These recent sexual harassment cases.

[chanta76]

It started with Harvey Weinstein or maybe Bill Cosby. And recently Matt Lauer . Even Kevin Spacey.

It bothers me because some of these are just allegation but the men lose their job reputation. Everything!

It's like the public already condemn them but there hasn't been a trial. Whose to say these are just bitter women to just get back at them .
What bothers me is the public reaction to quickly believe in what women are saying. Or in kevin spacey case the men.That's what's happening in America.

What ever the women say is right just because she is a woman. And the men lose his job reputation and everything else.

Don't get me wrong maybe in some cases these are true but it hasn't gone to court.

It's gone to the point maybe we should just divide the sex in the work place. Maybe even with racism we should do the same thing divide everything.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

A woman's job is to obtain resource transfer from men to themselves. They do it with beauty, with marriage, with divorce, etc.

Since less men are marrying these days, women are resorting to more aggressive resource grabs via lawsuits and complaint settlements now.

This is a PURE money play, plain and simple. It will be on the rise and it will punish men until men punish women in return via counter suits, claims, and otherwise.

Incidentally, I saw this brewing for years in the American workplace and retire just months before the top blew off!

When the Great American Reset finally takes place, I suspect workplaces will be gender segregated given the billions that are wasted in placating women via maternity leave, breast milk pumping time and space, frivolous lawsuits, and less productivity.

[MrMan]

Some of these men have issued apologies, so they aren't all taking the stance that they are innocent.

Let's say a woman grabs a woman at work on her butt, a full-hand squeeze with fingers getting close to other areas, totally unsolicited and out of the blue. That's not a touch sanctioned by society, a reasonable thing to do. Or he invites a new hire to work with him at his apartment and comes out of the bedroom with his robe open and his thang hanging out. You can get arrested for that sort of thing if you do it in the park. So why wouldn't a woman be able to sue a man for that. And no, it's not normal to go work at a man's apartment, but men shouldn't be using work as a way to take women home either.

If women lie about men like this to get money, then that's a big problem, but I would also expect these men, or at least a lot of them, to fight back.

[Cornfed]

Some of these men have issued apologies, so they aren't all taking the stance that they are innocent.

Let's say a woman grabs a woman at work on her butt, a full-hand squeeze with fingers getting close to other areas, totally unsolicited and out of the blue. That's not a touch sanctioned by society, a reasonable thing to do. Or he invites a new hire to work with him at his apartment and comes out of the bedroom with his robe open and his thang hanging out. You can get arrested for that sort of thing if you do it in the park. So why wouldn't a woman be able to sue a man for that.

The thing is that most of these females are corporate whores and being groped etc. is what they are there for. Why else would they be hired - for their hard work, diligence and competence? Of course it is great that lots of hypocritical male feminists are being taken down, but after that runs its course there will hopefully be a huge backlash against the sluts.

[MrMan]

Cornfed,

You may consider women in the corporate world to be taking a job you could potentially have. That doesn't make them prostitutes. Men shouldn't be allowed to grab women, and it's wrong to use their role in a company to pressure women for sexual favors.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Some of these men have issued apologies, so they aren't all taking the stance that they are innocent.

Let's say a woman grabs a woman at work on her butt, a full-hand squeeze with fingers getting close to other areas, totally unsolicited and out of the blue. That's not a touch sanctioned by society, a reasonable thing to do. Or he invites a new hire to work with him at his apartment and comes out of the bedroom with his robe open and his thang hanging out. You can get arrested for that sort of thing if you do it in the park. So why wouldn't a woman be able to sue a man for that. And no, it's not normal to go work at a man's apartment, but men shouldn't be using work as a way to take women home either.

If women lie about men like this to get money, then that's a big problem, but I would also expect these men, or at least a lot of them, to fight back.

But women grab and grope men too, all the time. But men aren't going to the press or filing lawsuits about it. Most men indicate that a boundry was traversed and simply move on.

https://www.plbsmh.com/yes-men-can-be-s ... workplace/

I have had such experiences in public, at university, and in the workplace all at the hands of frisky females. Should I retain an attorney and convene a press conference?

Again, this is about wealth/resource transfer because if the women were serious about redress, they would have formally complained at the time it occurred.

[davewe]

Unwanted sexual advances do not necessarily equate to sexual harassment - this view is a big part of the problem. By definition, a sexual advance is either wanted or unwanted; wanted as in "sure I'll go to bed with you;" unwanted, as in - "piss off - there's no way I'm screwing you." In high school boys and girls "flirt." By around 25, they "harass." The biggest difference is that some men (women too) are nice and subtle about it and some come off crudely; but we all want the same thing.

Of the allegations, some are criminal, but many are not. The criminal ones should have been reported to the authorities, but in most cases years or decades went by. There are good reasons for statute of limitations laws, so that someone doesn't come back 20 years later and make a claim. As to the non-criminal complaints, those are typically of the type "he hit on me and made me feel uncomfortable." Nothing criminal but most American corporations have rules that allow them to terminate anyone for such allegations even without any real investigation. Having worked in corporate America I know that the environment is chilling and all it takes is a complaint to HR and you can be out.

Most guys have caved in and even support (or pretend to support) the women. But the reality is they whisper to each other about how brutal the corporate environment is. A guy will tell another guy a joke or story but will make sure that there is not a woman around to report the joke to HR.

[E Irizarry R&B Singer]

https://www.plbsmh.com/yes-men-can-be-s ... workplace/

Every man on here should here should thank ContrarianExpatriate for this golden-in-valor link here!
Lawyers whom respect men that are workplace victims of sexual harassment. How cool is this???

[Cornfed]

Cornfed,

You may consider women in the corporate world to be taking a job you could potentially have. That doesn't make them prostitutes. Men shouldn't be allowed to grab women, and it's wrong to use their role in a company to pressure women for sexual favors.

Of course they are prostitutes. Their role is to turn up wearing tight clothing, be groped, give out the odd blow job as screw people at corporate functions. These bullshit lawsuits are attempts to have it both ways. If it is more profitable to claim to be a victim or when they are broken down old crones and no-one wants their toxic, flaccid orifices any more, that is the way they go. Otherwise they would still be f***ing their way to the top.

[Cornfed]

I have had such experiences in public, at university, and in the workplace all at the hands of frisky females. Should I retain an attorney and convene a press conference?

Yes, once a sufficient number of male feminists have been taken down and the situation starts to boomerang on these bitches, that is exactly what you should do.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Unwanted sexual advances do not necessarily equate to sexual harassment - this view is a big part of the problem.

That's a dangerous view. I would agree with you if you did not use the modifier "unwanted." Even if it would not stand court scrutiny as sexual harassment, HR, discrimination agencies, and the courts would proceed as if it is and only after many thousands of dollars of legal and court fees would you learn that the court finds it falls shy of the legal definition.

But be forewarned, the law and the courts grant considerable leeway to the victim (i.e. usually the woman) perceives the incident so only if something had no relation to a sex or sexual reference it would be deemed sexual harassment.

Finally, even if the incident fell short of the legal threshold, workplaces still can fire you for violating their in-house policy even if it did not rise to the legally actionable level.

[MrMan]

Cornfed,

You may consider women in the corporate world to be taking a job you could potentially have. That doesn't make them prostitutes. Men shouldn't be allowed to grab women, and it's wrong to use their role in a company to pressure women for sexual favors.

Of course they are prostitutes. Their role is to turn up wearing tight clothing, be groped, give out the odd blow job as screw people at corporate functions. These bullshit lawsuits are attempts to have it both ways. If it is more profitable to claim to be a victim or when they are broken down old crones and no-one wants their toxic, flaccid orifices any more, that is the way they go. Otherwise they would still be f***ing their way to the top.

Do you get your idea of what the corporate world is like from watching porn movies? I have worked for one of the largest multinational corporations in the world and I didn't see evidence of this sort of thing. That was overseas. I worked for a subsidiary of a large US company and did not see it there, either.

[MrMan]

The direction the US is moving in has led in the direction of supporting the idea of no anti-discrimination laws in business. It may result in racism, but I think the US has matured to the point where there would be a backlash against racial discrimination.

Why can't a private individual who runs a sole proprietorship work every day with the people he wants, based on his preferences for race, gender, age, and religion of his employees? The masses and liberal politicians have used democratic process to infringe on the property rights of business owners. Corporations usually have an executive chosen by a board that was voted in by shareholders. Why shouldn't they just be allowed to hire whoever they want?

If a company has a process that allows a man to be dismissed for suspicion of sexual harrassment at a much lower standard than EEOC, state law, or state case law, then what's wrong with that? If he has a contract, he may have a case. A contract could stipulate following company policies on sexual harrassment.

It has gotten so bad if your company hires a man who claims to be and dresses like a woman, and managers call the man 'him', the EEOC can harrass the company and squeeze money out of it for not going along with the man's delusion.

It isn't freedom if a sole proprietor wants to open a black pride themed African furniture shop and he can't hire only blacks, or if the Chinese restaurant can't hire only Chinese, or if only male reporters are allowed in the locker room, or if you have to have girls on your male sports team, or if you are forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Let business owners have their freedom back. The business owner's property and risk is his property and risk. Workers and certain politicians have used legislation to stick their fingers into the property rights and personal freedom of business owners, and judges and agencies like the EEOC have expanded it.

If they are going to put any limitations on businesses, the SEC could require some equal opportunity type stuff only of publicly traded companies. A sole proprietorship is legally the individual running the business. Allowing individuals and groups to have private corps, S Corps, and LLCs is an incentive for business growth and is the public good. So they should definitely allow all these groups to be free from having to follow discrimination legislation and case law. We need some new laws to free businesses from this. There is a cost to just making sure your company complies.

[MrMan]

The direction the US is moving in has led in the direction of supporting the idea of no anti-discrimination laws in business. It may result in racism, but I think the US has matured to the point where there would be a backlash against racial discrimination.

Why can't a private individual who runs a sole proprietorship work every day with the people he wants, based on his preferences for race, gender, age, and religion of his employees? The masses and liberal politicians have used democratic process to infringe on the property rights of business owners. Corporations usually have an executive chosen by a board that was voted in by shareholders. Why shouldn't they just be allowed to hire whoever they want?

If a company has a process that allows a man to be dismissed for suspicion of sexual harrassment at a much lower standard than EEOC, state law, or state case law, then what's wrong with that? If he has a contract, he may have a case. A contract could stipulate following company policies on sexual harrassment.

It has gotten so bad if your company hires a man who claims to be and dresses like a woman, and managers call the man 'him', the EEOC can harrass the company and squeeze money out of it for not going along with the man's delusion.

It isn't freedom if a sole proprietor wants to open a black pride themed African furniture shop and he can't hire only blacks, or if the Chinese restaurant can't hire only Chinese, or if only male reporters are allowed in the locker room, or if you have to have girls on your male sports team, or if you are forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Let business owners have their freedom back. The business owner's property and risk is his property and risk. Workers and certain politicians have used legislation to stick their fingers into the property rights and personal freedom of business owners, and judges and agencies like the EEOC have expanded it.

If they are going to put any limitations on businesses, the SEC could require some equal opportunity type stuff only of publicly traded companies. A sole proprietorship is legally the individual running the business. Allowing individuals and groups to have private corps, S Corps, and LLCs is an incentive for business growth and is the public good. So they should definitely allow all these groups to be free from having to follow discrimination legislation and case law. We need some new laws to free businesses from this. There is a cost to just making sure your company complies.

[MrMan]

The direction the US is moving in has led in the direction of supporting the idea of no anti-discrimination laws in business. It may result in racism, but I think the US has matured to the point where there would be a backlash against racial discrimination.

Why can't a private individual who runs a sole proprietorship work every day with the people he wants, based on his preferences for race, gender, age, and religion of his employees? The masses and liberal politicians have used democratic process to infringe on the property rights of business owners. Corporations usually have an executive chosen by a board that was voted in by shareholders. Why shouldn't they just be allowed to hire whoever they want?

If a company has a process that allows a man to be dismissed for suspicion of sexual harrassment at a much lower standard than EEOC, state law, or state case law, then what's wrong with that? If he has a contract, he may have a case. A contract could stipulate following company policies on sexual harrassment.

It has gotten so bad if your company hires a man who claims to be and dresses like a woman, and managers call the man 'him', the EEOC can harrass the company and squeeze money out of it for not going along with the man's delusion.

It isn't freedom if a sole proprietor wants to open a black pride themed African furniture shop and he can't hire only blacks, or if the Chinese restaurant can't hire only Chinese, or if only male reporters are allowed in the locker room, or if you have to have girls on your male sports team, or if you are forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Let business owners have their freedom back. The business owner's property and risk is his property and risk. Workers and certain politicians have used legislation to stick their fingers into the property rights and personal freedom of business owners, and judges and agencies like the EEOC have expanded it.

If they are going to put any limitations on businesses, the SEC could require some equal opportunity type stuff only of publicly traded companies. A sole proprietorship is legally the individual running the business. Allowing individuals and groups to have private corps, S Corps, and LLCs is an incentive for business growth and is the public good. So they should definitely allow all these groups to be free from having to follow discrimination legislation and case law. We need some new laws to free businesses from this. There is a cost to just making sure your company complies.