Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

[Jimjamesak]

People may think it's archaic and sexist, but I guarantee you that in a case like this the way the woman dresses, acts, etc..., is going to be relevant evidence as to whether the conduct was welcome or invited.

"Well I thought she was dressed like a whore so I treated her like one!"

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Comments can be even if you don't say stop. Generally you would need more, but to put it into context, dropping the n-word just one time could be seen as racial harassment.

Or if you look at a person of said race as if they're about to do something of a suspicious manner.

[Slap Shot]

People may think it's archaic and sexist, but I guarantee you that in a case like this the way the woman dresses, acts, etc..., is going to be relevant evidence as to whether the conduct was welcome or invited.

Case in point?

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Wait a minute, you are arguing two different things. I am not advocating that he hit on her or that people **** where they eat...I am just saying fair is fair. Looking is not harassment, and comments arent until you say to stop.

Comments can definitely be harassment whether or not you are asked to stop. You may think "you look pretty" is a compliment, but plenty of people think it's an intrusion, because it implies you have the right to also say "you don't look pretty." Keep your opinions to yourself unless you are sure the other party is like-minded.

You don't get to come up with a "fair is fair" standard. I know this is an earth-shattering revelation, but many women find workplace compliments as offensive as construction site whistles, particularly given the kind of guy who usually takes it upon himself to play workplace beauty consultant.

My advice is zip it, secondarily because that's sensible, but primarily because that's just polite now that women are no longer workplace whiffle balls for us to play with.

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

People may think it's archaic and sexist, but I guarantee you that in a case like this the way the woman dresses, acts, etc..., is going to be relevant evidence as to whether the conduct was welcome or invited.

If you are saying that lawyers in rape cases use the "she was dressed like she was looking for it," you're absolutely right. If you are saying that there are plenty of frat boy rapists who think that way, you are absolutely right. But if you are saying that actually has any merit, you are out of your mind.

If you are wondering whether a woman is interested in you, (a) she isn't, and (b) if she is don't you worry she'll find a way to show you. Until then, zip it.

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

That's what I got out of it. Everyone is guilty of the occasional glance.

Hence the discrete ogle. Every man in the history of the world could rank order his preference of the women he works with. The vast majority of us manage to collect this information without being offensive and oafish.

[SJHovey]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Case in point?

Petitioner contends that even if this case must be remanded to the District Court, the Court of Appeals erred in one of the terms of its remand. Specifically, the Court of Appeals stated that testimony about respondent's "dress and personal fantasies," 243 U.S. App. D.C., at 328, n. 36, 753 F.2d, at 146, n. 36, which the District Court apparently admitted [477 U.S. 57, 69] into evidence, "had no place in this litigation." Ibid. The apparent ground for this conclusion was that respondent's voluntariness vel non in submitting to Taylor's advances was immaterial to her sexual harassment claim. While "voluntariness" in the sense of consent is not a defense to such a claim, it does not follow that a complainant's sexually provocative speech or dress is irrelevant as a matter of law in determining whether he or she found particular sexual advances unwelcome. To the contrary, such evidence is obviously relevant. The EEOC Guidelines emphasize that the trier of fact must determine the existence of sexual harassment in light of "the record as a whole" and "the totality of circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred." 29 CFR 1604.11(b) (1985). Respondent's claim that any marginal relevance of the evidence in question was outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice is the sort of argument properly addressed to the District Court. In this case the District Court concluded that the evidence should be admitted, and the Court of Appeals' contrary conclusion was based upon the erroneous, categorical view that testimony about provocative dress and publicly expressed sexual fantasies "had no place in this litigation." 243 U.S. App. D.C., at 328, n. 36, 753 F.2d, at 146, n. 36. While the District Court must carefully weigh the applicable considerations in deciding whether to admit evidence of this kind, there is no per se rule against its admissibility.

Vinson.

[Jimjamesak]

Hence the discrete ogle. Every man in the history of the world could rank order his preference of the women he works with. The vast majority of us manage to collect this information without being offensive and oafish.

You'd be shocked at how many males are incapable of discretion.

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Vinson.

That case is 30 years old. The book that did the most to publicize the idiocy of that reasoning, The Beauty Myth, is itself almost 20 years old!

Try this to catch up a bit. Edit: crap,the link didn't come through because it was in a subform and I blew away the original. But if you want spend an afternoon googling the extension of exceptions to federal regulations regarding admissibility of evidence in harassment cases. Rehnquist tried to quash it but sometime in the mid-90s the worm began to turn and the way you dress is no longer recognized as a way of evaluating a woman's openness to sexual advance. The wild-eyed and bizarre contemporary method of determining that is by asking her.

Bottom line: harassment is about power. Harassers are frustrated and undesirable men who are seeking out victims to dominate to try to bolster their failing self-identity. The last thing on earth that guy wants is a woman who owns her own sexuality. He's too weak for her.

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

You'd be shocked at how many males are incapable of discretion.

Before 40, no I wouldn't. Males under 40 are essentially adolescents.

But after that, yeah, time to put the big boy panties on and act like an adult, and that includes shelving the "haw haw" sexual predatoriness of the preacher's son.

[unofan]

Petitioner contends that even if this case must be remanded to the District Court, the Court of Appeals erred in one of the terms of its remand. Specifically, the Court of Appeals stated that testimony about respondent's "dress and personal fantasies," 243 U.S. App. D.C., at 328, n. 36, 753 F.2d, at 146, n. 36, which the District Court apparently admitted [477 U.S. 57, 69] into evidence, "had no place in this litigation." Ibid. The apparent ground for this conclusion was that respondent's voluntariness vel non in submitting to Taylor's advances was immaterial to her sexual harassment claim. While "voluntariness" in the sense of consent is not a defense to such a claim, it does not follow that a complainant's sexually provocative speech or dress is irrelevant as a matter of law in determining whether he or she found particular sexual advances unwelcome. To the contrary, such evidence is obviously relevant. The EEOC Guidelines emphasize that the trier of fact must determine the existence of sexual harassment in light of "the record as a whole" and "the totality of circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred." 29 CFR 1604.11(b) (1985). Respondent's claim that any marginal relevance of the evidence in question was outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice is the sort of argument properly addressed to the District Court. In this case the District Court concluded that the evidence should be admitted, and the Court of Appeals' contrary conclusion was based upon the erroneous, categorical view that testimony about provocative dress and publicly expressed sexual fantasies "had no place in this litigation." 243 U.S. App. D.C., at 328, n. 36, 753 F.2d, at 146, n. 36. While the District Court must carefully weigh the applicable considerations in deciding whether to admit evidence of this kind, there is no per se rule against its admissibility.

Vinson.

If you don't understand that standards from 1986 may be different or archaic today...

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Listen, I'd love to live in the same world that Mad Men portrayed on AMC. Any man would. That world doesn't exist in the United States anymore. Maybe in different countries you can get back to that level.

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Listen, I'd love to live in the same world that Mad Men portrayed on AMC.

You just want to live in the same world as Christina Hendricks.

And I do not blame you one bit.

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

That world doesn't exist in the United States anymore. Maybe in different countries you can get back to that level.

Southern Europe. Asia.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

You just want to live in the same world as Christina Hendricks.

And I do not blame you one bit.

Damm straight.