S-xual harassment | Imamother

33055

Sun, Dec 17 2017, 11:22 am

Laiya wrote:

And, this current environment creates an incentive for future claims or allegations to be used as a weapon of control, especially in employment relationships.

I don't know what the answer is, because the way it's been until now was horribly unfair to actual victims.

ITA. I also don't know the answer. But this sure gives women incentive to lie.

I was an early supporter of Professor Hill. I didn't have a doubt of her account after carefully listening to both sides. But people wanted a black man on the bench. Now, he would be disgraced and his name withdrawn. George W. H. probably didn't see the big deal of Professor Hill's suffering given his own behavior.

The pendulum has swung too far. For instance, I think workplace harassment should be in a different category than when a woman willingly goes back to a man's hotel room with him. I was a young girl who was given many invitations that could advance my career. But as niave and sheltered as I was, I knew that going back to a man's place was not safe.

Optimystic

Sun, Dec 17 2017, 2:12 pm

Optimystic wrote:

If she did not marry him, then the presumption should always be that she did not consent.

Otherwise, what happens is what happens now: most rape allegations are dismissed as he said/she said. Always believing her in these situations would discourage men from unwed encounters in the first place, and that would mean fewer unwanted children and diseases. I don't see the downside.

DrMom wrote:

You are suggesting criminalizing all premarital sx and automatically classifying any man taking part in such behavior as a rapist.

Sounds like something the Taliban would enact (although they would probably blame the woman, not the man).

The US is not a theocracy. Throwing innocent men in jail for the sole purpose of furthering a religious agenda is evil.

My suggestion assumes there is physical evidence and that she goes to the police the next day and not months or years later. Questionably behaving men would be compelled to be more careful about which stranger they have relations with, but this is not intended to nor would it stop all premarital zx.

I do not have a perfect solution, but if it is a choice between the status quo where 55-65% of rape accusations are dismissed with many more survivors afraid to come forward at all, and a few imprudent men facing harsh penalties for what was easily avoidable and far from innocent in the first place, the choice seems clear.

Finally, there is a secular interest in limiting the fallout from irresponsible relations. Unwed encounters often lead to unwanted children and disease. That's not a religious claim. It's a fact. Addressing facts would hardly make the U.S. a theocracy.

naturalmom5

Sun, Dec 17 2017, 2:47 pm

Optimystic wrote:

But it will take away hefkerus from the liberals. It will never fly.
Its like saying, lets make a provisal of Medical insurance reform, if you are obese or smoke, no Medicade/Medicare for you. You want to eat like a pig and smoke, why is the taxpayer responsible ... Pay for your own medical coverage...

DrMom

Sun, Dec 17 2017, 2:58 pm

Optimystic wrote:

Noble ends don't always justify draconian means.

Laws which discourage out-of-wedlock children (changes to welfare benefit policies, changes to the tax code, etc.) can incentivize people to act responsibly.

But to simply criminalize behavior which leads to a less desire outcome is quite another.

- Hey, let's arrest people for being fat. Throw them in jail and feed them a calorie restricted diet. It's for the betterment of society! Overweight people often have diabetes. That's not a religious claim. It's a fact.

- How about limiting the number of children women bear? Children cost money, and poorer families cannot afford them. Let's sterilize women after their 5th child, unless their family pulls in a specified household income above some set threshold. Children from poorer families can become neglected and cost the state money. That's not a religious claim. It's a fact.

Optimystic

Sun, Dec 17 2017, 5:56 pm

naturalmom5 wrote:

We may just be really far apart here. Taxpayer supported anything comes into play when corporations do not pay their employees a true living wage. People who work for a living should be able to afford their own housing, education, healthcare, etc. without relying on the government. In that scenario, yes, absolutely, people should take responsibility for their own actions. When corporations pay their executives millions of dollars and put their employees on food stamps and WIC checks (or replace them with automated systems because they decided the minimum wage was too high) American society's aversion to responsibility is very understandable. It is hard to expect someone to be responsible for something when our economic system makes it impossible.

Economics however does not apply to men sleeping with strangers. They don't need to have a lot of money to refrain from that particular irresponsibility, and if the alternative is telling women they deserve to be raped if they accept dinner from someone (because she was hungry!) or get in his car (because she didn't have one of her own!) and was afraid he wouldn't take her home if she didn't cooperate with him, then I side with the woman trying to survive, not the man trying to have fun. Seeing how assault has affected people close to me, I guess I do choose a draconian measure over status quo. Maybe I am too close to the issue :(

DrMom wrote:

This is quite a jump. In order to give survivors of rape the same presumption of innocence currently only afforded to rapists, I have suggested a solution that, as a rare side effect, would, in rare circumstances, result in very harsh consequences for one particular irresponsible behavior. Given the stakes, that seems pretty acceptable to me. I have not seen any other suggestions that would change the current status quo. This does not apply to anything else you have mentioned, so I don't see the connection.

DrMom

Mon, Dec 18 2017, 1:46 am

Optimystic wrote:

I'm assuming you live in some country with a form of Western democracy.

The presumption of innocence is offered to all people accused of crimes -- not just accused rapists. Innocent until proven guilty applies no matter how severe the crime with which one is accused.

By your logic, we should automatically incarcerate anyone accused of murder. After all that is arguably even more severe than rape.

- Creating harsh punishments for those found guilty in a court of law? -- No argument there!

- Presuming guilt for severe crimes and innocence for lesser crimes? -- Flagrant violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Optimystic wrote:

Economics however does not apply to men sleeping with strangers. They don't need to have a lot of money to refrain from that particular irresponsibility, and if the alternative is telling women they deserve to be raped if they accept dinner from someone (because she was hungry!) or get in his car (because she didn't have one of her own!) and was afraid he wouldn't take her home if she didn't cooperate with him, then I side with the woman trying to survive, not the man trying to have fun. Seeing how assault has affected people close to me, I guess I do choose a draconian measure over status quo. Maybe I am too close to the issue Sad

Nobody is assuming that a woman "deserves to be raped" if she eats dinner or accepts a ride with a man. That is a complete straw man argument.

DrMom

Mon, Dec 18 2017, 9:14 am

Squishy wrote:

ITA that no is assuming a woman deserves to be raped by accepting a ride or a dinner invite.

The woman may well be motivated by her hunger, but the guy probably assumes she likes his company and is moving forward with getting to know him. It is not fair to the man to that she doesn't communicate her intentions clearly. If he makes an overture, then it is unfair to accuse him of zexual harassment on this.

Also, the whole argument that women are accepting dinner dates because they are hungry (!) and rich men are using this to exploit and rape them is quite absurd. Perhaps this is happening in places with severe food shortages (Venezuela, for example), but I doubt this is a common occurrence in the US. The whole argument is a red herring.

33055

Mon, Dec 18 2017, 1:01 pm

Laiya wrote:

We might start to see an expansion of this being applied to women too, when it becomes apparent how easy it is to achieve a result by simply lodging a claim.

Andrea Ramsey was recently forced to drop out of a Kansas House race due to ten year old allegations that she had sxually harassed a male employee. The employee made the claims after she fired him.

I was reading about employment law recently. They said it was legally better to fire the accused employee than sort out the allegations. You don't need a reason to fire an at will employee as long as it isn't one of the prohibited reasons for firing.

What a good way to secure a promotion! We can just say the boss made me uncomfortable.

Optimystic

Mon, Dec 18 2017, 2:03 pm

DrMom wrote:

Nobody is assuming that a woman "deserves to be raped" if she eats dinner or accepts a ride with a man. That is a complete straw man argument.

This actually happened to a close friend. Not a straw man argument at all.

DrMom wrote:

And it happened in the U.S. in a frum community with plenty of money. I might have thought this was an aberration, a community with insulated wealthy Jews who pick and choose which fellow Jews to care about, but apparently that phenomenon is widespread.

I am glad you and a few others on this thread do not know what it is like to work full time and still have to compromise on safety and nutrition.

DrMom wrote:

- Presuming guilt for severe crimes and innocence for lesser crimes? -- Flagrant violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Fair enough. My suggestion amounted to presuming guilt of rape on her say-so in the case of the man who was within his legal rights to engage in reckless recreational zx.

So, since my previous suggestion fails the 14th amendment, I have a new suggestion. Treat extramarital zx as a misdemeanor. It can be ignored the same as most speeders are ignored, and the penalty if it does come up can be misdemeanor and optional $1 fine to erase the record.

This gives the frum besula the legal presumption she did not give consent and at least puts her on level ground with her assailant. Maybe she still can't prove he raped her, and so no one goes to jail, but neither can it be proved that he didn't, and failure to prove her consent could strengthen a potential civil case. Men who don't want the potential headache can choose to behave more responsibly.

In the case of my friend, the police knew it was rape, and they also knew that in the U.S., accepting dinner and accepting a ride, while not legally consent, is more than sufficient for the reasonable doubt that lets the rapist go. So, they chose not to expend the resources knowing they would never get a conviction. Something needs to change, and I have yet to hear any better suggestions.

Fox

Mon, Dec 18 2017, 2:33 pm

S-xual harassment is a by-product of cultures in which transactional s-x is common.

I very much doubt that Harvey Weinstein, growing up in Flushing, Queens, was taught by his parents, Max and Miriam, that he was entitled to engage in relations with any woman he wanted, regardless of her consent or the amount of pressure he had to exert to convince her.

But once in the film industry, where the casting couch was a way of life long before he was born, Weinstein was conditioned over the years to believe that transactional s-x was simply a job perk, not unlike health insurance or a 401K. Eventually, his power grew to the point that the s-x was no longer transactional -- it was no longer a free if rather tawdry exchange; it was his right as befitted his place in the Hollywood food chain.

Successful, powerful men who demand transactional s-x do so for one reason: it works.

Had 85 percent of the actresses Weinstein propositioned in his early years responded by saying, "Respectfully, Mr. Weinstein, I'd rather work the rest of my life as a cashier at Walmart than sleep with you for a role," his career as a s-xual predator would have been significantly curtailed.

And if at least half of those actresses had added, with a snicker, "On top of which, you're a married man and bear an uncanny resemblance to a toad," he would never have asked for a massage or greeted a female guest in a loose towel again.

The dirty secret about transactional s-x is that, at least in the beginning, it's transactional. There are plenty of women in competitive, glamorous industries who are willing to trade s-x for career advancement. Every man who repeatedly s-xually harasses subordinates has essentially been conditioned over time to do so. So many women have said "yes" that he thinks it's a foregone conclusion. So, of course, when someone complains, he's genuinely confused.

If we are serious about eliminating transactional s-x in the workplace, we have to send the message to men that outright propositions and s-xual comments are inappropriate in the workplace under all circumstances. However, we also have to send the message to women that using s-x to get ahead in your career makes you a slut worthy of being shamed.

DrMom

Mon, Dec 18 2017, 4:24 pm

Optimystic wrote:

No idea about the details of your friend's case, so I can't comment on that.

As for your new work-around: If premarital sx is a misdemeanor, won't both participants be found guilty? How does this in any way create the presumption that the woman did not consent? What does this solution achieve??

It sounds like you are trying to use rabbinic-style halachic workarounds that are meant to achieve some particular end and applying this type of legal tinkering to US law. I don't think that approach is going to fly.

Even if laws like this were passed, they would be immediately challenged in court and likely struck down.

Furthermore, the idea of making premarital sx a misdemeanor is so out of touch with the current "if it doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights, why do you care what goes on between consenting adults?" philosophy, that it is completely unrealistic to think that any legislative body would pass such a law. These people want to get re-elected.

Lastly, we'd have to be heavily surveilled for this law to be properly enforced. Very few US citizens are going to agree to live in such a police state, with government officials storming into bedrooms, parked cars, hotel rooms, and dorm rooms to hand out $1 tickets for premarital sx.

33055

Mon, Dec 18 2017, 6:43 pm

[quote="Fox"]S-xual harassment is a by-product of cultures in which transactional s-x is common.

I very much doubt that Harvey Weinstein, growing up in Flushing, Queens, was taught by his parents, Max and Miriam, that he was entitled to engage in relations with any woman he wanted, regardless of her consent or the amount of pressure he had to exert to convince her.

But once in the film industry, where the casting couch was a way of life long before he was born, Weinstein was conditioned over the years to believe that transactional s-x was simply a job perk, not unlike health insurance or a 401K. Eventually, his power grew to the point that the s-x was no longer transactional -- it was no longer a free if rather tawdry exchange; it was his right as befitted his place in the Hollywood food chain.

Successful, powerful men who demand transactional s-x do so for one reason: it works.

Had 85 percent of the actresses Weinstein propositioned in his early years responded by saying, "Respectfully, Mr. Weinstein, I'd rather work the rest of my life as a cashier at Walmart than sleep with you for a role," his career as a s-xual predator would have been significantly curtailed.

And if at least half of those actresses had added, with a snicker, "On top of which, you're a married man and bear an uncanny resemblance to a toad," he would never have asked for a massage or greeted a female guest in a loose towel again.

The dirty secret about transactional s-x is that, at least in the beginning, it's transactional. There are plenty of women in competitive, glamorous industries who are willing to trade s-x for career advancement. Every man who repeatedly s-xually harasses subordinates has essentially been conditioned over time to do so. So many women have said "yes" that he thinks it's a foregone conclusion. So, of course, when someone complains, he's genuinely confused.

If we are serious about eliminating transactional s-x in the workplace, we have to send the message to men that outright propositions and s-xual comments are inappropriate in the workplace under all circumstances. However, we also have to send the message to women that using s-x to get ahead in your career makes you a slut worthy of being shamed.[/quote]

Love your common seems approach to this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new......html