Let me see if I have the basic tenet of the feminist agenda down pat. Feminists seek equal rights for women in all aspects of our society. They look at everything as having or being a distinction without a difference, i.e. we're all the same or we're all equal. So riding on that train of equality, how then is it possible for there to be any more sexual harassment suits? I mean, who or what gender would be filing for a sexual harassment suit; certainly wouldn't or couldn't be two lovers of the same sex, can it? I woman can no longer bring a sexual harassment suit against a man since she is now considered his equal in all aspects of life. So if all sexual harassment suits will be eliminated according to the 'feminist rule book' that seeks equality, then can we also elinminate the words 'sexist' and 'misogyny' from Webster's Dictionary? Seems like those outdated terms will have zero affect and no recognizable meaning in this new world of political correctness, gender tampering, same sex lovers, miscegenation, half-breeding, sexual progressivism/permisiveness, equality, beastiality and or gender evolving.
I don't understand how sexual harassment suits aren't allowed in this sexism-free utopia? It doesn't make sense. There are male-reported ones as well.
The views of your post represent everything that sometimes leads outsiders like myself to describe you as a nation of Hilly Billy Boys . The ignorance of your professed subject is quite astonishing . Why don't you determine exactly what you are preaching against before you start spouting nonsense ? The fundamental point which clearly has not registered with you , is that individual genders or shades of genders should not be discriminated against and that all treatment should embrace DIFFERENCES but ensure that such treatments are equal . In old fashioned terms it is something that used to be termed , having real respect for others and practising good manners . Something which I notice that so many American people holding so called right wing or Conservative ideas , conspicuously lack .Your Post implies that you fall into that category . Another reason why so many of you are thoroughly despised by more balanced and charitable people .
Generally yes. Generally no. It's the fact we're not all the same that requires equal rights. For example, we all have the right to work without being sexually harassed. Some people are more likely to be harassed than others (for various reasons) which is why we need rules and laws to protect those people to give them the same opportunity to work in a safe environment as everyone else.
If you are implying that because there are people like Libhater who will make life miserable for people who act outside his view of a proper role for women, we will still need sexual harrassment laws, I must concur.
What proper role for women, and who would I make miserable? I'm trying to make life easier for everyone by insisting we wipe out any and all frivolous sexual harassment cases. There would no longer be a need for us to use the term 'sexual harassment' in our society if we were to take seriously the feminist maxim that the genders are equal in every way imaginable. I'm on the feminist side here. We need to be praising these outstanding women for having the balls to push forward these progressive ideas/values of same sex marriage; use of sperm banks to take the burden off of men having sex and the risk of men being sued for having intercourse with these sensitive PMS infested women, and for recognizing the savings of tax payers who had to fund the litigation process of these frivolous lawsuits in the first place. You cannot file a sexual lawsuit against someone your equal if you expect to win.
Not a bit of it. A woman has the right to go to work and to be allowed to do her job without a bunch of men constantly trying to seduce her and making unkind remarks when she rebuffs them. I have worked in settings that were traditionally all male, like in a military mess hall, when women were first brought in in the same capacity as the men. No female soldier, especially a married one, wants half the shift paying more attention to her, with the goal of getting her to bed with them, than they pay to getting their products on the serving line. Without constant supervision of the male personnel, that is exactly what has happened in far too many cases. Too many men think that a woman's mere presence implies her sexual availability to them. There is a good biological reason for allowing women the ultimate authority in matters of the males with whom she will or will not have sexual contact. The women bear the greatest consequences for the results of any sexual act, whether it is physical harm to her reproductive tract or being burdened with the health issues attendent upon even a nominally normal pregnancy. Repeated sexual advances by unwanted males is a burden that they would normally not want to bear in trhe workplace. It will probably take several generations before men in general learn to accept that women are there for the same reason for which the men allegegly are, which is to earn a decent living doing an honest day's work. A lot of men are still having trouble learning that their externally-stowed danglies do not make them automaticly more qualified for jkust about any of the work they have traditionally done in an all-male setting. In a nutshell, until men like you get over yourselves, there will still be a need for sexual harrassment laws.
So what I surmise from your response here is that you are rejecting the feminist mantra or the feminist belief that we're all equal, or that we're all suppose to be equal, or that we all could be equal in that we men just don't have what it takes to mind our manners around the female sex. I guess the saying "All-American red-blooded male" never applied to you, or that you never found the feminist female all that attractive in which to arouse a sexual interest. So be it.
So what I surmise from your response here is that you are rejecting the feminist mantra or the feminist belief that we're all equal, or that we're all suppose to be equal, or that we all could be equal in that we men just don't have what it takes to mind our manners around the female sex. I guess the saying "All-American red-blooded male" never applied to you, or that you never found the feminist female all that attractive in which to arouse a sexual interest. I can understand that when it comes to sizing up the lesbo feminist So be it.
Most real men have the sense to know that not every woman in their area of operations is there to be recreational equipment for the guys. Most of us accept that they are there to do somewhat the same things we are getting paid to do. Most of us know that we are not getting paid to get our jollies chasing women. I have always had a preferrence for strong, self-confident and intelligent women who were still able to do something interesting after the grunting and clinging and sweating were over. I have been married to the same woman for thirty years now. Most of the self-styled "real macho men" I know can't say that. My son is the same way. Other guys trust him to take their girlfriends to events which they cannot attend (like the time he took a friend's girlfriend to her school's Prom because his friend was in Navy boot camp.) He expects his sons to be the same way. You know, gentlemen. (Whatever happened to the rest of them?)
