Sexual Harassment.... eh, YEAH of course!

MrDarcy · 15-09-2010 01:08PM

liah wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you about how her behaviour could be interpreted, thought I'd said that. I agree with you, for the record.

However, it still doesn't excuse the actions of the men. They're still adults and just because she could seem to be acting childishly or flirtatiously or provocatively or whatever else doesn't by any means give them any right to.

Should we act like idiots just because we're confronted with them? If a skanger came up to you and started throwing insults but being otherwise harmless, would you bring yourself down to their level and insult them or just ignore them and continue on?

I just don't think immaturity should be excused.

Do the anaysis, she started the whole thing by dressing like a porn star. She cannot expect to be taken seriously when her attitude is so utterly juvenile. She demonstrated immaturity by dressing unprofessionally and her manner is also likely defective, just going by her outrageously flirty demeanour in the interview under discussion here.

The chances of a skanger coming up to me isn't dependent to any degree upon how I present myself to the said skanger. The example you present is not compatible with the discussion here I think.

clived2 · 15-09-2010 01:10PM

clived2 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OBPaenkxdg&feature=player_embedded

Dave Chapelle got this, ( embed not working )

Some people need to watch this video, I see

stovelid · 15-09-2010 01:11PM

MrDarcy wrote: »

But which is it, either it is acceptable for a woman to wear a bikini to work or it isn't, and it's either acceptable or unacceptable for a good reason. While your being so descriptive, what is the difference between glancing at a provacatively dressed woman and leering at same???

The issue of whether it's acceptable is a moot point. It still doesn't confer the right for men to act as judge and jury and behave in that fashion.

And if you insist on equating sneaking a glance at a women's exposed tits with acting like a chimp in heat, you're just being disingenuous. You may as well say that muttering under your breath at somebody that shoves past you in a bus queue is categorically no different to punching them in the face.

tallaght01 · 15-09-2010 01:13PM

I have balls-all idea what this thread is about..... but I'd ride the rashers off that reporter in the OP!

MrDarcy · 15-09-2010 01:20PM

stovelid wrote: »

I also accept that I'm far from innocent of the crime of being caught glancing at same.

But no clothing - not even wearing a bikini to work - should confer the right to men to leer, hoot or act like a pack of chimps toward a woman.

What's the difference??? I'm not asking what the difference is between men acting like a pack of chimps and leering at a woman. I'm asking what is the difference between being caught glancing at a woman, which you say we are all guilty of, and leering at a woman???

If we are not allowed to leer/glance/look, then why the fu*k do women dress provacatively so??? If the ultimate outcome is that guys are behaving innapropriately for looking/glancing/leering???

mikom · 15-09-2010 01:24PM

Judging by her cop-on, I look forward to the interviewers first report from inside a mosque.

MrDarcy · 15-09-2010 01:25PM

liah wrote: »

Why on earth do you keep degrading your gender?!

You're saying that because a woman dresses a certain way a man is automatically no longer responsible for his actions? That he can in no way control himself? That he cannot differentiate between what's inappropriate or what's not?

THIS is what I don't get. THIS is why I made my first post. Why is this okay? Why is this excused? Why is this acceptable?

It's insulting to both genders no matter how you look at it. It's reducing both to nothing more than dumb animals, and we're not.

Come on, like.

Sorry, the only person degrading their gender is the sports reporter under discussion here. Yes men should be responsible for their actions but at the end of the day, what is happening here is that a woman is crying foul, while going as far as it is possible to attract as much unwanted attention to herself as is practically possible. Not all men are equally intelligent or socially mature, just like not all news reporters would be stupid enough to come in front of a TV camera with their t*ts practically hanging out like the girl under discussion here.

As I said, if I was interviewing her I'd have told her to f*ck off back to the wardrobe department and get into something more appropriate for the discussion at hand, but sure then she'd be doing another interview with someone else, no doubt saying that I had sexually harrassed her, men can't win!

stovelid · 15-09-2010 01:29PM

MrDarcy wrote: »

I'm asking what is the difference between being caught glancing at a woman, which you say we are all guilty of, and leering at a woman???

Are you taking the piss?

MrDarcy wrote: »

why the fu*k do women dress provacatively so???

Because they want to and it's not against the law?

Are you honestly implying that the primary responsibility for your behaviour lies with the woman here? By the same token, you could say that you can't help shoplifting provocatively displayed goods. As an adult, you are responsible for regulating your own behaviour, no matter what level of "provocation" (lol) you are subject to.

And you really cannot see the difference between glancing at somebody and deliberately acting in a boorish, intimidating fashion?

Are you 16 or something?

Wompa1 · 15-09-2010 01:32PM

stovelid wrote: »

Are you taking the piss?

Because they want to and it's not against the law?

Are you honestly implying that the primary responsibility for your behaviuor lies with the woman here? And that you really cannot see the difference between glancing at somebody and deliberately acting in a boorish, intimidating fashion?

Are you 16 or something?

On that basis is leering against the law? I think what the poster meant is if a guy is caught looking by a girl it's up to her interpreatation to say if they guy is leering. Is it leering if it's for over 5 seconds? or how do you define leering?

MrDarcy · 15-09-2010 01:35PM

stovelid wrote: »

Are you taking the piss?

Because they want to and it's not against the law?

Are you honestly implying that the primary responsibility for your behaviour lies with the woman here? By the same token, you could say that you can't help shoplifting provocatively displayed goods. As an adult, you are responsible for regulating your own behaviour, no matter what level of "provocation" (lol) you are subject to.

And you really cannot see the difference between glancing at somebody and deliberately acting in a boorish, intimidating fashion?

Are you 16 or something?

There are women out there who would have a huge problem with you looking/leering/glancing, even though the whole purpose behind a woman dressing provactively is to turn a head.

I'm not condoning men who whistle and roar at a woman regardless of how she is dressed. At the same time many women will call a man a pervert for looking, yet we have a poster on here who is fine with a compliment when it is packaged up and dispatched to her in a particular format which she is happy with, but if she caught a guy looking at her she'd have an issue with it???

stovelid · 15-09-2010 01:38PM

Wompa1 wrote: »

On that basis is leering against the law? I think what the poster meant is if a guy is caught looking by a girl it's up to her interpreatation to say if they guy is leering. Is it leering if it's for over 5 seconds? or how do you define leering?

Of course, it's not against the law.

Are you honestly saying that you can't see the difference between

a) glancing at a woman's cleavage

b) a group of man chanting, leering and passing comments about a woman's cleavage

Are we just getting into the realm of sophistry here for the sake of it?

The implication here seems to be that all levels of reaction are equivalently fitting and appropriate because of the same initial 'provocation'.

MrDarcy wrote: »

There are women out there who would have a huge problem with you looking/leering/glancing, even though the whole purpose behind a woman dressing provactively is to turn a head.

I'm on record here (as are a lot of the women on this thread) as saying that I do look and that some women (even in my experience) do overreact, often based on meaningless metrics such as being attracted to the guy or not. That, however, is still no justification for behaviour that even when taken out of the context here is still intimating and boorish.

If the OP was about a woman complaining about men glancing at her tits in that outfit, it would be different. We're talking about juvenile frat-boy ribaldry though. Different cases, to me.

MrDarcy · 15-09-2010 01:43PM

stovelid wrote: »

Let's get this straight.

By wearing clothes like that, I'm not sure she can complain if men look at her tits a bit more.

And I too can see the point that the difference between demurral and acceptance of these looks can be subject to the attractiveness of the man doing it.

I also accept that I'm far from innocent of the crime of being caught glancing at same.

But no clothing - not even wearing a bikini to work - should confer the right to men to leer, hoot or act like a pack of chimps toward a woman.

But in your post above you have put leering and hooting and acting like a pack of chimps all into the same group of behaviour that you claim is objectionable.

Yet in the same post, you clearly have no issue with being caught glancing at a woman's t*ts, which would be most often construed in a workplace context certainly as sexual harrassment??

stovelid · 15-09-2010 01:53PM

MrDarcy wrote: »

Yet in the same post, you clearly have no issue with being caught glancing at a woman's t*ts, which would be most often construed in a workplace context certainly as sexual harrassment??

Nearly all the men and women I know would not see glancing at a woman's breasts as sexual harassment. And if it is construed as so, it's either due to unrealistic rules or somebody grinding an axe.

The behaviour outlined in the OP clearly is harassment.

Please consider my examples outside of some straw-man, man-hating, scantily-clad harridan that you appear to have constructed in your mind.

Are you seriously implying that the following examples are concomitant?

a) glancing momentarily at a woman's breasts in work.

b) being one of a group of men that whoop, cheer and point a woman's breasts in work

You are insisting on equating the fact that I believe that:

a) wearing low-cut dresses will consciously invite more looks

equates to:

b) wearing low-cut dresses means that adult men are duty-bound to lose self-control to the extent where they create a degrading and intimidating environment for the woman.

It's like saying that a teenager wearing OTT clothes in a small country town to draw attention to themselves has no right to distinguish between (invited) looks of attention and being battered for looking different.

Banji · 15-09-2010 01:53PM

4 pages on a non-story topic. nice!

ShamoBuc · 15-09-2010 01:58PM

Dudess wrote: »

I also dislike when other women complain about e.g. strip clubs.

why would women complain about strip clubs.... they work there;)

DoneDL · 15-09-2010 02:12PM

This girl could give Michael OLeary tips on advertising and promoting for free

Dudess · 15-09-2010 02:21PM

Lol at people trying to find examples of man-hating where there aren't any. And fuk anyone too who says a woman who gets hooted and jeered at, and doesn't want it, asks for it by dressing sexily. If she gets ratty because of a guy merely looking at her boobs/arse/legs when she's skimpily dressed, she's a fickle bint, but she has the right not to have to put up with extreme leering and being made to feel uncomfortable, no matter how sexily she's dressed.

Looks like the retard brigade are gone anyway though and sense/intelligence has been brought to the thread by Stovelid.

pickarooney · 15-09-2010 02:25PM

That dreamy Stovelid's such a dish; he could leer at me any day!

stovelid · 15-09-2010 02:26PM

Dudess wrote: »

and sense/intelligence has been brought to the thread by Stovelid.

Did ee?

/geddit?

liah · 15-09-2010 02:28PM

MrDarcy wrote: »

Sorry, the only person degrading their gender is the sports reporter under discussion here. Yes men should be responsible for their actions but at the end of the day, what is happening here is that a woman is crying foul, while going as far as it is possible to attract as much unwanted attention to herself as is practically possible. Not all men are equally intelligent or socially mature, just like not all news reporters would be stupid enough to come in front of a TV camera with their t*ts practically hanging out like the girl under discussion here.

As I said, if I was interviewing her I'd have told her to f*ck off back to the wardrobe department and get into something more appropriate for the discussion at hand, but sure then she'd be doing another interview with someone else, no doubt saying that I had sexually harrassed her, men can't win!

I'm not talking about just looking, I even said I don't care if men look.

Her dressing how she does does not excuse the men's attitudes.

She may be wrong too, but that's not the point of the discussion.

Adults are responsible for their own behaviour. They should be well able to control themselves when met with provocation.

phill106 · 15-09-2010 02:31PM

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Her voice is very annoying

pffft dont need sound

ilovemybrick · 15-09-2010 02:31PM

Dudess wrote: »

I didn't realise finding someone attractive went hand in hand with being sleazy and making them feel uncomfortable...

Yeah, charming. Translation: "Why are you feeling uncomfortable due to unwanted attention from leery blokes when you brought it on yourself by wearing tight jeans?"

ah now. The girl clearly relishes the attention and I would safely wager that part of her success in the industry she is working is in direct relation with how she looks and dresses. The newscaster may not have phrased it well but the girl is idiotic if she thinks a provocative outfit like that will not attract attention (wanted or unwanted) and to continue to wear such outfits would clearly indicate that the attention is either welcome or good for her profile.

Proto-feminists who decide "im wearing this for me, not for you" and then continue to work in a vacuous and image driven industry are fooling nobody but themselves.

ilovemybrick · 15-09-2010 02:33PM

Dudess wrote: »

the retard brigade

Sexism - no cant have that.
Being needlessly offensive - arah sure thats ok. I'm making a point.

Banned Account · 15-09-2010 02:35PM

Hmmmm, it seems like there is an effort to quantify what is a leer and what is a look - bound to end in tears if you ask me.

The fact of the matter is that many people - men and women alike are of a sexual nature. If someone is attractive to them or dressed in a way which they deem to be attractive, there will be a reaction. I suppose what distances those of reason from those of none is whether or not this is done in a way which makes the object of the leering uncomfortable or not.

That said, the real problem on the issue is that the motive for the look/leer is exactly the same, it's a response to a sexual stimulus. I would like to go firmly on the record as stating, as I have earlier, that women, no matter how they dress do not automatically incur the misfortune of being letched at - this is just a non no amongst decent people.

But there is an over-riding issue here - the clothes that reporter is wearing are designed to appeal to the sexual side of people, one needs to be aware of the fact that by wering such clothes, a sexual reaction will be provoked. Whilst there are many that will keep themselves in check and not make the peson feel uncomfortable, there are also many that will.

To draw an analogy - in that terrible case of that poor twelve year old girl who was found abused and dead by the canal a few weeks back, there was a debate emerging in relation to her parents allowing her out of the house. Many pointed out that it was the killer who was at fault and not the parents so the fact should be immaterial. There were others whos stated that as it was a fact that there were people out there who are capable of evil acts, then it is correct to take preventative action at times.

My own view is that if anyone wants to dress in a sexually provocative way then fire ahead - personally i will not make you feel unsafe - but I cannot vouch for the actions of others and right or wrong I can guarantee that you will meet people who will act in a way that you find unacceptable.

liah · 15-09-2010 02:38PM

ilovemybrick wrote: »

ah now. The girl clearly relishes the attention and I would safely wager that part of her success in the industry she is working is in direct relation with how she looks and dresses. The newscaster may not have phrased it well but the girl is idiotic if she thinks a provocative outfit like that will not attract attention (wanted or unwanted) and to continue to wear such outfits would clearly indicate that the attention is either welcome or good for her profile.

Proto-feminists who decide "im wearing this for me, not for you" and then continue to work in a vacuous and image driven industry are foolin gnobody but themselves.

You're still not getting it.

Women should not be afraid to wear whatever they want because of the assumption that grown men cannot contain themselves in an attractive woman's presence.

This insults women because they are being degraded and it insults men because it assumes they've the mental capacity and maturity of a 12-year-old and have absolutely no self control whatsoever.

And I'll state yet again: WE DON'T CARE THAT YOU LOOK. The majority of us can accept that it's only natural. We're talking about lewd comments or actions that are blatantly over-sexualised and incredibly demeaning.

Why should the woman have to change what she wears? Keep doing that and we'll be running around in burkas in no time. Yes, she probably likes guys looking at her. But there's a massive difference between having an appreciative glance and acting like a sleaze.

I seriously don't get your argument at all.

MrDarcy · 15-09-2010 02:39PM

liah wrote: »

I'm not talking about just looking, I even said I don't care if men look.

Her dressing how she does does not excuse the men's attitudes.

She may be wrong too, but that's not the point of the discussion.

Adults are responsible for their own behaviour. They should be well able to control themselves when met with provocation.

It's very much part of the discussion. The discussion here is on an allegation of sexual harrassment, no small allegation if made against any person. She should not have the right to go around with her t*ts hanging out all over the place, casually mouthing off about being sexually harrassed when she is acting, dressing and behaving so inappropriately herself.

Yes adults should be able to control themselves, they should also be able to know what is appropriate attire for a professional work situation and what is appropriate behaviour while working also.

This kind of stuff is serious, people can lose their jobs when an allegation like this is made and I think it's only fair on everyone that the point is made from the get go that if you want to flaunt your t*ts all over the place and flirt outrageously with people, DON'T DO IT IN WORK AND THEN START MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL HARRASSMENT, it only drags down your sex.

liah · 15-09-2010 02:42PM

MrDarcy wrote: »

It's very much part of the discussion. The discussion here is on an allegation of sexual harrassment, no small allegation if made against any person. She should not have the right to go around with her t*ts hanging out all over the place, casually mouthing off about being sexually harrassed when she is acting, dressing and behaving so inappropriately herself.

Yes adults should be able to control themselves, they should also be able to know what is appropriate attire for a professional work situation and what is appropriate behaviour while working also.

This kind of stuff is serious, people can lose their jobs when an allegation like this is made and I think it's only fair on everyone that the point is made from the get go that if you want to flaunt your t*ts all over the place and flirt outrageously with people, DON'T DO IT IN WORK AND THEN START MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL HARRASSMENT, it only drags down your sex.

Yes, but you're effectively excusing the behaviour of the men by saying if she hadn't dressed that way they wouldn't have reacted that way. They shouldn't have reacted that way, period.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying but it's the excuses you're making that I don't think are fair.

RobbieTheRobber · 15-09-2010 02:43PM

liah wrote: »

You're still not getting it.

Women should not be afraid to wear whatever they want because of the assumption that grown men cannot contain themselves in an attractive woman's presence.

I disagree, and I will use this as my example.
If I go for an interview tomorrow and want to get the job how should i dress,
I mean i want to wear my board shorts, flip flops and a wife beater because that makes me comfortable, should I do it?

Should I then later feel upset if I dont get the job?

Thrill · 15-09-2010 02:45PM

liah wrote: »

Yes, but you're effectively excusing the behaviour of the men by saying if she hadn't dressed that way they wouldn't have reacted that way. They shouldn't have reacted that way, period.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying but it's the excuses you're making that I don't think are fair.

would a man be allowed to have the following images on a wall at work?

http://www.photopost.com/photopost/data/6278/ines_sainz2.jpg

http://fwgnfl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/101008-ines-sainz1.jpg

http://sportsroids.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/jeans_ines_sainz.jpg

Images of provocatively dressed women are not allowed in the workplace because it is demeaning to women. If these pictures are demeaning to women, then surely a woman dressing like that to work is demeaning to women also.

.

liah · 15-09-2010 02:46PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I disagree, and I will use this as my example.
If I go for an interview tomorrow and want to get the job how should i dress,
I mean i want to wear my board shorts, flip flops and a wife beater because that makes me comfortable, should I do it?

Should I then later feel upset if I dont get the job?

...

What?

How does that remotely compare? You may go for an interview to work in board shorts, but the manager would be respectful enough to simply say something along the lines of "We will call you back to let you know," rather than "Wow, check out that ass!"

At least compare like with like, they're hardly the same discussion! I already said I agreed with the people who said she was acting like an idiot.

That still does NOT excuse the men's behaviour. Full stop.

Sexual Harassment.... eh, YEAH of course!

Comments