The sexual harassment “trainers” weren’t interested in my definition of revealing clothing, as they never asked me for it. What I see is relevant is that they were pissed off that a man had the gumption to question the feminist narrative that only men are evil.
The sexual harassment “trainers” weren’t interested in my definition of revealing clothing, as they never asked me for it. What I see is relevant is that they were pissed off that a man had the gumption to question the feminist narrative that only men are evil.
I don't think it's about your gumption, I think it's that defining women's clothing choices as "harassment" makes no sense.
Obviously some clothing is inappropriate for the workplace. But that's quite different to saying that a woman wearing whatever she wants is "evil." And as both you and Bob are demonstrating, defining what is "too revealing" is difficult and can easily slip into "hijab" territory.
I'm obviously not suggesting that men are all evil or that women never are. But unless you actually have a definition of revealing clothing, and it's one that most women would be happy to conform to, you're kind of stuck, no?
It is only right that women be able to enter the workforce. Furthermore, we need what they can do. A society which takes advantage of the capabilities of all its people will prosper more.
We do need to agree on some ground rules. The first rule is that the mission comes first. We should avoid doing anything to distract from that. That’s more difficult in a mixed environment.
OK, here are some definitions: low cut, tight-fitting tops that show lots of cleavage. Tight miniskirts that show lots of leg. I once had a large-breasted girlfriend. Not once did she show off her breasts in public, the entire time I knew her.
I think it may be more that they resent male interference with female intrasexual status games. Women can be deadly serious about those games. Never mind how disruptive they can be in the workplace.
The sexual harassment “trainers” weren’t interested in my definition of revealing clothing, as they never asked me for it. What I see is relevant is that they were pissed off that a man had the gumption to question the feminist narrative that only men are evil.
I don't think it's about your gumption, I think it's that defining women's clothing choices as "harassment" makes no sense.
Obviously some clothing is inappropriate for the workplace. But that's quite different to saying that a woman wearing whatever she wants is "evil." And as both you and Bob are demonstrating, defining what is "too revealing" is difficult and can easily slip into "hijab" territory.
I'm obviously not suggesting that men are all evil or that women never are. But unless you actually have a definition of revealing clothing, and it's one that most women would be happy to conform to, you're kind of stuck, no?
It is only right that women be able to enter the workforce. Furthermore, we need what they can do. A society which takes advantage of the capabilities of all its people will prosper more.
We do need to agree on some ground rules. The first rule is that the mission comes first. We should avoid doing anything to distract from that. That’s more difficult in a mixed environment.
OK, here are some definitions: low cut, tight-fitting tops that show lots of cleavage. Tight miniskirts that show lots of leg. I once had a large-breasted girlfriend. Not once did she show off her breasts in public, the entire time I knew her.
I think it may be more that they resent male interference with female intrasexual status games. Women can be deadly serious about those games. Never mind how disruptive they can be in the workplace.
Agreed.