@ArcticFox12 said:

@Knixon said:

Women aren't used to being told "no" just about sex, it's in a lot of other areas too. But I don't think that justifies bad behavior among (presumably at least mostly adult) women any more than it does among, say, four-year-olds. Of EITHER gender. But it's a lot more difficult to send (presumably at least mostly adult) women to their rooms without supper.

She didn't say it justified it, she even admitted it's not fair. I honestly don't think you read the whole post.

Why do you argue with people who AGREE with you?

Neway, I think a few people have you on ignore so they can respond to my repost of what you said themselves.

*Women aren't used to being told "no" just about sex, it's in a lot of other areas too.
* This statement can be applied to men as well, especially since women have to fear being assaulted or murdered just for telling a guy, "no" or attempting to end a relationship. And if you'd like sources I'm willing to take 15 seconds to find 3-5 stories of that happening to women in the last few years. Good luck finding the same amount of stories of men being the victim of women in the exact same situation.

It happens on both sides. It doesn't happen at the same rate or at the same extreme and anyone who tells you otherwise is bull$hitting you.

"4 year olds"

Tell that to the ever growing list of Hollywood producers /directors etc who attempted to end women's careers for not f@#king them. That's hardly adult behavior. Clearly , Men don't like being sent to their room without supper either.

I guess Hollywood and it's film industry , one of the most lucrative industries in the world ,is full of 4 year olds.

@Knixon said:

My first guess would be that it's not just "most men" that view a woman agreeing to sex as a "prize," but that it's filtered into general society too. Considering so many aspects like how many books and movies and etc are about the pursuit of sex, and the "victory" when that goal is finally achieved... It may not be surprising that society might basically take women's side on that. (What, society takes women's side AGAIN???) Also women are expected to be more emotional while men are expected to be more stoic, and women getting angry/possibly violent is less generally feared (except regarding children, I suppose) than men getting angry/possibly violent... Plus when women get angry at men it's more likely that society will figure the man deserves it... Wow, there's just double standards all over the place!

I wonder if it would make a difference if more people saw things like "The Verdict" with Paul Newman. I don't know about you, but I'd say Charlotte Rampling's character really had it coming.

The problem also is that it IS overwhelmingly men who have the entitled attitude. I know you guys hate to hear that, but it is demonstrably true. My goodness, women had to fight for the right to vote! And CQ is 100% right, women were shamed if they weren't virgins, even in the most enlightened societies. There is still to this very day the stigma that a man who sleeps around is a stud, while a woman who does so is a s l u t. Not everyone believes that in all corners of society, but it's still very prevalent, even here in the US. As well, a man who is forceful and opinionated is strong, decisive, a good leader, while a woman is just a bytch.

If a woman behaves violently because she has been turned down by a man, then shame on her. She needs to get over herself. I don't think anyone would think that is ok. But that is still the minority - it is overwhelmingly men who get turned down, and overwhelming men who have had a history of not taking no for an answer. Cliches become so for a reason.

Let's face facts here, fellas. I dare say there are few women who have chased a man around their apartment, sticking their fingers down the guy's throat and rubbing their junk against him and just generally trying to persuade the dude to give it up. First of all, unless the woman is Serena Williams, it's not likely that she can overpower a a guy. I'm not a petite woman by any stretch, but my husband is WAY stronger than I am - if he wanted to overpower me, he could do so without breaking a sweat. Men don't live with that fear. And if they do fear that a woman will do them bodily harm, I would suggest that they start hanging out with better women. That goes for us as well - women need to start hanging out with better men, and not put ourselves in untoward positions.

@CalabrianQueen said:

@ArcticFox12 said:

@Knixon said:

Women aren't used to being told "no" just about sex, it's in a lot of other areas too. But I don't think that justifies bad behavior among (presumably at least mostly adult) women any more than it does among, say, four-year-olds. Of EITHER gender. But it's a lot more difficult to send (presumably at least mostly adult) women to their rooms without supper.

She didn't say it justified it, she even admitted it's not fair. I honestly don't think you read the whole post.

Why do you argue with people who AGREE with you?

Neway, I think a few people have you on ignore so they can respond to my repost of what you said themselves.

*Women aren't used to being told "no" just about sex, it's in a lot of other areas too.
* This statement can be applied to men as well, especially since women have to fear being assaulted or murdered just for telling a guy, "no" or attempting to end a relationship. And if you'd like sources I'm willing to take 15 seconds to find 3-5 stories of that happening to women in the last few years. Good luck finding the same amount of stories of men being the victim of women in the exact same situation.

It happens on both sides. It doesn't happen at the same rate or at the same extreme and anyone who tells you otherwise is bull$hitting you.

"4 year olds"

Tell that to the ever growing list of Hollywood producers /directors etc who attempted to end women's careers for not f@#king them. That's hardly adult behavior. Clearly , Men don't like being sent to their room without supper either.

I guess Hollywood and it's film industry , one of the most lucrative industries in the world ,is full of 4 year olds.

Agree with everything you're saying CQ!!

@ArcticFox12 said:

@Knixon said:

Women aren't used to being told "no" just about sex, it's in a lot of other areas too. But I don't think that justifies bad behavior among (presumably at least mostly adult) women any more than it does among, say, four-year-olds. Of EITHER gender. But it's a lot more difficult to send (presumably at least mostly adult) women to their rooms without supper.

She didn't say it justified it, she even admitted it's not fair. I honestly don't think you read the whole post.

Why do you argue with people who AGREE with you?

Neway, I think a few people have you on ignore so they can respond to my repost of what you said themselves.

That wasn't disagreeing, that was extending/expanding the point.

Issues of consent etc regarding sex, are not the only thing women - including/especially young women/girls - are essentially coddled about and not held responsible for. And I think it is true that, on a societal level, adult women are still allowed to have the excuse "I'm not used to that" or "I never learned that as a child" etc, while men are not. But nobody seems particularly interested in correcting that, especially not women.

Indeed, women seem to insist on expanding that into the workplace etc, which they say shouldn't allow "roughhousing" because they never learned how to do it as children. Or it's just not "ladylike" or whatever, so they demand that all people in all workplaces must essentially behave as women do, not as men do. Or at least how they believe women ought to behave. (Although women are plenty competitive too, just not in quite the same ways. Ways which men aren't used to, but nobody seems concerned about the unfairness of THAT.)

@Knixon said:

@ArcticFox12 said:

@Knixon said:

Women aren't used to being told "no" just about sex, it's in a lot of other areas too. But I don't think that justifies bad behavior among (presumably at least mostly adult) women any more than it does among, say, four-year-olds. Of EITHER gender. But it's a lot more difficult to send (presumably at least mostly adult) women to their rooms without supper.

She didn't say it justified it, she even admitted it's not fair. I honestly don't think you read the whole post.

Why do you argue with people who AGREE with you?

Neway, I think a few people have you on ignore so they can respond to my repost of what you said themselves.

That wasn't disagreeing, that was extending/expanding the point.

Issues of consent etc regarding sex, are not the only thing women - including/especially young women/girls - are essentially coddled about and not held responsible for. And I think it is true that, on a societal level, adult women are still allowed to have the excuse "I'm not used to that" or "I never learned that as a child" etc, while men are not. But nobody seems particularly interested in correcting that, especially not women.

Indeed, women seem to insist on expanding that into the workplace etc, which they say shouldn't allow "roughhousing" because they never learned how to do it as children. Or it's just not "ladylike" or whatever, so they demand that all people in all workplaces must essentially behave as women do, not as men do. Or at least how they believe women ought to behave. (Although women are plenty competitive too, just not in quite the same ways. Ways which men aren't used to, but nobody seems concerned about the unfairness of THAT.)

What the Sam Hill are you talking about? "Roughhousing"? I suppose it would depend on where one works, but I haven't seen or heard of men "roughhousing" at work unless they play pro football. And if they did roughhouse at my job, I can't imagine I would care, unless they bumped into my table in the breakroom and knocked over my coffee.

Knixon, I know you are a misogynist. My question is why exactly? Why is everything and anything that might benefit women or cut them even a little bit of slack so abhorrent to you? I really want to know. Just because something might be beneficial to women or humanity in general does not mean it is detrimental to men. Are you one of those that longs for the "good old days" when men were in charge and women were home popping out babies? When a boss could pat his secretary on the butt (or chase her around his desk) with no repercussions? I don't get it - why does the idea of women gaining equal footing and respect, in the workplace and in society in general, so threatening to you?

What woman in the WORLD has ever said that "roughhousing" should not be allowed in the workplace because "I never learned to do that as a child". What the Actual F U C K

@Gothish520 said:

@Knixon said:

@ArcticFox12 said:

@Knixon said:

Women aren't used to being told "no" just about sex, it's in a lot of other areas too. But I don't think that justifies bad behavior among (presumably at least mostly adult) women any more than it does among, say, four-year-olds. Of EITHER gender. But it's a lot more difficult to send (presumably at least mostly adult) women to their rooms without supper.

She didn't say it justified it, she even admitted it's not fair. I honestly don't think you read the whole post.

Why do you argue with people who AGREE with you?

Neway, I think a few people have you on ignore so they can respond to my repost of what you said themselves.

That wasn't disagreeing, that was extending/expanding the point.

Issues of consent etc regarding sex, are not the only thing women - including/especially young women/girls - are essentially coddled about and not held responsible for. And I think it is true that, on a societal level, adult women are still allowed to have the excuse "I'm not used to that" or "I never learned that as a child" etc, while men are not. But nobody seems particularly interested in correcting that, especially not women.

Indeed, women seem to insist on expanding that into the workplace etc, which they say shouldn't allow "roughhousing" because they never learned how to do it as children. Or it's just not "ladylike" or whatever, so they demand that all people in all workplaces must essentially behave as women do, not as men do. Or at least how they believe women ought to behave. (Although women are plenty competitive too, just not in quite the same ways. Ways which men aren't used to, but nobody seems concerned about the unfairness of THAT.)

What the Sam Hill are you talking about? "Roughhousing"? I suppose it would depend on where one works, but I haven't seen or heard of men "roughhousing" at work unless they play pro football. And if they did roughhouse at my job, I can't imagine I would care, unless they bumped into my table in the breakroom and knocked over my coffee.

Knixon, I know you are a misogynist. My question is why exactly? Why is everything and anything that might benefit women or cut them even a little bit of slack so abhorrent to you? I really want to know. Just because something might be beneficial to women or humanity in general does not mean it is detrimental to men. Are you one of those that longs for the "good old days" when men were in charge and women were home popping out babies? When a boss could pat his secretary on the butt (or chase her around his desk) with no repercussions? I don't get it - why does the idea of women gaining equal footing and respect, in the workplace and in society in general, so threatening to you?

What woman in the WORLD has ever said that "roughhousing" should not be allowed in the workplace because "I never learned to do that as a child". What the Actual F U C K?

He's doing what he usually does, going off on an unrelated , possibly glue-sniffing induced tangent.

Overreact much? Both of you?

"Roughhousing" (see the quotes? I used them before, too) at the workplace could be things like telling dirty jokes, making insults about each others' sexual capabilities, etc. Things men do when women aren't around to tell them they can't or they'll be sued, etc.

@Knixon said:

Overreact much? Both of you?

"Roughhousing" (see the quotes? I used them before, too) at the workplace could be things like telling dirty jokes, making insults about each others' sexual capabilities, etc. Things men do when women aren't around to tell them they can't or they'll be sued, etc.

Ahh, I take roughhousing to mean horsing around, punching each other, throwing stuff like it was a football, etc.

But do you think telling dirty jokes is appropriate in the workplace? Truthfully, it has never bothered me, but the ones I've heard have been relatively tame. I am sure men are capable of some pretty vulgar stuff. I don't think it is unreasonable to maintain a professional demeanor in a professional setting. Women do discuss sex with each other in private - though unless we are trying to make someone an enemy, we don't make fun of each other's sexual prowess, 'tis true. We are just not built that way. But we aren't all helpless little flowers who wilt at the thought of an inappropriate comment, either.

I had a coworker come up to me in the middle of the selling floor and tell me a dirty joke. I laughed, and in fact over the years have repeated it a few times. When I started working in the security office, it was all men. A week or so into my new job, I swore about something, and the guy I was working with said Wow, I thought I was going to have to watch my mouth around you, but I guess not. I laughed and said hell no, don't tiptoe around me! The same guy joked a couple years later that if anyone in our office was going to get accused of unappropriate conversation in the workplace, it would be me. But, we kept it in the office, between our crew.

So, we aren't all prim and proper. But, it is much better to remain professional and keep that kind of stuff out of the workplace, unless you really know your coworkers and trust that they aren't going to run to HR if something unprofessional is said. But there are people, men and women, who would not appreciate swearing and sex talk at work. And there isn't really anything wrong with that.

@Gothish520 said:

But there are people, men and women, who would not appreciate swearing and sex talk at work. And there isn't really anything wrong with that.

I'm not so sure about that. If there is an existing good situation with camaraderie etc, and one new person - male OR female - comes in who demands that everything change, it shouldn't be basically illegal to tell THAT ONE person they have to leave, rather than tell everyone else that they can't continue the work relationship they're comfortable with.

@Gothish520 said:

@Knixon said:

Overreact much? Both of you?

"Roughhousing" (see the quotes? I used them before, too) at the workplace could be things like telling dirty jokes, making insults about each others' sexual capabilities, etc. Things men do when women aren't around to tell them they can't or they'll be sued, etc.

Ahh, I take roughhousing to mean horsing around, punching each other, throwing stuff like it was a football, etc.

But do you think telling dirty jokes is appropriate in the workplace? Truthfully, it has never bothered me, but the ones I've heard have been relatively tame. I am sure men are capable of some pretty vulgar stuff. I don't think it is unreasonable to maintain a professional demeanor in a professional setting. Women do discuss sex with each other in private - though unless we are trying to make someone an enemy, we don't make fun of each other's sexual prowess, 'tis true. We are just not built that way. But we aren't all helpless little flowers who wilt at the thought of an inappropriate comment, either.

I had a coworker come up to me in the middle of the selling floor and tell me a dirty joke. I laughed, and in fact over the years have repeated it a few times. When I started working in the security office, it was all men. A week or so into my new job, I swore about something, and the guy I was working with said Wow, I thought I was going to have to watch my mouth around you, but I guess not. I laughed and said hell no, don't tiptoe around me! The same guy joked a couple years later that if anyone in our office was going to get accused of unappropriate conversation in the workplace, it would be me. But, we kept it in the office, between our crew.

So, we aren't all prim and proper. But, it is much better to remain professional and keep that kind of stuff out of the workplace, unless you really know your coworkers and trust that they aren't going to run to HR if something unprofessional is said. But there are people, men and women, who would not appreciate swearing and sex talk at work. And there isn't really anything wrong with that.

I'm a hiring manager at my company and one of the 1st levels of protocol I have to follow upon hiring is making sure new employees go through prevention of sexual harassment training. The high ups are petrified of people going to HR for that reason especially.

The training is more than an hours worth of videos , scenarios and quizzes on them. You'd think in this day an age we wouldn't need to tell Bob not to tell Sally she has a great rack at the water cooler ,but unfortunately we still do.

My advice , mostly to the men under my employ is, listen carefully to what you plan on saying to the women you work with , play it over in your head multiple times and analyze it before you even think about opening your mouth to say it.

@Knixon said:

@Gothish520 said:

But there are people, men and women, who would not appreciate swearing and sex talk at work. And there isn't really anything wrong with that.

I'm not so sure about that. If there is an existing good situation with camaraderie etc, and one new person - male OR female - comes in who demands that everything change, it shouldn't be basically illegal to tell THAT ONE person they have to leave, rather than tell everyone else that they can't continue the work relationship they're comfortable with.

Camraderie is wonderful, but in a work setting, a little decorum goes a long way. In most job situations, people come and go all the time. It shouldn't be a hardship to hold your tongue when the newbie is around.

If the existing people want to extend that courtesy, fine. Otherwise, if the newbie chooses to stay, that's on them. But as with so many other things, such as people building or buying a house next to an airport that's existed for decades and then demanding quiet, if the newbie can't stand the heat, THEY should get out of the kitchen. Not insist that everyone else stop cooking.

And if newbie goes to HR, they should be told "you knew how it was when you started. If you don't like it, YOU can leave."

I really have little to no patience for people who come into something that may have been running smoothly for years or even decades, and insist it be re-made - and possibly eessentially destroyed - to suit THEM.

@Knixon said:

If the existing people want to extend that courtesy, fine. Otherwise, if the newbie chooses to stay, that's on them. But as with so many other things, such as people building or buying a house next to an airport that's existed for decades and then demanding quiet, if the newbie can't stand the heat, THEY should get out of the kitchen. Not insist that everyone else stop cooking.

And if newbie goes to HR, they should be told "you knew how it was when you started. If you don't like it, YOU can leave."

I really have little to no patience for people who come into something that may have been running smoothly for years or even decades, and insist it be re-made - and possibly eessentially destroyed - to suit THEM.

But how likely is that scenario? Maybe in some small mom-and-pop type companies, but larger businesses have rules to follow. If a person is hired, obviously a higher up somewhere thought they were worthy of the job. And if it happens to be a woman who gets put into a mostly male situation, you can't just tell her "hey guess what, the guys love cracking jokes about women's breasts , and you're just going to have to deal with it". Or how about telling the new guy "don't mind us, we just like making racist comments all day, but it's all good, right?"

Nonsense. That's a good way to get slapped with a lawsuit.

@Gothish520 said:

@Knixon said:

If the existing people want to extend that courtesy, fine. Otherwise, if the newbie chooses to stay, that's on them. But as with so many other things, such as people building or buying a house next to an airport that's existed for decades and then demanding quiet, if the newbie can't stand the heat, THEY should get out of the kitchen. Not insist that everyone else stop cooking.

And if newbie goes to HR, they should be told "you knew how it was when you started. If you don't like it, YOU can leave."

I really have little to no patience for people who come into something that may have been running smoothly for years or even decades, and insist it be re-made - and possibly eessentially destroyed - to suit THEM.

But how likely is that scenario? Maybe in some small mom-and-pop type companies, but larger businesses have rules to follow. If a person is hired, obviously a higher up somewhere thought they were worthy of the job. And if it happens to be a woman who gets put into a mostly male situation, you can't just tell her "hey guess what, the guys love cracking jokes about women's breasts , and you're just going to have to deal with it". Or how about telling the new guy "don't mind us, we just like making racist comments all day, but it's all good, right?"

Nonsense. That's a good way to get slapped with a lawsuit.

That's the way it IS, yes. I just don't agree that's how it SHOULD be.

To take your example, a boss or hiring manage who hires someone who clearly won't fit in with the existing team, didn't make a good hiring decision. If they believe the new hire brings something wortyy of changing everything, then it's their responsibility to deal with it in advance. Bosses have the authority to make changes in how things are in their business, but not in a vacuum. And if the other people already in place, don't believe it's an acceptable change, they should either threaten to leave or actually leave and thus do their own part to show it was a bad decision. (And if the boss or hiring manager stick to the decision that the one new person is worth losing all the others, then there's a good chance the business deserves to fail.) Which is something I've done myself, although not because of dirty jokes etc.

I won't ever wear a tie, just because it's uncomfortable and pointless. Especially when - as happened in one situation - the company decides that everyone must wear a tie at the office because the salespeople complained it was "unfair" only they had to wear ties, even when they were the only ones interacting with the general public! That kind of one-size-fits-all nonsense doesn't work for me at all. And I know they lost a lot more from me leaving, than I did from not working there. But they wanted to stick their head up their butt, so they got to suffer the consequences.

@Knixon said:

@Gothish520 said:

@Knixon said:

If the existing people want to extend that courtesy, fine. Otherwise, if the newbie chooses to stay, that's on them. But as with so many other things, such as people building or buying a house next to an airport that's existed for decades and then demanding quiet, if the newbie can't stand the heat, THEY should get out of the kitchen. Not insist that everyone else stop cooking.

And if newbie goes to HR, they should be told "you knew how it was when you started. If you don't like it, YOU can leave."

I really have little to no patience for people who come into something that may have been running smoothly for years or even decades, and insist it be re-made - and possibly eessentially destroyed - to suit THEM.

But how likely is that scenario? Maybe in some small mom-and-pop type companies, but larger businesses have rules to follow. If a person is hired, obviously a higher up somewhere thought they were worthy of the job. And if it happens to be a woman who gets put into a mostly male situation, you can't just tell her "hey guess what, the guys love cracking jokes about women's breasts , and you're just going to have to deal with it". Or how about telling the new guy "don't mind us, we just like making racist comments all day, but it's all good, right?"

Nonsense. That's a good way to get slapped with a lawsuit.

That's the way it IS, yes. I just don't agree that's how it SHOULD be.

To take your example, a boss or hiring manage who hires someone who clearly won't fit in with the existing team, didn't make a good hiring decision. If they believe the new hire brings something wortyy of changing everything, then it's their responsibility to deal with it in advance. Bosses have the authority to make changes in how things are in their business, but not in a vacuum. And if the other people already in place, don't believe it's an acceptable change, they should either threaten to leave or actually leave and thus do their own part to show it was a bad decision. (And if the boss or hiring manager stick to the decision that the one new person is worth losing all the others, then there's a good chance the business deserves to fail.) Which is something I've done myself, although not because of dirty jokes etc.

I won't ever wear a tie, just because it's uncomfortable and pointless. Especially when - as happened in one situation - the company decides that everyone must wear a tie at the office because the salespeople complained it was "unfair" only they had to wear ties, even when they were the only ones interacting with the general public! That kind of one-size-fits-all nonsense doesn't work for me at all. And I know they lost a lot more from me leaving, than I did from not working there. But they wanted to stick their head up their butt, so they got to suffer the consequences.

Refusing to wear a tie is not at all the same as being told you have to put up with racist or sexist jokes or sexual inappropriateness. They are not even on the same planet. There are federal laws against racism, sexism, and discrimination, as there should be; there are no laws prohibiting companies from changing their dress code.