille Paglia, radical feminists are creating a "toxic environment for boys" in the schools and are doing the same in the workplace. There are now male behaviors that have been acceptable for thousands of years that are now deemed offensive by radical feminists. In the name of creating a work environment that is not hostile to women, feminists are trying to impose a work environment that is hostile to men.

Originally published in the Wall Street Journal: http://theaquilareport.com/camille-paglia-a-feminist-defense-of-masculine-virtues/
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
Where are you coming from on this poster selling car parts line of reasoning?

The hypothetical question was, the poster is in the back of the shop, you know, the back were customers don't go, the back where the stock is kept until it needs to go on the shelves. The reality is that such posters and calendars were advertising tools to promote wholesale parts and tools distributors or brand names and it most definitely was part of the automotive cultures which were male dominated for decades.

It was advertising, and it continues today even if some don't like it.
Do you need a poster of a half clad woman to buy a product for your store?
 

Nytegard

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
3,217
Well, some more about this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace-culture.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

An Uber manager who groped an employee was fired within 12 hours. The number of female employees from when she first entered and left is different (at a constant 15%) in the NYT article vs the OP article which stated 25% down to 3%. The worst claims don't mention the gender of the person threatened, nor do they sound sexist in nature, just threatening. Using a homophobic slur, well, I'm not sure I'd target this as homophobia, rather more of just colloquialism. While the manager proposing sex I'd say is sexist, HR not terminating him, and stating that it might be a one time thing, because the manager is a top earner, sounds more like HR just being more concerned with money (and the manager isn't there anymore).
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Well, some more about this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace-culture.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

..................While the manager proposing sex I'd say is sexist, HR not terminating him, and stating that it might be a one time thing, because the manager is a top earner, sounds more like HR just being more concerned with money (and the manager isn't there anymore).
Here's the thing, the company could decide to do something to the manager for his "offenses", but the thing is, unless he is out and out abusive in his language or he threatens or promises something then not only would they loss a "good performer" they would risk a law suite in return. For you to really fire this guy you better be able to prove in a civil court that he was harassing these women. If he is taking a one time shot and he isn't pursuing them, threatening them, or promising favors for sex, there is no case against him. Not under Federal or California Law. Furthermore, you need to be able to prove damages, a civil case always comes down to money so a lawyer will not chase this unless he can prove damages. No money, no point.

When HR says it's "the first offense", what they are really saying, what they mean is, that unless the guy keeps it up then they can't do anything because he isn't breaking the law yet. Had the first manager continued sending emails to her then he would have been violating the law and then HR could do something about it. It's also important that someone tell him that his behavior is unwanted. Either the victim or HR needs to tell him, and put it in writing, that he needs to stop cause this woman doesn't want to hear it. If the man keeps it up, he's in trouble, if you don't tell him, he isn't aware that his advances and attentions are unwanted.

Just because he has tried the same approach with other women is not enough.

EDIT, and something else. Some people, this seems more prevalent with women, but some people go to a manager or HR and they are expecting, (as this woman was), a response that is actually unrealistic, and when they don't get the response that they expected they feel like they were not taken seriously, like they were blown off and sometimes they won't even go back again even if the same thing happens again and they were told to bring it back if it did.

I just remembered that I wanted to point this out earlier and had forgotten.
 
Last edited:

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
No. Women by the same token are not allowed to objectify you. It's a two way street. I had this odd perv lady at my last job who was about 60 invite me over to her house and watch pr0n movies with her on more than one occasion. And she offered other things too. If I said anything to HR she would have been reprimanded at the very least.

And quite frankly posters are not needed to sell car parts. Broken or worn out car parts are needed to sell car parts. Imagine that...not replacing worn out parts will leave you with a worn out broken car that isn't fixed....AMAZING. But I guess you stand on principal that you need a poster of a half clothed woman before you buy those parts because that will make the car run better.



That's as stupid as saying women want to be r@ped because they wear short skirts and tight tops. There's a difference between wanting to look good and being forcibly advanced against. And a club is free will to visit. It's not a workplace where you make a living.
There is only one problem with your response: Men do not care if women objectify them. If you report a 60 year old lady than pretty much "everyone" you work will would consider you a douche.

Similarly if a calendar has a pretty girl on it, and the guys in the back room like it, than the company name on the calendar will be seen everyday by the people that sell car parts. It's called marketing a brand name...

"You" are an enabler of radical feminists. "You" are enabling feminists who consider regular guys to be "toxically masculine". You are enabling radicals to feminize the workplace while demasculinzing the workplace. You are enabling feminists to discriminate against men by establishing quotas that will promote hiring less qualified women over more qualified men. Drinking the feminist kool-aid does not make you more intelligent or enlightened. It makes you a useful drone that will be discarded when you no longer serve their needs...
 
Top