Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely ...
Society has given immense power to women in the workplace with almost no restraint on this power. It would be against almost all human experience to expect such unrestrained power not to be abused. There is a "presumption of guilt" attached to men in the workplace. This is not only unfair, it is decidedly un-American. Women have fathers, husbands, brothers, sons, and boyfriends etc that now need protection from the abuse of this almost unrestrained power.
Throughout my working career we had "sexual harassment training" and "hostile work environment training." At the beginning, this stuff was an easy sell to most men. We all had mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, girlfriends etc that we thought needed protection from men that would exploit them. This morphed over time so that the training indicated that "sexual harassment" need be neither sexual nor intentionally harassing. The "hostile work environment" training initially described a work environment that was so "severe or pervasively" hostile that no reasonable person could be expected to work in that environment. Again, we all had mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, girlfriends etc that we wouldn't want to be subjected to such an environment. But this morphed into women claiming that simply the knowledge that a man had a men's magazine (e.g. Playboy or sometimes even Sports Illustrated) in his office, even if it never were seen by anybody but the owner, created a "hostile work environment." So, we are to believe that an adult woman cannot function because of the mere knowledge that a man might read a magazine on his lunch break? The proper response to that should be "Huh? You are a fully competent adult? Grow up". Additionally, the rules are so arbitrary and capricious that it is even unclear what they really are. Although it was not officially part of my training, my boss indicated that even making negative comments about the law might be "hostile" to some people.
So "hostile work environment" has morphed from "severe or pervasive" to pretty much anything that women don't like. What about stuff that men don't like? As I understood the rules, anything that had anything to do with typical male mate preferences could be termed "hostile." On the other hand, women were almost completely free to exhibit typical female mate preferences. Talking about high status men as "good catches" is apparently just fine. Complaining that there are "no good men" is fine. Showing off $20,000 engagement rings is fine. Talking about the salary, position, wealth, or status of a man is fine. Reading magazines explaining where to find men who are "good catches" is fine. Reading magazines explaining how to "get" a man to propose is fine. Reading romance novels in which the men are invariably "high status" men is fine. Posting pictures of men in expensive suits, cars,sailboats,and other trappings of wealth and power is fine. There are probably some very kind, honest, hardworking, and handsome janitors, but I have never heard any man on the low end of the pay scale be described as "a good catch." In contrast, I have heard many a highly paid man be referred to as "a good catch."
Rather than accept the fact that women work in a diverse work environment and men are usually part of that work environment, these rules ignore that diversity and treat the work environment as if it were some kind of women's club where women get to make all the rules and men are subject to these rules. I think people can reasonably object to such "equality."
