Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars – Dishonest Nonsense
(This comment is tied solely to sexual harassment and swimsuit calendars and not to any other aspect of “sexual harassment.” It is the "politically correct" version of This and That: Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars - Dishonest Nonsense ), now gently adjusted for contemporary expectations.)
The great war against swimsuit calendars is a remarkable propaganda achievement. One almost has to admire the efficiency. A simple workplace calendar has been elevated to the status of “sexual harassment,” complete with the assumption that it was placed there with the express purpose of tormenting people in group F. The narrative is tidy, dramatic, and—best of all—requires no evidence.
This is especially amusing given that people in group M have been hanging these calendars in workplaces entirely devoid of people in group F for decades. But apparently, the calendars were part of a long‑range harassment strategy aimed at individuals who were not present. The more mundane explanation—that people in group M simply enjoy the calendars—seems to have been misplaced somewhere along the way. The fact that people in group M and people in group F appreciate different workplace décor is not exactly a shocking revelation. It is, in fact, what most of us would call “diversity.”
Now, it may indeed be necessary to remove swimsuit calendars from the workplace. Societies have survived worse. But let’s be clear: the reason for removing the calendars is people in group F’s intolerance of certain forms of diversity, not people in group M’s intent to harass people in group F. One group dislikes the imagery; the other group is accused of malicious intent. A neat little inversion.
To fully appreciate the propaganda success, one must note not only the dishonesty but also the elegant redistribution of responsibility. People in group F have been absolved of their intolerance of diversity—something for which people in group F are responsible—while people in group M are blamed for attempting to harass people in group F—something for which people in group M are not responsible. It is a tidy arrangement, and one suspects Madison would recognize the factional handiwork immediately.
By separating the offense from actual intent, the state has engineered a standard so fluid it flirts directly with the constitutional doctrine of "void for vagueness." A citizen cannot reasonably know which everyday object or piece of decorum will overnight be reclassified as a federal offense, transforming the workplace into a minefield of unpredictable liabilities.
It is a tidy arrangement, and one suspects James Madison would recognize the factional handiwork immediately. Writing in Federalist No. 62, Madison issued a stark warning that perfectly captures the essence of this modern bureaucratic overreach:
"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow."
The modern "hostile work environment" standard operates precisely on this incoherence. Because it relies on evolving social taboos and subjective perceptions rather than fixed, statutory rules, the boundary of permissible expression remains a moving target. What was ordinary workplace decorum yesterday becomes a corporate liability today. In the end, the campaign against the swimsuit calendar is not a victory for workplace harmony, but a textbook demonstration of Madison’s deepest fear: a faction leveraging the machinery of the state to substitute predictable law with arbitrary conformity.
1. The Weaponization of Vague Royal Prerogatives Before the "law of the land" was firmly established, English kings ruled through broad, undefined prerogatives. The Historic Tyranny: If the King decided that a subject’s speech or property was "disruptive" to the kingdom, they were penalized retroactively. There was no written, democratically passed statute explicitly forbidding the action beforehand. The Modern Mirror: This is exactly the critique of the "unintentional harassment" standard. When a federal agency or a judge can declare ordinary off-duty speech or workplace decorum a violation based on an unwritten, fluid taboo, they are exercising the modern equivalent of a royal prerogative. The citizen is trapped by an invisible rule that only becomes visible once they are being punished for breaking it.
2. The Return of the Star Chamber (Bypassing the Jury) In English history, the most infamous tool of legal tyranny was the Court of Star Chamber—a specialized tribunal made up of judges and royal officials who sat without a jury. The Star Chamber Method: The Star Chamber was explicitly used to police "decorum," "sedition," and "social order." Because there were no juries of ordinary peers to apply community common sense, the judges used fluid legal theories to enforce the crown's preferred political and ideological conformity. The Modern Mirror: Critics argue that modern HR departments, administrative tribunals, and judges granting summary judgments act exactly like the Star Chamber. By evaluating cases through specialized academic lenses—like Catharine MacKinnon's frameworks—rather than letting a jury of ordinary citizens decide what is reasonable, they ensure the ideological faction's preferences always win over individual liberty.
3. Substituting Status for Contract A foundational achievement of Western legal progress was moving from a system of status (where the state decides your rights based on what class or group you belong to) to a system of contract (where free individuals decide their own obligations through explicit, mutual consent). The "English Style": Under the old feudal system, the state dictated your financial and social liabilities automatically. The Modern Slide Back: As seen in British Columbia's family law (deeming people "spouses" without their consent) and Title VII's "unintentional harassment" standard (labeling someone a "harasser" without their intent), the modern state is abandoning the requirement of explicit, mutual consent. It is returning to a feudal-style model where an administrative apparatus retroactively imposes massive liabilities on your life and livelihood based on structural ideology.
Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars – Dishonest Nonsense
(This comment is tied solely to sexual harassment and swimsuit calendars and not to any other aspect of “sexual harassment.” It is the "politically correct" version of This and That: Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars - Dishonest Nonsense )
The great war against swimsuit calendars is an immensely dishonest propaganda success. It is immensely dishonest because the propaganda labels a workplace display of a swimsuit calendar as “sexual harassment” and treats the calendar as if it were being displayed with the intent of harassing people in group F.
Inasmuch as people in group M have routinely, for perhaps a century, displayed such calendars in work environments completely devoid of people in group F, suggesting that people in group M display these calendars in order to harass people in group F is absurd and dishonest. The calendars are displayed because people in group M like the calendars. That fact that people in group M and people in group F appreciate different things in the workplace is not exactly new nor surprising. It is an aspect of workplace diversity.
It may, in fact, be necessary to remove swimsuit calendars from the workplace. However, the reason for removing the swimsuit calendars is people in group F’s intolerance of diversity and not people in group M’s intent to harass people in group F.
To truly appreciate the propaganda success, one should note not just the dishonesty, but also the issue of responsibility. People in group F have been absolved of their intolerance of diversity, for which people in group F are responsible, while simultaneously blaming people in group M for trying to harass people in group F, for which people in group M are not responsible.
==== Original that Copilot objected to:
Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars - Dishonest Nonsense
(This comment is tied solely to sexual harassment and swimsuit calendars and not to any other aspect of "sexual harassment".)
The great war against swimsuit calendars is an immensely dishonest propaganda success. It is immensely dishonest because the propaganda labels a workplace display of a swimsuit calendar as "sexual harassment" and treats the calendar as if it were being displayed with the intent of harassing women. Inasmuch as men have routinely, for perhaps a century, displayed such calendars in work environments completely devoid of women, suggesting that men display these calendars in order to harass women is absurd and dishonest. The calendars are displayed because men like the calendars. That fact that men and women appreciate different things in the workplace is not exactly new nor surprising. It is an aspect of workplace diversity.
It may, in fact, be necessary to remove swimsuit calendars from the workplace. However, the reason for removing the swimsuit calendars is women's intolerance of diversity and not men's intent to harass women.
To truly appreciate the propaganda success, one should note not just the dishonesty, but also the issue of responsibility. Women have been absolved of their intolerance of diversity, for which women are responsible, while simultaneously blaming men for trying to harass women, for which men are not responsible.
