Are you missing out due to sexual harassment laws?

gargleblaster

Someone posted this article in another thread on another forum, and it amused and amazed me. Thought I'd post it here to see what others thought.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200904/men-sexually-harass-women-because-they-are-not-sexist-ii

I certainly don't feel that I'm missing out due to laws restricting fraternization at the workplace.

However, my real beef with the article was the apparent assumption that we should all adapt to the male mode of behavior. In the article this refers to sexual harassment and abusive behavior that men supposedly use as a form of competition. This reminds me of the default setting that we see so often in society, where the 'manly' or 'macho' forms of behavior are the norm, and anything else seems to be considered an aberration, contemptible, etc.

baby and crumble

I dont think the article is saying we all have to adapt to the male mode of behaviour, I think it's pointing out a quite vald point of view, which is that there is a genuine disconnect between what men and women see as a hostile environment.

I think you can just as easily reverse it and say that men are discrimination against/ harassed in an all female office, and forced to listen to women talkng about period in earshot, etc. It all depends on majority/ minority rules.

God knows, an all female office can become one of the most hostile places on the planet very quickly, and that's coming from a female here!

gargleblaster

I think you can just as easily reverse it and say that men are discrimination against/ harassed in an all female office, and forced to listen to women talkng about period in earshot, etc. It all depends on majority/ minority rules.

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of women harassing men, whether or not it's in a majority-female workplace.

My point though was that from the way I'm reading this, he is saying that the unfortunate repertoire of competition tactics is 'the norm'. I wouldn't say it was the norm any more than women discussing their periods (?) at a majority-female workplace.

Also key is the reason for workplaces forbidding office romances. That is more often due to not wanting to deal with the issues created as a consequence of those relationships ending rather than fear of harassment lawsuits. I would find it strange if most office romances are started by sexual advances in the office. It seems more likely that the majority started after hours (at nights out drinking with colleagues, office parties, etc.) This is after all his reason for writing this, claiming that women are missing out due to these rules restricting relationships.


edit: Also, I suppose I bristle at any attempt to pigeonhole people based on gender, and he does that to men in what seems to me to be a not-so-complimentary fashion. (i.e. His claim that harassing people is just what men do.)

Scarinae

The guy who wrote that article, Satoshi Kanazawa, is always stirring up controversy. There is a huge fuss over here in London about some of his other posts about the relative attractiveness of different races of women - there has been a petition for his resignation and the university senate has voted for a campaign to have him dismissed from his post in LSE (London School of Economics).

Logical Fallacy

That website in general has turned into a "take with a pinch of salt" place in recent times to be honest.

Ant

Fishie wrote: »

The guy who wrote that article, Satoshi Kanazawa, is always stirring up controversy. There is a huge fuss over here in London about some of his other posts about the relative attractiveness of different races of women - there has been a petition for his resignation and the university senate has voted for a campaign to have him dismissed from his post in LSE (London School of Economics).

There's a good rebuttal of Mr. Kanazawa's ideas on attractiveness here. Based on what I've read by him, I'm tending to agree with the first comment that "Satoshi Kanazawa is a troll of the scientific community".