"As any good Human Resources Manager will tell you it is not the offender's intent that matters, it is the offendee that determines whether harassment (or misogyny in general) exists."
As a longtime corporate employee, I can attest that what you've said is true, or widely accepted as true. However, as a thinking human being, I have to say that this is an utterly outrageous standard and one impossible to justify on any logical basis. If it is ONLY perception--and not original intentions--that matter, we all (every one of us) are on thin ice all the time. Perceptions and feelings and interpretations are infinitely variable, and range (by any sensible definition) from fair and objective to the utterly delusional.
"I have to say that this is an utterly outrageous standard"
Not many women will agree with you until they are the ones falsely accused of harassment. But since 98% of the harassment is still male towards female, that's few and far between. I would not characterize it as 'outrageous', but certainly it breeds paranoia. When a male says, "I like your sweater" (and means it) and the female says, "stop looking at my boobs," we've come too far, but until we males DO get our acts together (around 2250AD), that's the way it's going to be.
I hear you and will wholeheartedly acknowledge that the workplace is a vastly less offensive environment than it was 20 or more years ago. So, much genuine good has obviously come from this. But I stand by my original observation: this good has come via a set of inherently flawed and even dangerous assumptions.
>"That is your opinion. I think we are overly
>sensitive and PC these days."
As I stated,
>that is not MY opinion, it is current HR policy
>virtually everywhere. Do you work in an
Moot point anyhow. This is not an institutional environment. This is a chat room. HR does not apply here, I don't believe.
When my wife picks at me, she says, "You can't take a joke." Who is right or wrong in this situation? I'm offended sometimes, but maybe I'm the one who is too sensitive. On the other hand, maybe she goes too far sometimes. It's a matter of opinion what is acceptable and what isn't. I suppose in a corporate environment, it is different.
I actually forgot to make my intended point. Until such time as women complain that THEIR programs are being hurt, you won't get much sympathy from them. And I was NOT talking about this forum, I was talking about institutional sexism (collegiate programs). When females complain, people have to listen now. We men think sports are our purview (gross overgeneralization, but still basically true) and all Title IX was trying to do was show us that women's sports are inherently equal to ours. Since my daughter is an athlete my heart says that's true, but, BV, and other neanderthals like myself(!), my brain says it hasn't happened yet. gh had it right: it is the best of times; it is the worst of times. Hopefully in 20 years we'll look back at this mess and wonder what the hell was wrong with us (meaning true equality in sports has been achieved without sacrificing men's rights on the altar of egalitarianism)!
Bottom line to BV and the many like us: KWITCHERBELYAKIN.
I think this is pretty close to keep Title IX essentially intact with women having all the access to competitive sports without hurting male programs such as T&F or wrestling. Remove football numbers from the equation and I think you'll come pretty close.
Bill, I don't think the line is fine at
>all. Perhaps this is a heavy-handed analogy, but
>suppose you had written, "Civil Rights
>legislation was driven by a bunch of white-hating
>negroes"? Both of these great advances in
>societal came to be because forward-thinking
>members of the oppressive class finally realized
>the error of their ways and opened up more
>opportunities for all.
I think this makes me appear to be against Title IX altogether. I am not. When President Nixon signed Title IX into law, I don't think anybody in the nation at that time was remotely thinking about women's athletics.
Some friends and I were talking about the situation in Iraq and with the Muslims. We concluded that one reason they are 500 years behind us is because women are involved in our socitety. We have double the amount of talent that they do. We also concluded that women are better than men. Some wise-acre suggested that if women ruled the world, we wouldn't have internet chat rooms. LOL
Point is, I am a supporter of Title IX, as it was originally intended to work.
I'm not expert, but I
>believe that Title IX as written was not what we
>see in action today. It's the interpretation of
>Title IX (and what,90% of those in the role of
>interpteters are men?) that has been bastardized
>and has wreaked such havoc on men.
Yes, we all agree on this.
Name for me
>some women--men lovers or haters--who have the
>juice to influence anything that happens at the
Donna Lopiano for one. I don't think she ever dreamed that she would have been as successful with her movement. But people are too afraid to challenge her. The pols at least.
My post said that Title IX "as it applies to college sports" is "driven" by men-hating women. I didn't say that ALL of Title IX is driven by men-hating women. I am a supporter of the original intent of Title IX -- and I'm not a man-hating woman. I'm not even a woman.
And I didn't say that all women who support Title IX as it applies to college sports are men-haters. Joan Cronan, women's AD at Tennessee, never says a word about Title IX, but she probably supports it. But she doesn't "drive" the movement. She is an observer of it.
I said that this movement is "driven" by men-hating women. And I believe that. How the Donna Lopianos of the world -- the women who DRIVE Title IX as it applies to college sports -- can sit there and watch these men's program being dropped is hard to comprehend. I think they are men-hating women, these women who drive Title IX as it applies to college sports.
As somebody whose life
>revolves around athletics I think Title IX is the
>worst thing that ever happened to collegiate
>sports. But when I step back and think like a
>common citizen, it's one of the great things that
>has ever happened. Given the choice between the
>landscape in 1975 and now, I'd chose now in a
>heartbeat. But there's a in-between that we
>should be at, and I hope we can get to someday.
When my wife
>picks at me, she says, "You can't take a joke."
>Who is right or wrong in this situation? I'm
>offended sometimes, but maybe I'm the one who is
>too sensitive. On the other hand, maybe she
>goes too far sometimes. It's a matter of
>opinion what is acceptable and what isn't. I
>suppose in a corporate environment, it is
I don't remember where this came from, but it applies:
"The boys shoot the frogs in jest.
The frogs die in earnest."