sirdroseph wrote:

 
I want everyone to just get along and think about other people instead of themselves all the damn time

not all that interested in either being obeyed, in control or alone.

 

 maryte wrote: 




I don't know about most everyone, there is what I would like to think a healthy contingent of us that just "vant to be left alone"

 miamizsun wrote: 
Not everybody. But most everyone wants to be obeyed.

 miamizsun wrote: 
There's a room where the light won't find you
Holding hands while
The walls come tumbling down
When they do, I'll be right behind you...

 maryte wrote: 
everybody wants to be in charge

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
sports as well

 meower wrote: 
It's all about power.

 meower wrote: 
Exactly.

 kurtster wrote: 
oh, and nothing in the article that I posted was about "romance" to be clear.

 meower wrote: 





Mad Men should be mandatory viewing for men who do not seem to get it, they portray it very well and probably more sanitized than it actually was in those days (late 50s to early 70s). A clear window of how we got here and what has always been.

Not to mention it is one of the greatest shows.......evah!!

 kurtster wrote: 
Appreciate your comments, but I'm not clear how they have to do with the article. I have the sense that in the 50's and 60's women who were allowed to work were sexually harassed as well 

 meower wrote: 
I've been wanting to make a point about the workplace for awhile but haven't had any way to bring it up until now.  Back in the day growing up (sorry about this phrase but ...) I was taught by my father and it seems by society at the time (50's and 60's) that ... work was for work and office romances had absolutely no place in the workplace and should be avoided, period end of story.  Work and play should not mix.  You went to work to earn a paycheck, not to find a spouse or a playmate.  Those were to be found elsewhere.  Workplace romances almost always ended in disaster with one or both parties leaving because they could no longer work together when the relationship went south as they usually did.  And the company also lost when good employees left or could no longer work with each other.

That has since changed towards the end of the 70's or early 80's where for some reason workplace romances became somewhat accepted or at least tolerated.  And with it the sexual dynamics changed.  Behaviour once clearly out of bounds was now sorta in bounds or ignored to some degree.  It also provided better cover for those who used power over their subordinates to impose themselves sexually and get away with it easier than before. 

I dunno.  I still believe that work is for work and a paycheck, not for socializing.  But I am clearly out of step with current thinking.  The acceptance and even encouragement of social interaction both at work and away from work with coworkers has certainly contributed to a lot of what we are talking about today.  Office hanky panky always existed, but until recently, was not tolerated.  The relaxation of these protocols while not solely responsible for the harassment issues we are talking about, it has nonetheless allowed some to push the limits of acceptable behaviour much farther than they might have in the past.  Compliments are now considered flirting instead of just being a compliment.  It had to fall apart eventually and it did.

Perhaps the old ways needed to be ditched in order to be appreciated.  People put down Pence for refusing to do things like have dinner with another woman without the presence of his wife to make sure that everything is above board and not subject to misinterpretations and misrepresentations for personal gain.  In light of things today, I'd call that smart, proper and reasonable.

Or I could be totally wrong.  I really have no idea anymore about these things other than everything is a mess and things are out of control.

2¢  

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
It was "open", not an "open secret"

eta: in a general sense. Specific crimes are different.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Of course. I doubt many women in rock were unaffected. There have already been so many tell-all books tho, and quite a few from avowed groupies, it's really part of the fabric in that industry. 

This story on Kim Fowley from a few years ago is pretty bad; I don't expect it's an outlier.

the music industry hasn't been touched...yet

i hear it is coming

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote:  It writes itself...

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

 lowelltr wrote: 
she's got a legit concern

in some cases it could very difficult to go back in time to a he said she said

a going forward solution might be a written protocol or process that requires some evidence to prove a violation

maybe an arbitration clause in the employment contract that excludes (doesn't shield) physical violence from legal charges

right now i'm sure the perceived or real emotional reaction/over-reaction to claims has many employers assessing risk

to be sure consultants will take this into consideration

I see this as a necessary purge. Evidently this aggressive, criminal behavior upon one's person has been deeply ingrained and perpetually barely lying underneath, scratching the surface of unconscious knowledge in mainstream patriarchal society for time in memoriam. Him too is not a fad or scam for monetary value, it is a dam burst that will eventually drain all perpetrators. There will be collateral damage because some people just suck and will take advantage of an environment or circumstance, but it would not have come to this were it not such an ongoing pervasive and all encompassing problem for so long. In the long run we will all be a little better for it as a society and I for one welcome the advancement.



Now as far as jokes go, that sh*t should be off limits. No censorship! Unless you're not funny, then it is off to the "Pit of Misery" for you! dilly dilly

 lowelltr wrote: 
Absolutely rational. There are already concerns about hiring women (Can they do the job as well? What if they get pregnant? Raise a family? etc) and this becomes another one.