Open Forum!

 

Flush with the news that 60% of male managers now say they are uncomfortable mentoring, working one-on-one or socializing with a woman, I am teaching a workplace harassment seminar this morning for the staff of a local association.

60% represents  a 33% increase from last year. There’s more bad news:  Senior-level men also say they are 12 times more likely to be hesitant about one-on-one meetings with a junior woman than they are a junior man, nine times more likely to be hesitant to travel with a junior woman for work than a junior man, and six times more likely to be hesitant to have a work dinner with a junior woman than a junior man.

Thanks, #MeToo!

But I digress. You can write about that, or any other ethics issue. Be civil and brilliant.

As Arnold says, “I’ll be back.”

32 thoughts on “Open Forum!

  1. I’ve had personal experience with women lying about me. As I said earlier, I only graduated from college because of an honest computer lab employee, who told an assistant dean who was all too willing to believe a woman crying harassment who I’d never even met that I had been typing in the computer lab the time I was supposedly harassing this lying witch. Anything to destroy a conservative, right? It’s simply too easy to destroy with a pointed finger now, and there are too many women who like that power too much. I for one would be a little leery of having a corrective conference with an underperforming woman or writing her up for discipline, or recommending her for a smaller raise than she wanted for fear she might say I was trying to date her or chat her up and she told me to get lost, so now I was retaliating. At a minimum a third person would have to be present, just like the Scouting or church rule of three, where you never let yourself be alone with a minor. I also wouldn’t be hesitant to tell my team to follow the same protocol when mixed genders are involved

    • Our church requires the rule of three, with two women and a man (when a woman is the one seeking help) usually being the mix. Just plain sense, when you never know who might walk in looking to start trouble.

      I have seen this as well, with women willing to take advantage of their gender to destroy a male, even when they gain nothing but private satisfaction from the act.

      Of course, men have done the same in the past: this is simply the popular sport of today for progressives.

    • “What a withering, ignoble end…”

      I’ve had personal experience with women lying about me. As I said earlier, I only graduated from college because of an honest computer lab employee, who told an assistant dean who was all too willing to believe a woman crying harassment who I’d never even met that I had been typing in the computer lab the time I was supposedly harassing this lying witch. Anything to destroy a conservative, right? It’s simply too easy to destroy with a pointed finger now, and there are too many women who like that power too much. I for one would be a little leery of having a corrective conference with an underperforming woman or writing her up for discipline, or recommending her for a smaller raise than she wanted for fear she might say I was trying to date her or chat her up and she told me to get lost, so now I was retaliating. At a minimum a third person would have to be present, just like the Scouting or church rule of three, where you never let yourself be alone with a minor. I also wouldn’t be hesitant to tell my team to follow the same protocol when mixed genders are involved.

      This is *surface*, there must be deeper facts and truths in operation. But how can they be seen and named? The entire system that has been devised and which defines ‘our present’ requires examination and reconsideration. But there is no one *home* to do this work when they are constrained by and coerced by the pressures that system itself exerts.

      The idea that men cannot be trusted in any situation when they have interactions with women and children … rings very strange in my ears. I do not know what to make of it. Except that if you participate in it you are in essence agreeing to all its terms: that you are perverse and untrustworthy. But how has this come about?

      If a man cannot be trusted with children … then other men should cut his throat and impale the head on a pike right outside the gates of the city (just thinking out-loud).

      What has made men so perverse? What cures the perversion?

      Jack Donovan is an odd member of the American New Right (he is written about in “Key Thinkers of the Radical Right” edited by Mark Sedgwick).

      “The pro-feminist male is a wretched, guilt-ridden creature who must at every turn make certain he is not impeding the progress of women in any way. He willingly accepts guild for crime against women he never committed, perpetuated by men he has never met. He must question … admiration he might have for traditional role models — for fear that he is perpetuating cultures of honor or patriarchy that could somehow result in the oppression of or violence against women. He must be careful to include women in every activity, even if he would prefer not to … He is encouraged to work with women to support their interests with little or no regard for how those interests might have a negative impact of men… The only “freedom” that feminism offers men is the freedom to do exactly what women want men to do.”

      — Jack Donovan in “Mother May I”

      “If anything has made men more effeminate in the past half-century, it’s been the running feminist critique of masculinity.”

      Here is an interesting view. It implies that men are molded by a system which, itself, reduces them even as they strive within that system to attain and accomplish:

      “It’s tragic to think that heroic man’s great destiny is to become economic man, that men will be reduced to craven creatures who crawl across the globe competing for money, who spend their nights dreaming up new ways to swindle each other. That’s the path we’re on now. What a withering, ignoble end…”

      • Some other good quotes:

        “In the future that globalists and feminists have imagined, for most of us there will only be more clerkdom and masturbation. There will only be more apologizing, more submission, more asking for permission to be men”.

        It’s very interesting: I wish there were a woman author who was writing as powerfully for women as Donovan does for men . . . Strange that he is a homosexual.

        As long as men do not have the slightest idea how to assume the role of man, women will assume the role more and more.

        “How long will men tolerate this state of relative dishonor, knowing that their ancestors were stronger men, harder men, more courageous men — and knowing that this heritage of strength survives in them, but that their own potential for manly virtue, for glory, for honor, will be wasted?”

        It’s related to the absurd hyper-democratization of culture, isn’t it? Everyone is given an equal footing and status as hierarchies are undermined and everyone is leveled down to *mere consumer* of junk. The system itself reduces not only men but all people to easily replaceable cogs. If they run out of them, they will simply import them from afar.

  2. The overall thrust of such surveys show how a relative few can poison trust among the many.

    I’ve known “lying witches” but most are not.

    The problem as I see it is that the notion that men are neanderthals with clubs and drag any woman they see back to the cave for sex remains pervasive. Conversely women are only seen as sexual aggressors in the most aggregious cases.

    As long as we continue to hold on to theses gender stereotypes about sexual aggressiveness and some women continue to exploit the stereotype I see trust further eroding between the genders in the workplace. This is compounded by sexist female demagogues who consistently reinforce the idea that men see women as mere handmaidens for them.

    Men cannot accurately assess the risk of one on one meetings and therefore cannot assume such risk.

    • In many ways, our society has gone back to a Victorian Age mentality where women are thought of as blameless victims incapable of defending themselves against the unborn depraved nature of men. The radical feminists have been breathtakingly successful: Hence, we have Inquisitions like the Kavanaugh Senate Hearings where recalled memories are taken as factual evidence and a good man’s reputation is damaged irreparably. .

      • That’s only one side of things, albeit the side that saved Lizzie Borden from the gallows for hacking her father and stepmother to death. The men on the jury just couldn’t believe she could have done it, although all evidence (such as it was) pointed to her (the only other possibility was the maid, Bridget Sullivan, but Lizzie stood to benefit, Bridget didn’t). The other side is the flip-flopping interpretation of men as alternatively oafish clods who mean well but can never do anything right without a woman’s guidance, or master predators who know and use every trick in the book to get what they want, but when those tricks fail won’t hesitate to resort to Neanderthal violence. There’s no place in feminism for the faithful Ulysses and Ivanhoes, the full and equal partners like Pierre Curie or Bill Gates, or the great complementary men to great women like Prince Albert and Henry II. Unless and until a woman chooses you, you better keep your distance, but once she chooses you, she basically owns you. You must defer to her in all things, from choice of curtain color to who to vote for. Fail to do so, and she can unchoose you, at which time you must immediately leave in disgrace, because anything that happens can only be your fault. You, however, are a cad if you unchoose, no matter what she does. She can isolate you from your friends and relatives, make you give up your hobbies, and take away or destroy your possessions, all the while exiling you to the couch, and too bad.

        • Mein Gott in Himmell, Steve. You’re living in James Thurberland!

          Your luck can change. There are intelligent, good looking, decent women out there. I stumbled into one after a few bad ones forty-five years ago. There are nasty ones to be avoided like the plague, but keep looking. Don’t obsess over the bad ones. You’re giving them too much power.

          • No, but I’m living in a different world than most. Due to my Asperger’s I have trouble with relationships even now as an adult. I was always the odd and hated kid through grade school and (all guys) high school. In college I tried to keep out of sight after being lied about and after others tried to “rescue” coeds from me. As an adult my relationships have been limited to one 3-date fling with an unattractive and unintelligent (I’m a law school graduate, she only got as far as high school) woman who wanted to trap a man by getting pregnant and did with the next guy she dated, one Canadian woman who used me as an emotional sponge to keep herself perfect for the charming, handsome bully she eventually married (cutting me off with a “thanks, I’m sure you’ll find someone someday.”) and one old friend who I thought I had caught on the rebound after her second marriage collapsed, but, darned if something doesn’t always keep popping up every time we are supposed to meet over the past three weeks, so the next time she texts me, conveniently after the next window of availability has just closed and no doubt prefaced with a “sorry, I meant to get in touch but things have just been crazy,” which is code for “I’m not really that busy, but I’d rather stay home and do laundry than meet you,” I’m going to tell her “Tell you what. You message me if and when things get a little less crazy,” which, hopefully, is code for “I’m onto you and I’m outa here, I won’t keep asking to feed your ego.” I think I was better off in the days when I thought relationships were a waste of time. MGTOW!

            • Well Steve, you’re obviously very smart and articulate and you have a healthy portion of common sense. And you’ve obviously had some bad luck. But I still think you’re working with too smalla sample size. And every year, another bunch of girls enter your preferred age group. You only need to fine one. Batting average is not relevant. Think positive thoughts.

              • I suggest that you are not looking at the *full picture*. I suggest — it seems clear from where I sit — that Steve’s issue represents a ‘symptom’ of a much larger problem. But if this is true in his case, it must also be true (or is likely true) in all our cases. Therefore, we will all show *symptoms* of different levels of derangement because we exist in a deranged culture which is careening out of control. It is not just in this area, but in all areas. Or put another way there are a myriad of *symptoms* in a culture that has lost — is losing — its bearings. But what are proper *bearings*? Who knows? Who talks about it?

                If what I say is true, then *the work* is to address what has careened out of control and why. But — this is the perennial question! — who can do this? Who is doing this? Put another way: who is not doing this? and why is it not being done?

                The power of coercion in out present. It is a coercive power that we employ against our own self. It is what stand behind ‘political correctness’ and a whole group, an array, of ‘agreements’ that we impose upon our selves. If men have become subservient to their feminist b**tches, how has this come about? Who has given so much power to women? How has this happened? This is one manifestation, but what is it connected to?

                *You* then must become responsible and realize the degree that you have participated in that *project*. But *you* (I mean a general plurality of course) are absent. You cannot be relied on for accurate assessments … because you are *complicit*.

                This is, obviously, an extension of my critique of American so-called ‘Conservatism’. (I have to carry it forward though it does feel like a kind of irreverent violence…)

  3. I’m more and more convinced of the founding father’s wisdom in enshrining weapon rights into our government.

    A some western European countries are actually pretty permissive about gun ownership. Norway has a couple of shooting sports that are crazy popular – Stang Shooting and the Biathlon. And the swiss have what is arguably the single biggest rifle copetition in the world – “the Eidgenössisches Feldschiessen. This competition takes place annually and in 2012 they counted 130,000 participants. Every Swiss who is 10 or older can take part at any federal ranges and will be able to shoot for free with the ordinance rifle.

    The slow crushing march of the EU lefitsts can’t abide this and their indoctrination is so strong that the Swiss just voted to essentially cancel most of their gun rights so as to stay compliant with EU regs.

    “The Swiss government passed the extra firearm regulations in late 2018 to stay ahead of the European Union’s Schengen Agreement, which requires stricter gun control in an effort to reduce crime across the E.U. Even though Switzerland is not an E.U. member, they signed onto the Schengen Agreement in 2008, which was originally meant to increase trade and free movement of people throughout the E.U. Switzerland’s deadline was set to be May 19, the same day the referendum was scheduled. Switzerland has a strong tradition of firearm ownership… The BBC reported that there are an estimated 2.3 million firearms in the country with a population of 8.5 million. It was also estimated that almost 48 percent of households have a firearm…

    As it stands right now, automatic and semi-automatic weapons will be more heavily regulated and restricted. Regular training will also be part of the requirements for those keeping weapons. The BBC listed the general requirements to stay compliant with the Schengen Agreement:

    – Under a Revised Firearms directive, a ban on weapons capable of rapidly firing multiple rounds
    – Automatic and semi-automatic weapons would either be banned or heavily restricted
    – Each owner of such a weapon, and the weapon itself, are known to police across Europe
    – All essential weapon components should be clearly labeled and registered electronically”

    The poor fools.

    • I’m more and more convinced of the founding [fathers’] wisdom in enshrining weapon rights into our government.

      Me too.

      As governments – with the aid of those ever-present persons who desire to monopolize all power for themselves over all others – continue to establish themselves as “The One Church,” so too shall they succeed in multiplying to insurmountable numbers the ranks and effective leadership of the skeptics, the disaffected, the “apostates,” and the “heretics” who in due course shall unite, resist and overpower for all time that oppressive church by the very means that church seeks to deprive from all but its “ruling” few and its ever more timid, paranoid, disloyal, and self-serving minions.

      “An unjust law is no law at all.”
      https://isi.org/intercollegiate-review/an-unjust-law-is-no-law-at-all-excerpts-from-letter-from-birmingham-jail/

      LET FREEDOM RING!

    • I am surprised the Swiss with their commitment to “going their own way” didn’t just revolt against their own government for so cynically selling them out.

    • It is indeed disappointing to see the Swiss voluntarily curtailing their rights. Meanwhile, in the Czech Republic, there is a very strong movement to further reclaim their freedom on this front. In that case, there is still a lot of living memory of Nazi and Communist oppression, and the Czechs rightly understand that privately-held arms are a powerful bulwark against such. Meanwhile, the Swiss have remained unconquered for generations, and haven’t even fought a major military engagement since the middle of 19th century, so the short-sighted among them have been (understandably) lulled into complacency.

  4. Here is an interesting answer on Quora.

    http://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-Orlando-nightclub-killer-able-to-legally-purchase-a-handgun-and-assault-rifle-despite-previously-being-investigated-by-the-FBI-twice/answer/Paul-Harding-14

    I, personally, and on more than one occasion, have sat across a table from men who, I felt fairly certain, had raped young children. On more than one occasion, I have looked that man right in the eye and said, “You’re free to go.”

    When I said he was “free to go,” I meant it. I didn’t do a single thing to interfere with him in any way after that. One or more of those men might be raping a child right now, as you read this.

    Why haven’t I done anything to prevent those men from getting near other children? We, at least, have this whole “registered sex offender” thing in this country, right? Should I have put them on “a list?”

    The reason I didn’t do anything other than say “You’re free to go” is because the foundational laws of our country don’t allow me to do anything else. I won’t lecture, this time, on the specific functions of each amendment and how they apply, but at that point, the Constitution prohibited me from interfering with that man’s liberty in any way.

    I can interfere with people’s liberty when certain standards of proof are met.

    Reasonable Suspicion: I can detain a person for a few minutes and do a minimally-invasive pat down for weapons.

    Probable Cause: I can take a person to jail, do a more thorough search for weapons or contraband. A judge, within 48 hours, will review this case and check that, at least, my side of the story actually indicates probable cause. The judge MAY impose certain bail conditions, limiting the person’s liberties while he awaits trial, or the judge may order the person left in jail to await trial.

    At no point in that process do I have the lawful “power” to interfere with a person’s liberty in any way without being able to prove probable cause, with the exception of a few minutes of detention under reasonable suspicion.

    I couldn’t prove probable cause on that suspected child rapist, so I couldn’t interfere with his liberty in any way. The Constitution says so.

    The FBI couldn’t prove probable cause on the Orlando shooter, so they couldn’t interfere with HIS liberty in any way. The Constitution says so.

    That’s why he was able to go buy guns, and that’s why my suspected child molester may, right now, just be finishing up that child rape that he started when you were reading the beginning of this answer.

    Individual Rights and liberty are extremely dangerous propositions. In this country, there are real-life victims of your rights to due process, your right to be free from the removals of your liberties every time someone like me suspects you of being a child rapist.

    Some people don’t like guns. That’s a political issue. I get it. Do you like kids though? Do you like NOT being published on the internet as a legally-registered child rapist when you’re innocent? The price of keeping you (and me) off of that list when we’re innocent is that cops can’t put people on that list until a court finds proof of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. At the least, a court must find probable cause before even bail conditions can be imposed.

    You’ve probably heard “price of freedom” so often you’ve learned to tune it out. That child rapist who, right about now, is cleaning himself off while warning that kid to never tell anyone what happened? The suffering of that poor kid IS the price of freedom.

    You and I are enjoying the freedom from unreasonable intrusion upon our liberties every time a cop suspects us, and that poor kid is paying the price for it. Want to give up that freedom?

    If any of those men I released did hurt another kid, I have to live with the fact that I could have stopped them. I couldn’t have stopped them legally. I didn’t have the evidence. I could have stopped them though. I could have designed a frame up on another charge. I could have just murdered them – become a one-man lynch mob. I didn’t do those things though. I obeyed the Constitution. If that kid is suffering now, he’s paying the biggest price, but wondering whether that is happening right now, I have to admit, is exacting a little price on me as well.

    100 or so people shot in Orlando, countless lives destroyed,- That IS the price of freedom – your freedom and my freedom to not have our liberties restricted for more than a few minutes by a cop with no more than reasonable suspicion.

    The people in Orlando, and their families, really did pay that price. We all risk paying that price every day . We all pay that price, to a lesser extent, every time we agonize over whether it would have been better to violate the principles of the Constitution. . . just this one time.

    It IS scary. It is terrifying when you think hard about it. That is why, in America, just before we say “Play Ball” we sing a song which reminds us that if you want to live in the Land of the Free, then you had better be sure you’re the Home of the Brave.

    Free Speech for people who right about now are thinking this whole freedom thing is just too scary and should be done away with. . .

    Yeah, those guys are scary too when people listen to them, but that IS the price of freedom.

    We can’t understand the value of the liberties in the Bill of Rights until we understand the price we are paying for them.

      • Many are saying that these recent shootings are too high a price to pay. Maybe so, but I submit the cost of trying to remove that freedom would be at least as high if not more so. A lot of folks when told to turn in their weapons would say “come and take them.”

  5. Let’s talk about milkshakes, yummy!

    The milkshake throwing now happening in the UK.

    So right-wing and “right-wing” politicians are being targeted by milkshake throwers with the intent of ridiculing them and the side effect of messing up the events being attended by large numbers of supporters.

    The same people who say this is a valid political protest are the ones who say the words of these politicians are violence. Let the irony sink for a second there. Telling you that you’re wrong is violence, but you throwing me a glass of cold sticky liquid is not.

    I worry this is going to escalate, and one of these days it won’t be milkshakes, but a sturdier projectile. Even on Twitter, Burger King suggested using their milkshakes for this purpose (pandering of the cheapest kind) and it quickly escalated to some small brewery suggesting bricks (yay, violence!)

    What is the right response? How do you stop these idiots if society is not shaming them into submission (this should be everyone’s responsibility)? And tangentially, what’s your favorite way to ridicule idiotic politicians without committing assault?

    • Assault their people. George Galloway, famous Scottish anti-semite and lefty, famous for a big mouth and loose bookkeeping, was campaigning when someone threw a rubber stress ball at him and knocked him right out. Later on he was taking pictures with lefty wannabes when someone Jewish decided his anti-Semitic rhetoric was offensive, hit him in the mouth, and broke his jaw. He’s a lot less forward these days. Most lefties are cowards and would flee the moment they were confronted with the Proud Boys (the right’s equivalent of antifa) or the equivalent.

      • At least we can look forward for this to end with a fleet of milk loaded truck trailers, hoses, and couple dozen “volunteers” at the next Corbyn rally.

    • I saw that story, too. Your are correct, but sadly, the thrower had utmost moral authority to shield himself/herself from responsibility. The thrower is absolved of accountability by being on the “right side of history.”

  6. I have a few subjects which might be interesting. I’m not going to post the links so I can make sure this gets out.

    Burger King’s milkshake comment: Dear people of Scotland. We’re selling milkshakes all weekend.
    Have fun.

    I have to assume this was said because Farage (who was in Scotland at the time) has had a milkshake or two thrown at him.

    Man kicked off southwest flight for the following comment: They should be passing out vodka because we’ve been waiting so long”

    Many people stood up for the man, but it didn’t stop the removal.

    School spends roughly $54k to fix year books because 18 students made the “ok” sign.

    Navada becomes the 15 state (maybe 14, not sure) to bypass the electoral college. They do realize this could blow up in their face?

    Personal request. I’m not sure how to handle this situation. As a minster, may people in the church come up to hug me (mostly older). I don’t really like it. It is extremely uncomfortable for me. Some of these people are the leadership of the church. After following this blog, I had decided I was finally going to start saying something about it. Then one of my colleagues got super sick (he died today). His wife, who I have never hugged before (always got the impression she never liked me) hugged me while I was visiting in them in hospice and started crying. She was obviously looking for comfort.

    So two thoughts. Christians often treat other Christians as family. We talk about how we are family. I teach about it quite often, which is why I have never said anything about it before. This isn’t a business relationship, my job is intended to be personal. Is it unethical for me to not hug them? And if its not, is it unethical for me to hug (or not hug them) in situations like the one given while saying I don’t want to be hugged (coming off a hypocrite)?

    • In church is ordinary conducting of spiritual affairs and you should stick to what you are comfortable with. In situations like you described, which were highly emotional, then you can make an exception.

    • JP,

      Being on the spectrum for autism, I do not like hugs from most friends, let alone recent acquaintances and random strangers. A hand shake is fine, thank you very much. I have a large sense of personal space (subways bother me a lot).

      But I serve in church. And some people hug. My ethics made me learn to tolerate the hugs: possibly hurting others by rejecting a hug is not showing Jesus to them, in my opinion. That is MY conviction based upon where I am in my walk.

      You have to ask yourself what is more important in your situation (and ministry): tolerating a hug or ten on Sunday, or refusing to embrace. Your conviction could be different from mine: we are all on a journey in this. That is okay. Pray into this: He has the answer that is perfect for you, even if it might require some degree of being uncomfortable.

      (If being uncomfortable was a deal breaker, I would never have been a Christian. Growth and ethics are hard!)

      Jack and this forum are invaluable resources to me. I can identify the tricks others use to unfairly frame an issue and gently object without resorting to emotionalism or doing the same in return.

      Stick around: this is worth the time invested.

  7. Last night I watched the “All in the Family/The Jeffersons” live performance to salute Norman Lear.

    Here’s a review of it (try to ignore the requisite “Donald Trump’s America” slur that is somehow supposed to be relevant to 40-plus year old shows.

    https://deadline.com/2019/05/all-in-the-family-the-jeffersons-spoilers-recap-review-jamie-foxx-masia-tomei-wanda-sykes-norman-lear-jimmy-kimmel-abc-1202620902/comment-page-1/#comments

    Neither show was afraid to air racial slurs for either blacks or whites. This was part of the shock of the programming. Last night’s performance used “honky” several times. Yet, despite the show being live, managed to bleep out the word “nigger” more than once and only that word.

    Observations:

    * Bleeping out a word in a live performance you know is going to be there. Should you include it at all? Why do you trust the studio audience to handle it but not the television audience?
    * Why bleep out one racial slur, but not another? And what does “honky” mean anyway? I never understood that word even after years of watching Lear’s programming.
    * Why try so hard to keep the integrity of the episodes you are performing intact if you’re going to bleep out a word that was freely used when the episodes aired? Is putting together a replica of Archie’s chair much more important than the social and political issues being discussed in them, racial slurs or not? Or is this like “Titanic” where the china patterns had to be accurate, but William Murdoch’s posthumous reputation has to take a dive for artistic license?

Leave a Reply to Other BillI'd say Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.