I had a female office partner for many years at Los Alamos. Call her Jane Doe for story purposes. I do not mean to be sexist, but occasionally it made a difference that my office partner was female.
One day I returned to my office (I think after visiting another Los Alamos Lab area) and Jane greeted me with a big grin and told me that "You have the stupidest secretary in the world." She then proceeded to tell me a story while grinning the entire time.
This was in the 1980's and our office telephones had neither voice mail nor answering machines. So, we would answer each other's phone when the the other person was not in the office. A man called on my phone with some very technical questions about MCNP (a Monte Carlo particle transport computer program) that he wanted to ask me about. According to Jane the conversation went something like this with the man becoming ever more flabbergasted:
M. Is Tom there?
J. No.
M. Do you know where he is?
J. No.
M. Do you know when he will be back?
J. No.
M. (silent pause)
J. Can I take a message?
At this point Jane said there was a good deal of hesitation in the man's voice and tone as to whether taking a message might be beyond this idiot secretary's capabilities.
M. Well ... Okay ... I have a complicated geometrical region and I need his advice on how to define such a region in MCNP.
J. No, you don't need Tom's advice.
M. (silent pause)
J. Tom is not the expert on MCNP geometry. You need my advice.
According to Jane, the man immediately recognized his predicament at potentially having pissed off the very person he needed. Jane said that she could almost hear all his mental gears backpedaling as he apologized profusely. Jane took it all with good humor and assured the man that he need not worry as she was amused more than insulted. She then helped him solve his geometry problem,
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Sunday, September 25, 2016
The Los Alamos Bushy-Tailed Mushroom Security Memo
Shortly before I joined the Los Alamos Lab (1974), there appeared a series of documents about various subjects at the Lab called "The Bushy-Tailed Mushroom" series. The documents were unofficial parodies of things going on at the Lab and were identified with a hand-drawn mushroom cloud in the to/from/subject header of the documents. Unfortunately, I did not think to save a copy as they were often very funny. They were just close enough to reality to be almost believable. Too believable in one case.
For instance, there was a Bushy-Tailed Mushroom funding request in the style of LDRD (Lab Directed Research and Development for high risk but high reward projects) ostensibly from the "Western Exploration Division" WX (Weapons Experiments in reality). The proposal was dated in the 1490's by some Italian chap and concerned an ingenious plan to try and reach the East Indies by sailing WEST instead of east. The proposal listed the resources necessary and concluded that, while expensive, if it were successful it would open up a whole New World of trade possibilities.
There was another Bushy-Tailed Mushroom memo ostensibly from Los Alamos computer code developers to Los Alamos computer code users. (I was in a code development group, so the memo hit pretty close to home.) The memo had a list of perhaps 30 useful code notes from the developers to the users. My favorite code note to the users was something like "As usual, a punch in column 37 of the 54th input card is ignored."
The Bushy-Tailed Mushroom memo ostensibly from Lab Security terminated the series when a PhD physicist missed the bushy-tailed mushroom cloud in the memo's header. Security routinely sent out memos with security policies that did not always comport with the scientists' view of reasonable policies, so the fact that the memo was suggesting inane things did not tip off the physicist that this was parody. In this case, it was a little too close to reality ...
The physicist (my alternate group leader by coincidence) read item after item of inane security policies and got angrier and angrier. Somewhere down the list (10 perhaps?) he came across policies for protecting classified material that went something like this:
"A magnetic tape containing a classified computer code needs to be stored in a safe, as well as a computer listing of the computer code, as well as the punched cards associated with the computer code. Furthermore, inasmuch as the punch outs at the computer card punch machines are a negative image of the computer cards, henceforth the punch outs must be treated as secret classified material and stored in an approved repository (safe)."
The physicist telephoned Security and told Security just what he thought of "their" insane memo. Thus ended the Bushy-Tailed Mushroom document series.
For instance, there was a Bushy-Tailed Mushroom funding request in the style of LDRD (Lab Directed Research and Development for high risk but high reward projects) ostensibly from the "Western Exploration Division" WX (Weapons Experiments in reality). The proposal was dated in the 1490's by some Italian chap and concerned an ingenious plan to try and reach the East Indies by sailing WEST instead of east. The proposal listed the resources necessary and concluded that, while expensive, if it were successful it would open up a whole New World of trade possibilities.
There was another Bushy-Tailed Mushroom memo ostensibly from Los Alamos computer code developers to Los Alamos computer code users. (I was in a code development group, so the memo hit pretty close to home.) The memo had a list of perhaps 30 useful code notes from the developers to the users. My favorite code note to the users was something like "As usual, a punch in column 37 of the 54th input card is ignored."
The Bushy-Tailed Mushroom memo ostensibly from Lab Security terminated the series when a PhD physicist missed the bushy-tailed mushroom cloud in the memo's header. Security routinely sent out memos with security policies that did not always comport with the scientists' view of reasonable policies, so the fact that the memo was suggesting inane things did not tip off the physicist that this was parody. In this case, it was a little too close to reality ...
The physicist (my alternate group leader by coincidence) read item after item of inane security policies and got angrier and angrier. Somewhere down the list (10 perhaps?) he came across policies for protecting classified material that went something like this:
"A magnetic tape containing a classified computer code needs to be stored in a safe, as well as a computer listing of the computer code, as well as the punched cards associated with the computer code. Furthermore, inasmuch as the punch outs at the computer card punch machines are a negative image of the computer cards, henceforth the punch outs must be treated as secret classified material and stored in an approved repository (safe)."
The physicist telephoned Security and told Security just what he thought of "their" insane memo. Thus ended the Bushy-Tailed Mushroom document series.
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Ambiguity, "Hostile Work Environment" Law, Intimidation, and Tyranny
The "hostile work environment" laws will necessarily have some gray areas, but at the very least men and their managers could be informed of what definitely is permissible. Believe it or not, many people seem opposed to at least letting men know what is permissible. One women explained that it was better to keep things ambiguous so that men would be super careful because they did not know what was permissible. When I objected that this was pure intimidation she just shrugged and said "so what?" Perhaps this is not a view of the majority of women, but I think it is not an uncommon view. Many women seem very comfortable with keeping men, and especially managers, in ambiguous circumstances. What manager wants to risk a lawsuit? Absent proper training in what is permissible, the managers are almost compelled to deprive men of any free expression that a woman objects to, even if the law does not really require it. The best explanation that comes to mind is that the resulting intimidation gives women extra power over men, and the women like this power.
I took "hostile work environment" training every year for perhaps 30 years. I can understand that when the training first started that it was likely to need improvement. But, eventually the training should have clearly trained people about what was definitely permissible, what was definitely impermissible, and what were gray areas. Furthermore, as the courts decided more cases, this gray area should have become smaller and smaller and the permissible and impermissible areas corresponding larger. In 30 years the training never bothered to define these areas. In practice, some portions of the "hostile work environment" laws function via intentional intimidation. To many people that seems not to be an unfortunate deficiency in the law and training that should be corrected, but a desirable feature to be preserved.
In practice this "desirable feature" tyrannically seeks to curtail even legally permitted free expression via intentional intimidation. Some people believe that a poster stating that "the current hostile work environment laws are tyrannical and need to be modified to be more reasonable and fairer to men," could constitute a hostile work environment for women.
http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/11/hostile-work-environment.html
http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/12/fixing-abuse-of-hostile-work.html
I took "hostile work environment" training every year for perhaps 30 years. I can understand that when the training first started that it was likely to need improvement. But, eventually the training should have clearly trained people about what was definitely permissible, what was definitely impermissible, and what were gray areas. Furthermore, as the courts decided more cases, this gray area should have become smaller and smaller and the permissible and impermissible areas corresponding larger. In 30 years the training never bothered to define these areas. In practice, some portions of the "hostile work environment" laws function via intentional intimidation. To many people that seems not to be an unfortunate deficiency in the law and training that should be corrected, but a desirable feature to be preserved.
In practice this "desirable feature" tyrannically seeks to curtail even legally permitted free expression via intentional intimidation. Some people believe that a poster stating that "the current hostile work environment laws are tyrannical and need to be modified to be more reasonable and fairer to men," could constitute a hostile work environment for women.
http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/11/hostile-work-environment.html
http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/12/fixing-abuse-of-hostile-work.html
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
"What Women Want--What Men Want" - True two decades later?
I found the experiments performed in the text linked below fascinating.
"Do clothes make the man (or woman)? Can the right costume, income, and occupation make even unattractive men acceptable for dating, sexual relations, and marriage? Can these trappings do the same for women? In Chapter 3 we dressed homely and good-looking men in different types of costumes—including hamburger-chain uniforms,designer outfits, and silk shirts with gold chains—and described them as having appropriate incomes and occupations. The results were startling"
https://www.scribd.com/doc/29085683/What-Women-Want-What-Men-Want
This was written in 1998. I wonder how much has changed since 1998.
"Do clothes make the man (or woman)? Can the right costume, income, and occupation make even unattractive men acceptable for dating, sexual relations, and marriage? Can these trappings do the same for women? In Chapter 3 we dressed homely and good-looking men in different types of costumes—including hamburger-chain uniforms,designer outfits, and silk shirts with gold chains—and described them as having appropriate incomes and occupations. The results were startling"
https://www.scribd.com/doc/29085683/What-Women-Want-What-Men-Want
This was written in 1998. I wonder how much has changed since 1998.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Getting on Fifth Base?
I went to high school before electronic calculators and "slide rules" were the calculational devices of the time. My high school chemistry teacher said that we could do the test problems (as well as homework problems) anyway that we wanted as long as we showed the work. We could, of course, use our slide rules for calculations. Well, I had known how to use a slide rule since fourth grade, but I never actually looked carefully at the slide rule until that quarter in high school. Wow. It occurred to me that the slide rule, though intended for base 10 arithmetic could be used for any base arithmetic because the slide rule was just adding and subtracting logarithms.
I had done very well on the previous two chemistry exams and always had time left over, so I decided to do the next chemistry exam in base 5 rather than base 10. I practiced using my slide rule in base 5 a bit before the exam. There were something like 4 true/false questions worth 2 points apiece, and the rest of the exam required calculations. I barely finished the exam working in base 5, but I did finish and handed in the exam. When the exams came back a day or two later, my score was 8 points out of 100 points. There was also a note to see the teacher after class.
After class, the teacher said "Tom, what happened? You did extremely well on the previous two exams." I pointed to my note written at the top of the first page of the exam. The note said "Please note that all calculations and answers are in base 5." The teacher said "You did what!" I pointed out that he had said that we could do the exam any way we wanted. The expressions on his face in the next 30 to 60 seconds as he tried to decide what to do were fascinating. He went from astonishment, to exasperation, to annoyance, and finally to toleration. He finally simply said to convert all the numbers to base 10 and hand the exam back in. It was good fun. Maybe a bit risky, because he could have failed me, but I counted on his keeping his word.
Two or three years later I stopped by the high school and he recognized me at once. He told me that he now tells the class that if they show their work, they can do the exams anyway they like, within reason. And he gave my exam as an example of what was not within reason. The teacher said that his classes were always amused by the example.
The moral of the story is that it took a little while for the teacher to appreciate how students might follow his instructions (and see the humor)...
I had done very well on the previous two chemistry exams and always had time left over, so I decided to do the next chemistry exam in base 5 rather than base 10. I practiced using my slide rule in base 5 a bit before the exam. There were something like 4 true/false questions worth 2 points apiece, and the rest of the exam required calculations. I barely finished the exam working in base 5, but I did finish and handed in the exam. When the exams came back a day or two later, my score was 8 points out of 100 points. There was also a note to see the teacher after class.
After class, the teacher said "Tom, what happened? You did extremely well on the previous two exams." I pointed to my note written at the top of the first page of the exam. The note said "Please note that all calculations and answers are in base 5." The teacher said "You did what!" I pointed out that he had said that we could do the exam any way we wanted. The expressions on his face in the next 30 to 60 seconds as he tried to decide what to do were fascinating. He went from astonishment, to exasperation, to annoyance, and finally to toleration. He finally simply said to convert all the numbers to base 10 and hand the exam back in. It was good fun. Maybe a bit risky, because he could have failed me, but I counted on his keeping his word.
Two or three years later I stopped by the high school and he recognized me at once. He told me that he now tells the class that if they show their work, they can do the exams anyway they like, within reason. And he gave my exam as an example of what was not within reason. The teacher said that his classes were always amused by the example.
The moral of the story is that it took a little while for the teacher to appreciate how students might follow his instructions (and see the humor)...
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
Saturday, July 23, 2016
Guilt by Association and Victimhood by Association
This post is in response to the facebook conversation with the Asian-American woman linked here:
http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/07/facebook-conversation-with-asian.html
http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/07/asian-american-females-white-husbands.html
This woman (and her husband) seemed either incapable or unwilling to have a rational discussion. Continuing the discussion would have been as pointless as trying to teach a pig to sing. (For those not familiar with the idiom: “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”) For those willing to engage their brains a bit, let's consider her unsupported accusations.
The problem identified had to do with police and black men. But, this Asian-American female (xxx) almost effortlessly (how many words did it take?) conflates problems of black Americans with problems of women. (Note that xxx does not respond to my question about why white men are any more responsible than Asian females for the interactions of police and black men.) This conflation attempts to acquire additional victimhood status by coupling women's issues with black racial issues as if they were similar and commensurate problems. They are both problems, but they are not commensurate and there are far more differences than similarities.Women's issues need to be judged on their own merits, without attempting to couple them to black racial issues. This woman's comments seem to have the primary intent of trying to appropriate additional victimhood status by association with black racial problems. Otherwise, why immediately try and tie the two together in this instance?
Inasmuch as most Americans consider the slavery that existed in the past and the racism that persists to this day as the most reprehensible part of our history, associating women's issues with racism tends to put them on the same level. Although this conflation may be positive for women's issues, the conflation tends to diminish the problem of racism by putting it on the same level as women's issues. Perhaps this is the reason that it is quite common for women's groups to conflate sexism and racism but far less common (rare?) for racial justice groups to put women's issues and racism on the same level?
http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/07/facebook-conversation-with-asian.html
http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/07/asian-american-females-white-husbands.html
This woman (and her husband) seemed either incapable or unwilling to have a rational discussion. Continuing the discussion would have been as pointless as trying to teach a pig to sing. (For those not familiar with the idiom: “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”) For those willing to engage their brains a bit, let's consider her unsupported accusations.
The problem identified had to do with police and black men. But, this Asian-American female (xxx) almost effortlessly (how many words did it take?) conflates problems of black Americans with problems of women. (Note that xxx does not respond to my question about why white men are any more responsible than Asian females for the interactions of police and black men.) This conflation attempts to acquire additional victimhood status by coupling women's issues with black racial issues as if they were similar and commensurate problems. They are both problems, but they are not commensurate and there are far more differences than similarities.Women's issues need to be judged on their own merits, without attempting to couple them to black racial issues. This woman's comments seem to have the primary intent of trying to appropriate additional victimhood status by association with black racial problems. Otherwise, why immediately try and tie the two together in this instance?
Inasmuch as most Americans consider the slavery that existed in the past and the racism that persists to this day as the most reprehensible part of our history, associating women's issues with racism tends to put them on the same level. Although this conflation may be positive for women's issues, the conflation tends to diminish the problem of racism by putting it on the same level as women's issues. Perhaps this is the reason that it is quite common for women's groups to conflate sexism and racism but far less common (rare?) for racial justice groups to put women's issues and racism on the same level?
There are some very serious women's problems to deal with. But the women's movement also is spending an inordinate amount of effort on relatively trivial issues; the racial justice movement is not. Unjustified killings of black males and unequal incarceration and sentencing for the same crime are a much more serious issue than "trigger warnings," "safe spaces," and girlie calendars.
Black males seem to have far more problematic interactions with police than females of any race and males of any non-black race. If some kind of "privilege" claim is necessary, the "privilege" in this case is "non-black privilege." It certainly has nothing to do with "male privilege" because males of any race seem to have more problematic interactions with police than females of the corresponding race. So, "female privilege" might be appropriate in this instance, but not "male privilege." Does anybody have any evidence that Asian males have more problematic interactions with police than white males? Why isn't this "Asian privilege?" Does anybody doubt that Asian females have the fewest problematic interactions with police? In this instance, why isn't this "Asian female privilege?"
Rather than engage in a rational conversation, this woman assigned guilt by association to me and victimhood by association to herself.
Black males seem to have far more problematic interactions with police than females of any race and males of any non-black race. If some kind of "privilege" claim is necessary, the "privilege" in this case is "non-black privilege." It certainly has nothing to do with "male privilege" because males of any race seem to have more problematic interactions with police than females of the corresponding race. So, "female privilege" might be appropriate in this instance, but not "male privilege." Does anybody have any evidence that Asian males have more problematic interactions with police than white males? Why isn't this "Asian privilege?" Does anybody doubt that Asian females have the fewest problematic interactions with police? In this instance, why isn't this "Asian female privilege?"
Rather than engage in a rational conversation, this woman assigned guilt by association to me and victimhood by association to herself.
The Mainstream versus the Lunatic Fringe
President Theodore Roosevelt spoke of a "lunatic fringe." Although it would be comforting to believe that the couple in the previous posts:
http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/07/facebook-conversation-with-asian.html
http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/07/asian-american-females-white-husbands.html
were part of the lunatic fringe, this is not the case.
I have known this couple for many years. Both are very intelligent and well-educated. Moreover, these are nice people that one would not hesitate to invite into his home. They may not be in the center of the movement spewing "white male privilege," but they are certainly not on the fringe.
One can question this couple's rationality, logic, and fairness on the issues. One can note that their inclination is to verbally attack rather than verbally convince, or even discuss rationally. Any questioning of the accuracy of their statements is deflected not by explaining their statements, but rather, by verbally attacking the questioner for having the temerity to question their statements. As a stretch, one might even call some of their statements lunacy, but this couple is definitely not part of the "lunatic fringe."
My guess is at least a quarter of the folks spewing "white male privilege" are similar. They do not want a conversation about problems. They simply want to verbally attack anybody that does not share their views. As I will note in a forthcoming post, "white male privilege" has become such a mantra for many of these people that the term is used when it applies and when it does not apply almost indiscriminately.
Monday, July 18, 2016
Asian American Female's White Husband's Contribution
I gave the Asian American woman's comments. Her white husband was a party to the facebook interaction as well. Her comments are given here:
http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/p/poster-shared-on-facebook-by-asian.html
His comments are reasonably similar to hers in that he feels no need to justify the poster's attack specifically and solely on white males. The primary difference is that he put a little more thought and text into his attack. Still, he manages to call me a racist and a sexist in the space of a few sentences.
He seems not to have actually read my response carefully enough to realize that I had answered the question that he asked and was not denying that white people had it much easier than black people in America. That is, I agreed with him on the race issue. Logically, that should have made me solely more sexist but not more racist than yyy? But the racist charge was not withdrawn and he continued attacking me on racism despite the fact that I indicated no disagreement with him on that issue.
xxx=Asian American woman
yyy=white husband
yyy:
Tom, you're denying there's such a thing as white male privilege? Or that you, as a member of that group have never benefited from being a member?
Ok so every black man I've ever talked to about this has to deal with police harassment all the time.
I just read another thread in Reddit where it appears women cannot walk down a street without being harassed, ogled, or stared at.
I was talking to a female priest who was sitting with a female Imam… oh wait they aren't allowed to be religious leaders. Female rabbis are allowed In a few sects but only starting in 1930's I think.
I could go on. Denying WMP kinda makes you a little tiny bit sorta just a tad racist and sexist.
Thomas E Booth:
Racism is a huge problem is this country and xxx is no less responsible than I. So, singling out white males is not appropriate. Progress on racism will happen faster when all people come together to try to find solutions. Singling out white males for defamation is neither fair nor a reasonable approach to solving racism. For some people, attacking white males seems to have attained higher priority than working with them to help solve racism. Such people are impeding progress not promoting progress.
Historically, it was overwhelmingly white Union male volunterers who died in the hundreds of thousands in the Civil War that freed the 4 million slaves. There is no remotely similar action by women of any color.
It is not proper for me to take credit for what white Union male volunterers did in the Civil War. But neither is it proper to blame me for what other white men did that was not so honorable.
To answer one of your questions, I do not deny that there is a signifcant advantage to being asian or white as opposed to black. This needs to change.
As far as "male privilege," I have already stated the most important reasons that I preferred the set of advantages my sisters had over the set I had. (There are other reasons of lesser importance as well.) People will differ on which set of advantages is more desireable.
Your comments were worthwhile in general. But, calling me a racist and a sexist says volumes about your intolerance for people that do not agree with you on everything.
There are necessary laws and regulations to ensure fair treatment of women, but these laws and regulations have sometimes been abused. In particular, the government should not be used for the tyrannical purpose of letting women deny men the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, any legitimate reasons for denying the pursuit of happiness should at least be honestly stated. Occasionally, the reasons seem unfair, illegitimate, tyrannical, and dishonest as well.
For women to require that an employer provide women a friendly work environment, but forbid the employer from providing men a a friendly work environment is outrageous. The employer should make reasonable accommodations so that all employees, female and male, can have a friendly work environment. If women object to viewing swimsuit calendars, then reasonable accommodations should be made to ensure that women need not view these calendars. On the other hand, a woman claiming that her "mere knowledge" that such a calendar exists constitutes a hostile work environment is a tyrannical attempt to control what he sees, not what she sees.
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 is 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 (about swimsuit calendars) , one should note not just the dishonesty, but also the issue of responsibility. Women have been absolved of the intolerance of diversity, for which women are responsible, while simultaneously blaming men for harassment, for which men are not responsible.
yyy:
Hm... OK Tom. Go find a man of color and ask him if he's ever been harassed or subjected to overt racism. Then go ask one woman if she's ever been subjected to unwanted attention from men or subjected to sexism.
The best way to learn about WMP is to talk to our non-WMP neighbors. One WMP cannot convince another that this is real.
yyy:
This is the end of my participation in this thread.
http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/p/poster-shared-on-facebook-by-asian.html
His comments are reasonably similar to hers in that he feels no need to justify the poster's attack specifically and solely on white males. The primary difference is that he put a little more thought and text into his attack. Still, he manages to call me a racist and a sexist in the space of a few sentences.
He seems not to have actually read my response carefully enough to realize that I had answered the question that he asked and was not denying that white people had it much easier than black people in America. That is, I agreed with him on the race issue. Logically, that should have made me solely more sexist but not more racist than yyy? But the racist charge was not withdrawn and he continued attacking me on racism despite the fact that I indicated no disagreement with him on that issue.
xxx=Asian American woman
yyy=white husband
yyy:
Tom, you're denying there's such a thing as white male privilege? Or that you, as a member of that group have never benefited from being a member?
Ok so every black man I've ever talked to about this has to deal with police harassment all the time.
I just read another thread in Reddit where it appears women cannot walk down a street without being harassed, ogled, or stared at.
I was talking to a female priest who was sitting with a female Imam… oh wait they aren't allowed to be religious leaders. Female rabbis are allowed In a few sects but only starting in 1930's I think.
I could go on. Denying WMP kinda makes you a little tiny bit sorta just a tad racist and sexist.
Thomas E Booth:
Racism is a huge problem is this country and xxx is no less responsible than I. So, singling out white males is not appropriate. Progress on racism will happen faster when all people come together to try to find solutions. Singling out white males for defamation is neither fair nor a reasonable approach to solving racism. For some people, attacking white males seems to have attained higher priority than working with them to help solve racism. Such people are impeding progress not promoting progress.
Historically, it was overwhelmingly white Union male volunterers who died in the hundreds of thousands in the Civil War that freed the 4 million slaves. There is no remotely similar action by women of any color.
It is not proper for me to take credit for what white Union male volunterers did in the Civil War. But neither is it proper to blame me for what other white men did that was not so honorable.
To answer one of your questions, I do not deny that there is a signifcant advantage to being asian or white as opposed to black. This needs to change.
As far as "male privilege," I have already stated the most important reasons that I preferred the set of advantages my sisters had over the set I had. (There are other reasons of lesser importance as well.) People will differ on which set of advantages is more desireable.
Your comments were worthwhile in general. But, calling me a racist and a sexist says volumes about your intolerance for people that do not agree with you on everything.
There are necessary laws and regulations to ensure fair treatment of women, but these laws and regulations have sometimes been abused. In particular, the government should not be used for the tyrannical purpose of letting women deny men the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, any legitimate reasons for denying the pursuit of happiness should at least be honestly stated. Occasionally, the reasons seem unfair, illegitimate, tyrannical, and dishonest as well.
For women to require that an employer provide women a friendly work environment, but forbid the employer from providing men a a friendly work environment is outrageous. The employer should make reasonable accommodations so that all employees, female and male, can have a friendly work environment. If women object to viewing swimsuit calendars, then reasonable accommodations should be made to ensure that women need not view these calendars. On the other hand, a woman claiming that her "mere knowledge" that such a calendar exists constitutes a hostile work environment is a tyrannical attempt to control what he sees, not what she sees.
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 is 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 (about swimsuit calendars) , one should note not just the dishonesty, but also the issue of responsibility. Women have been absolved of the intolerance of diversity, for which women are responsible, while simultaneously blaming men for harassment, for which men are not responsible.
yyy:
Hm... OK Tom. Go find a man of color and ask him if he's ever been harassed or subjected to overt racism. Then go ask one woman if she's ever been subjected to unwanted attention from men or subjected to sexism.
The best way to learn about WMP is to talk to our non-WMP neighbors. One WMP cannot convince another that this is real.
yyy:
This is the end of my participation in this thread.
Monday, July 11, 2016
Facebook Conversation with Asian-American Female
Poster "shared" on facebook by an Asian-American female stating:
"Imagine if powerful white men were as vocally outraged about an innocent black person being shot as they are about the improper use of email."
https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/photos/a.347907068635687.81180.346937065399354/1178176795608706/?type=3&theater
edited xxx =asian female
Thomas E Booth
This idiotic sentiment is as unreasonable as blaming Muslims for Islamic terrorism. Furthermore, "white men" are a significant minority of the population and we all need to be part of the solutions to the problems society faces. It is hard to see how attacking "white men" will encourage them to be part of the solution. That is against all human nature. Indeed, part of the reason that Trump is popular with some "white men" is because they are tired of being singled out and unfairly blamed for the actions of a few white men.
Exactly what problem in society is helped by singling out and targeting "white men?" Why am I any more responsible than xxx for society's problems?
xxx:
This is targeted at 'powerful white men' --specifically the do-nothing members of Congress.
Thomas E Booth
I still find this statement idiotic, pejorative, and counter-productive. There are women and other races that are "do-nothing members of Congress." There are plenty of powerful "white men" that want to solve problems and are not "do-nothing members of Congress."
The message should have targeted "the do-nothing members of Congress" instead of "powerful white men." Such a message would be more accurate and would avoid using "white men" pejoratively.This poster is inaccurate, a defamation of "white men" as a group, and unnecessarily disgusting. If one wants the help of "white men" generally and/or "powerful white men" specifically to help solve problems, it would be wise to stop attacking a whole group of people.
When people are under attack, they are usually not inclined to support their attackers. Put another way, accurately target your true foes and try to avoid inaccurately targeting a whole group that includes supporters as well as foes. If supporters are targeted along with foes, especially when it would have been EASY to target just the foes, some of those supporters may not stay supporters. What sense does this inaccurate targeting make?
xxx
Two words, Tom: "white privilege." No, make that three words: "white male privilege." It can make one blind to the suffering of non-whites and women.
Thomas E Booth
Instead of responding to my comments in a reasoned way, and trying to explain what is wrong with my arguments, you have launched a fallacious ad hominem attack that is devoid of any intellectual merit or even content.
Thomas E Booth
A Personal View of Male vs Female "Privilege"
Shouting "male privilege" is often a meaningless attack on males used when the attacker cannot supply convincing evidence for her/his assertions. It is a convenient ploy that is used instead of a rational discussion. In fact, it is often used specifically to shut down rational discussion.
For instance I received this comment recently:
// Two words, Tom: "white privilege." No, make that three words: "white male privilege." It can make one blind to the suffering of non-whites and women. //
The first problem is that many, if not most, of the so-called "privileges" are really advantages and not privileges. There are advantages to being male and there are advantages to being female. Which group is "more advantaged" obviously depends on how one ranks the importance of the various advantages and disadvantages. So, the second problem is that men and women are dueling over which group is more "privileged" without any kind of metric for "privilege." It is quite possible that women see their advantages as unimportant compared to men's advantages while men see their advantages as unimportant compared to women's advantages.
My personal assessment of relative advantage/disadvantage is just that; it is personal. I make no claim that somebody having different importance rankings would, or should, agree with my assessment. Similarly, there is no reason that my assessment would, or should, agree with anybody else's assessment.
The closest comparison of advantages/disadvantages that I can think of is myself to my sisters. On average, they will live substantially longer. There is no "fault" involved; I simply drew the short chromosome. Additionally, inasmuch as having biological children was one of the most important things to me, I would much rather have had my sisters' set of advantages/disadvantages than my own set of advantages/disadvantages. I absolutely required a woman for children. My wife and I agreed on three children before we got married, but she only gave me one and kept putting off any more children, even as she got older and older. Women do not need men for more than a few minutes to get their biological children. (If women use a sperm bank, they don't even need the men for a few minutes.) Women are essential, men are not. This procreative advantage has been expressed as "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."
It is not unlikely that my sisters would rather have had my set of advantages/disadvantages than their own set. So, without specifying a metric, the discussion of who is more "privileged" is meaningless. Partly perhaps it is simply that "the grass is always greener on the other side."
Note that, on average, women live substantially longer than men. To add insult to injury, the retirement age and pensions (or social security) take no account of this difference in longevity. On average, men subsidize women's retirement. Thus, men will work a longer fraction of their shorter lives so that women can work a shorter fraction of their longer lives.
xxx
My, my. Someone is very defensive... There's no shouting here. Just quiet weeping..
Saturday, July 2, 2016
Society's Lopsided Focus on Women
Society's Lopsided Focus on Women
In my lifetime (and perhaps before), the society almost always focused on how change has or will affect women. Typically, how men are or will be affected, if considered at all, is considered only after the media has been saturated with the affects upon women.
When I entered the University of California in 1969 there were many more men on campus than women. The society was obsessed with addressing this imbalance via "affirmative action" and recruitment of women. There was no discussion about how this imbalance might be negatively affecting men.
Today, with most colleges having far more women than men, the media has probably spent more time and effort addressing how this imbalance is negatively affecting women than how the imbalance negatively affects men.
There seems to be a huge focus on the dating pool for women. When things were reversed in 1969 there was perhaps not even a single article bemoaning the dating pool for men. In 1969 nobody seemed concerned that the scarcity of women meant that women controlled the dating culture on campus. Now that there is a scarcity of men on campus and men control the dating culture, this is apparently a huge crisis deserving of immense media and societal attention. Why now and not in 1969?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html
"Women on gender-imbalanced campuses are paying a social price for success and, to a degree, are being victimized by men precisely because they have outperformed them, Professor Campbell said."
What kind of nonsense is this? So, I was "victimized" by women at UC Berkeley because the women controlled the dating culture in days of yore? It is not a crime to have a male perspective on dating and there are no "victims" involved. Dating is a free choice. A man is not responsible for how women choose to behave in the presence of an imbalance. The fact that a man's dating preference is different than what many women would like does not mean that there is anything wrong with his dating preference.
http://web.nccu.edu/campus/echo/archive9-0708/c-ratio.html
http://time.com/money/4072951/college-gender-ratios-dating-hook-up-culture/
Saturday, June 18, 2016
One Woman's View of "Affirmative Consent" and My Son's Presumption of Guilt
I was hiking with a group of about 15 people yesterday and came across a wholly different justification for why it would be OK to presume my son guilty under "affirmative consent" principles.
In discussions with other women who favor "affirmative consent," the women try to square "affirmative consent" laws and their belief in a "presumption of innocence." From my point of view, they twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain why the two principles are consistent. Their arguments are not convincing to me, but apparently their arguments are convincing to them.
Yesterday, I overheard two people discussing "campus rape" and I commented that "affirmative consent" laws were both outrageous and un-American. I said that rape was a serious crime that should be handled by police and the legal system, not some college tribunal. I pointed out that the use of "affirmative consent" standards meant that there was not enough evidence to even go to a rape trial, let alone win a rape conviction Instead, "affirmative consent" was a way a man could be punished just because a woman claimed "rape" without supplying evidence. The woman speaking English with a foreign accent disagreed - no big surprise there. When I asked her how my son could prove that he had continuous "affirmative consent," the woman did not even bother to come up with some way, even if impractical, that my son could establish his innocence.
Instead, the woman said that she came from a place that had different "moral standards" and that a man should not be having sex unless he knew the woman well. I asked her where she was from and she again said "a place with different moral standards." I didn't press the issue, if she didn't want to tell me where she was from, that was her prerogative. (She was white and I didn't recognize the accent. I am a little bit familiar with western European and Russian accents. My best guess is that the accent may have been eastern European.)
When I asked again how my son could prove his innocence she explained that it was up to him to know the woman well enough to know that she would not charge him with rape. She wasn't going to "impose her morals" on him, but he had to suffer the consequences for having sex with a woman he didn't know well enough. To be sure I understood, I asked another question. "You mean that he should be punished, not because he did anything wrong, but because he should have known that she might cry "rape?" She answered, "Yes."
I don't think that there are many women that I know that would agree with the aforementioned woman. For one reason, most women I know want to be fair and reasonable toward innocent people, even men. They may not always succeed, but that is their intent. For a second reason, the conclusion that a man brought a false rape accusation upon himself by violating some community norm is eerily similar to the conclusion that women bring rape upon themselves by violating community norms for how they dress.
California's "affirmative consent" law is an extremely bad law. The law is intended to protect women from rapists, not to punish innocent men. The fact that innocent men will get punished along with guilty men just seems acceptable to the current society. It is not so much that there is a "war on men," but rather, there is a "war for women" and punishing innocent men is just considered acceptable collateral damage.
In discussions with other women who favor "affirmative consent," the women try to square "affirmative consent" laws and their belief in a "presumption of innocence." From my point of view, they twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain why the two principles are consistent. Their arguments are not convincing to me, but apparently their arguments are convincing to them.
Yesterday, I overheard two people discussing "campus rape" and I commented that "affirmative consent" laws were both outrageous and un-American. I said that rape was a serious crime that should be handled by police and the legal system, not some college tribunal. I pointed out that the use of "affirmative consent" standards meant that there was not enough evidence to even go to a rape trial, let alone win a rape conviction Instead, "affirmative consent" was a way a man could be punished just because a woman claimed "rape" without supplying evidence. The woman speaking English with a foreign accent disagreed - no big surprise there. When I asked her how my son could prove that he had continuous "affirmative consent," the woman did not even bother to come up with some way, even if impractical, that my son could establish his innocence.
Instead, the woman said that she came from a place that had different "moral standards" and that a man should not be having sex unless he knew the woman well. I asked her where she was from and she again said "a place with different moral standards." I didn't press the issue, if she didn't want to tell me where she was from, that was her prerogative. (She was white and I didn't recognize the accent. I am a little bit familiar with western European and Russian accents. My best guess is that the accent may have been eastern European.)
When I asked again how my son could prove his innocence she explained that it was up to him to know the woman well enough to know that she would not charge him with rape. She wasn't going to "impose her morals" on him, but he had to suffer the consequences for having sex with a woman he didn't know well enough. To be sure I understood, I asked another question. "You mean that he should be punished, not because he did anything wrong, but because he should have known that she might cry "rape?" She answered, "Yes."
I don't think that there are many women that I know that would agree with the aforementioned woman. For one reason, most women I know want to be fair and reasonable toward innocent people, even men. They may not always succeed, but that is their intent. For a second reason, the conclusion that a man brought a false rape accusation upon himself by violating some community norm is eerily similar to the conclusion that women bring rape upon themselves by violating community norms for how they dress.
California's "affirmative consent" law is an extremely bad law. The law is intended to protect women from rapists, not to punish innocent men. The fact that innocent men will get punished along with guilty men just seems acceptable to the current society. It is not so much that there is a "war on men," but rather, there is a "war for women" and punishing innocent men is just considered acceptable collateral damage.
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
An American Advantage in Terrorism?
Americans do such a good job of killing other Americans, it may be hard for terrorists to make much of a dent in the overall numbers. Indeed, even mass shootings in America are relatively common.
From wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
"Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6]"
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Interesting Read on European Experience of Workplace Equality for Women
If true, maybe the USA is actually doing a better job than the Europe? There seems to be some disagreement about Catherine Hakim's analysis, but maybe the data do indeed show that the USA is doing a better job than Europe?
Catherine Hakim
Feminist myths and magic medicine: the flawed thinking behind calls for further equality legislation
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/36488/1/Feminist_myths_and_magic_medicine_the_flawed_thinking_behind_calls_for_further_equality_legislation_(lsero).pdf
| http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/36488/ |
For some criticisms see:
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Divergent Views on "Mail Order Brides"
Divergent Views on "Mail Order Brides"
Mail Order Feminism
Marcia Zug
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1397&context=wmjowl
"CONCLUSION
Statistics on the success rates of mail order marriages are hard
to verify. Encounters International, one of the biggest matching
making agencies, claims 104 marriages and four divorces in seven
years. Similarly, a lawyer who specializes in fiancée visas noted
that in eight years, she had seen 600 mail order marriages and
twenty-one divorces. In addition, at least one study claims the
success rates for mail order marriages is eighty percent after five
years, which, if accurate, would be a much better success rate than
the fifty percent rate for American marriages in general. No one
is arguing that mail order marriages should become the norm, simply
that it is time to stop demonizing these unions and recognize
their potential benefits. Mail order marriages provide options to men
and women who find their domestic marriage opportunities limited
and disempowering. These marriages give participants a way of reasserting
control and finding a fulfilling, if unconventional, route
to marriage."
Woman Warrior Meets Mail-Order Bride: Finding
an Asian American Voice in the Women's Movement
Beverly Encarguez Perez
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1194&context=bglj
"CONCLUSION
The mail-order bride industry is founded on stereotypical ideas that have
promoted the exploitation and subjugation of Asian women throughout their history
in America. The unequal power dynamic between the mail-order bride and
her American husband facilitates his dominance and infliction of violence towards
her. The policies and institutions currently in place afford little protection
to the abused mail-order bride and may even prove to be oppressive to her.
These obstacles are demoralizing and, more often than not, lead her to resign to a
dire situation. Her lack of power and access to helpful avenues lead to silence.
Her silence silences us all, and her weakness weakens us all. We, as women,
must take a stand and challenge the institutions that lead to this type of brazen
exploitation of underprivileged women all over the world."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment:
Apparently American men are, on average, a little happier than American women.(See http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969.pdf) I am not a sociologist, so my speculation means very little, but there seems to be a subset of women who seem to spend more time trying to block men's pursuit of happiness than pursuing women's own happiness. As the first article points out, many American woman find American men undesirable partners. This perhaps is the reason that one hears "there are no good men left." Some of these men, having been rejected by American women, pursue their happiness with foreign women.
American women could pursue their happiness with foreign men, which would be a positive approach to increasing women's happiness. Instead, many women seem to prefer the negative approach of blocking men's pursuit of happiness. Is it any wonder that people who pursue their own happiness are happier, on average, than people who do not?
If one wants to see just how devoted some women (hopefully a tiny number) are to blocking men's pursuit of happiness, note that there are already plans for a pre-emptive strike to keep men from enjoying fembots (sex robots). These fembots are years (decades?) away, but already there are "reasons" that fembots need to be regulated despite there not being one iota of evidence for needing regulation. But, for the fembots at least, part of the concern seems to be an "alienation of affection" because some men might prefer fembots to women. One suggestion was for the return of "heart balm" lawsuits. Fortunately, I think most women don't seriously want the type of guy who prefers fembots to women, so there should not be a problem. In fact, perhaps this would be a bonus as these men would remove themselves from the gene pool? I suggest a new category of "Darwin Awards" for men who only have sex with fembots. Anyway, here is the fembot link. (Hopefully it is a joke article ...)
Sex Robots and Roboticization of Consent
http://robots.law.miami.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Gutiu-Roboticization_of_Consent.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------
See also:
https://i-d.vice.com/en_us/article/the-feminist-argument-for-mail-order-brides
Mail Order Feminism
Marcia Zug
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1397&context=wmjowl
"CONCLUSION
Statistics on the success rates of mail order marriages are hard
to verify. Encounters International, one of the biggest matching
making agencies, claims 104 marriages and four divorces in seven
years. Similarly, a lawyer who specializes in fiancée visas noted
that in eight years, she had seen 600 mail order marriages and
twenty-one divorces. In addition, at least one study claims the
success rates for mail order marriages is eighty percent after five
years, which, if accurate, would be a much better success rate than
the fifty percent rate for American marriages in general. No one
is arguing that mail order marriages should become the norm, simply
that it is time to stop demonizing these unions and recognize
their potential benefits. Mail order marriages provide options to men
and women who find their domestic marriage opportunities limited
and disempowering. These marriages give participants a way of reasserting
control and finding a fulfilling, if unconventional, route
to marriage."
Woman Warrior Meets Mail-Order Bride: Finding
an Asian American Voice in the Women's Movement
Beverly Encarguez Perez
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1194&context=bglj
"CONCLUSION
The mail-order bride industry is founded on stereotypical ideas that have
promoted the exploitation and subjugation of Asian women throughout their history
in America. The unequal power dynamic between the mail-order bride and
her American husband facilitates his dominance and infliction of violence towards
her. The policies and institutions currently in place afford little protection
to the abused mail-order bride and may even prove to be oppressive to her.
These obstacles are demoralizing and, more often than not, lead her to resign to a
dire situation. Her lack of power and access to helpful avenues lead to silence.
Her silence silences us all, and her weakness weakens us all. We, as women,
must take a stand and challenge the institutions that lead to this type of brazen
exploitation of underprivileged women all over the world."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment:
Apparently American men are, on average, a little happier than American women.(See http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969.pdf) I am not a sociologist, so my speculation means very little, but there seems to be a subset of women who seem to spend more time trying to block men's pursuit of happiness than pursuing women's own happiness. As the first article points out, many American woman find American men undesirable partners. This perhaps is the reason that one hears "there are no good men left." Some of these men, having been rejected by American women, pursue their happiness with foreign women.
American women could pursue their happiness with foreign men, which would be a positive approach to increasing women's happiness. Instead, many women seem to prefer the negative approach of blocking men's pursuit of happiness. Is it any wonder that people who pursue their own happiness are happier, on average, than people who do not?
If one wants to see just how devoted some women (hopefully a tiny number) are to blocking men's pursuit of happiness, note that there are already plans for a pre-emptive strike to keep men from enjoying fembots (sex robots). These fembots are years (decades?) away, but already there are "reasons" that fembots need to be regulated despite there not being one iota of evidence for needing regulation. But, for the fembots at least, part of the concern seems to be an "alienation of affection" because some men might prefer fembots to women. One suggestion was for the return of "heart balm" lawsuits. Fortunately, I think most women don't seriously want the type of guy who prefers fembots to women, so there should not be a problem. In fact, perhaps this would be a bonus as these men would remove themselves from the gene pool? I suggest a new category of "Darwin Awards" for men who only have sex with fembots. Anyway, here is the fembot link. (Hopefully it is a joke article ...)
Sex Robots and Roboticization of Consent
http://robots.law.miami.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Gutiu-Roboticization_of_Consent.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------
See also:
https://i-d.vice.com/en_us/article/the-feminist-argument-for-mail-order-brides
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Rape is About Power not Sex, Except When it is Not.
Rape is About Power not Sex, Except When it is Not.
Besides using a "presumption of guilt" standard, the ludicrous "affirmative consent" principle basically redefines "rape" to include situations in which the "rape" occurred because of alcohol and/or a simple miscommunication. A man can be found guilty of "rape" under affirmative consent laws when a woman changes her mind about sex but does not communicate her change of mind. In this case "rape" is not about power, it is about miscommunication.
So much for the tried and true cliche that "rape is about power, not sex."
Friday, April 22, 2016
Adult Behavior and Personal Responsibility Versus "Affirmative Consent" and Other Lunacies
Adult Behavior and Personal Responsibility Versus "Affirmative Consent" and Other Lunacies
One thing that seems common to many of the interactions between men and women is that men are assumed responsible for a lack of responsibility on women's part.
Two college kids get drunk, have consensual sex, and she later decides that she was too drunk to give consent? So, he "raped" her? Ah, if they were both drunk, wouldn't this mean she "raped" him because he wasn't capable of giving his consent? This law, like many others, is written in technically gender-neutral language, but with men as the intended target. I would give high odds that when both are drunk, the women get a pass and the men get punished.
Maybe I am prejudiced because I have a son and no daughters. A woman's lack of responsibility to say "no" now becomes a man's responsibility to try and decipher various "hints" that a woman has lost interest and is no longer consenting? When I was in college women would frequently make up excuses when they didn't want to date a guy instead of directly telling him that they were not interested. Then, if the man persisted, the woman would complain "why can't he take a hint?" Despite the fact the women often complain about men not "understanding hints," they expect a man to decipher "hints" that a woman has lost interest rather than simply telling him? A man is now responsible for deciphering various "hints" that a woman has lost interest and is no longer consenting? She could actually TELL him. But that is apparently just too much of a burden on a woman?
I am not optimistic about the possible future social environment for my son. I guess it comes under the general wisdom that "if you think things are as bad as they can get, you have overlooked something." I faced a presumption of guilt for most of my employment history. In addition, my son now faces a presumption of guilt in his dating activities. (I didn't know how lucky I was.) I have advised him to consider dating only off-campus women so he will still be entitled to real legal due process.
I did extremely well in my dealings with family law because I understood the law and used prenuptial contracts to protect myself against the default conditions that could have paid my exes huge amounts of money to divorce me. Note that family law usually throws out prenuptial contracts if the women did not get separate legal counsel. It is apparently too much to expect even an intelligent, well-educated, adult woman to be responsible for seeking legal counsel if she doesn't understand the contract. Instead, this becomes the man's responsibility to ensure that the woman understands what she is signing. Fortunately, I was aware of this idiocy and when my fiancees resisted seeing a lawyer, I refused to marry them until they did.
But, things appear to be getting even worse for men. Society has not consistently decided whether or not women are fully competent adults who are responsible for their own voluntary actions and/or inactions. For example, British Columbia's new (2013) family law removes the pesky problem of a man's unwillingness to consent to marriage by simply declaring the men to be "spouses" against their will. It is apparently too much to expect that if a woman wants to be married she is responsible for getting a man's consent? Of course, the purpose of the law is mostly about taking money. If it were about marriage, a responsible woman could just insist upon marriage or terminate the relationship. British Columbia has decided that "no doesn't mean no" when a man refuses marriage.
Until society consistently treats women equally (like men) as adults who are fully competent and responsible for their actions/inactions, people should be very careful about just assuming (absent verification) that women can be held responsible for anything in their interactions with men.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Monday, February 29, 2016
Tyranny and the Denial of Happiness
Tyranny and the Denial of Happiness
It is a legitimate function of government to keep others from denying your liberty, choice, and pursuit of happiness. It is tyrannical to use government powers to deny others their liberty, choice, and pursuit of happiness.
Tyrants often require denying somebody else their pursuit of happiness. A person with an honest concern is seeking a solution that allows them to pursue their happiness, not a solution designed to deny others their pursuit of happiness.
Tyrants in America often dishonestly try to cloak denying others' liberty and pursuit of happiness by claiming some infringement on the tyrant's rights. A telltale sign of this dishonesty is that any attempt to resolve this claimed "infringement" that does not deny others their pursuit of happiness will be summarily rejected. This is because a solution to the "infringement" is not the goal, the denial of another's freedom is the goal.
If your idea of religious liberty is to impose your religion on others, you are not for religious liberty, you are a tyrant. If you use your religion as an excuse to prohibit others from making their own choices, you are a tyrant.
If your idea of women's rights is to use the law to deny men their pursuit of happiness, you are a tyrant. Promoting women's pursuit of happiness does not entail denying men's pursuit of happiness.
Friday, February 26, 2016
Common Law Marriage Violates United Nations Principles
Common Law Marriage Violates United Nations Principles
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/MinimumAgeForMarriage.aspx
"Article 1
1. No marriage shall be legally entered into without the full and free consent of both parties, such consent to be expressed by them in person after due publicity and in the presence of the authority competent to solemnize the marriage and of witnesses, as prescribed by law."
Why do so many people think it is acceptable (nay, even a good thing) to force marriage upon unwilling men via "common law marriage?"
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Unintentional "Sexual Harassment" - Women's Sensibilities Versus Women's Tyranny
Unintentional "Sexual Harassment" - Women's Sensibilities Versus Women's Tyranny
This is directed at "women's sensibilities." (Perhaps there is unintentional "sexual harassment" associated with "men's sensibilities" also? I would not rule this out, but I have not experienced this.)
There are things that men did in workplaces that were devoid of women that surely were not intended to harass the nonexistent women. For instance, men read Playboy magazine and posted girlie calendars and pinups. Nonetheless, some women's sensibilities are such that seeing a girlie calendar constitutes such a "severe or pervasive" hostile work environment that these women are significantly distressed.
Whether or not one thinks that it is reasonable for an adult woman to be so distressed by the display of a bikini calendar, apparently it is just too much for some women to handle without seriously affecting their employment. The society has decided that these women's sensibilities must be protected.
I believe that people should be able to work in environments that they enjoy and that some protection is needed to ensure that a hostile work environment is not imposed upon them. I am not against reasonable accommodations to women's sensibilities, but some women are not seeking reasonable accommodations to their sensibilities. Some women seek to impose a "woman approved" work environment upon men, even if this is an unfriendly work environment for men.
If a man reads a men's magazine at lunch and women are offended by viewing the pictures in the magazine, then a reasonable accommodation should be made so that women do not have to view the pictures. Men have a first amendment right to read such magazines and it is tyrannical for women to negate this right just because women do not approve of men seeking pleasure in reading men's magazines.
For women to require that an employer provide women a friendly work environment, but forbid the employer from providing men a a friendly work environment is outrageous. The employer should make reasonable accommodations so that all employees, female and male, can have a friendly work environment. If women object to viewing swimsuit calendars, then reasonable accommodations should be made to ensure that women need not view these calendars. On the other hand, a woman claiming that her "mere knowledge" that such a calendar exists constitutes a hostile work environment needs to supply convincing evidence to a court of law. She should have to demonstrate to the court why the accommodations are not sufficient to assuage her sensibilities. Tyranny should not be allowed just because she would like to be a tyrant in control. Reason, not tyranny should rule the workplace.
Sunday, February 7, 2016
A Personal View of Male vs Female "Privilege"
A Personal View of Male vs Female "Privilege"
The first problem is that many, if not most, of the so-called "privileges" are really advantages and not privileges. There are advantages to being male and there are advantages to being female. Which group is "more advantaged" obviously depends on how one ranks the importance of the various advantages and disadvantages. So, the second problem is that men and women are dueling over which group is more "privileged" without any kind of metric for "privilege." It is quite possible that women see their advantages as unimportant compared to men's advantages while men see their advantages as unimportant compared to women's advantages.
My personal assessment of relative advantage/disadvantage is just that; it is personal. I make no claim that somebody having different importance rankings would, or should, agree with my assessment. Similarly, there is no reason that my assessment would, or should, agree with anybody else's assessment.
The closest comparison of advantages/disadvantages that I can think of is myself to my sisters. On average, they will live substantially longer. There is no "fault" involved; I simply drew the short chromosome. Additionally, inasmuch as having biological children was one of the most important things to me, I would much rather have had my sisters' set of advantages/disadvantages than my own set of advantages/disadvantages. I absolutely required a woman for children. My wife and I agreed on three children before we got married, but she only gave me one and kept putting off any more children, even as she got older and older. Women do not need men for more than a few minutes to get their biological children. (If women use a sperm bank, they don't even need the men for a few minutes.) Women are essential, men are not. This procreative advantage has been expressed as "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."
It is not unlikely that my sisters would rather have had my set of advantages/disadvantages than their own set. So, without specifying a metric, the discussion of who is more "privileged" is meaningless. Partly perhaps it is simply that "the grass is always greener on the other side."
Note that, on average, women live substantially longer than men. To add insult to injury, the retirement age and pensions (or social security) take no account of this difference in longevity. On average, men subsidize women's retirement. Thus, men will work a longer fraction of their shorter lives so that women can work a shorter fraction of their longer lives.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Fembots and Women
Fembots and Women
I do not think this is a joke, but I have been fooled before. In any case, it is humorous.
Apparently, sex robots (fembots) will be an unstoppable technology for male pleasure and the legal profession, of course, must regulate this male pleasure in accordance with the wishes of women. Geez, some people think that women offer so little to men that robots will displace women?
Sex Robots and Roboticization of Consent
http://robots.law.miami.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Gutiu-Roboticization_of_Consent.pdf
More (which is a joke):
http://www.theonion.com/article/japan-grants-suffrage-to-female-robots-34986
Friday, January 15, 2016
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely ...
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."
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."
Thursday, December 31, 2015
The Pros and Cons of Forced Marriage in Canada
The Pros and Cons of Forced Marriage in Canada
When women in underdeveloped non-western societies are forced to become spouses, it is decried as a human rights violation. This I agree with. When men in developed western countries are forced to become spouses, it is celebrated as progress [1] , as in the recent 2013 British Columbia Family Law. This I disagree with [2].
When change is involuntarily thrust upon a person, the negative consequences of that change are almost immediately apparent. But, almost no change is 100% bad. (The colloquial expression of this is "it is an ill wind that blows no good.") One often has to carefully analyze the change and exploit any benefits resulting from the change.
Before proceeding to give my analysis of how capable men with assets can exploit the new law to protect themselves, I want to explicitly acknowledge that I am not a Canadian lawyer, not even a lawyer, and not even a Canadian. Because of this, I request input from Canadians about what I have right and what I have wrong about British Columbia Family Law.
I have given reasons [3] why almost any successful American man should require a written marriage contract that is mutually fair and agreeable. Default Canadian marriage law (as I understand it) is even more mercenary than American law. For example, though you must be very knowledgeable and very careful about exactly how to handle your premarital assets, and you must keep excellent records to trace those assets, default California law (generally) permits you to keep those assets and any increase in value of those assets. It is my understanding that Canadian law splits the increase in value of those assets. For example, suppose one has a stock mutual fund worth 1 million dollars when he gets married and the mutual fund increases in value to 5 million dollars. Default California law seems to recognize that inasmuch as the spouse did not contribute to the increase in value of the mutual fund in any way, the spouse is not entitled to any of the increase. In the default Canadian law, despite having contributed absolutely nothing, the spouse would be entitled to half the increase, that is 2 million dollars. Furthermore, if the asset loses value, the spouse does not share in the loss. Maybe Canadians view this differently, but for the wife this seems like flipping a coin with a "heads I win, tails we are even" rule?
A financially successful man in America, can usually cohabit for some time before a women gets tired of cohabiting and wants to get married. Even if a successful man agrees in principle to get married, it is often the case the woman is opposed to actually stating in a prenuptial contract what she thinks are fair terms. I think there are at least four reasons for this:
1. It is "unromantic" and not the "usual" way for marriage.
2. She risks looking like a "gold digger" if she states what she thinks is fair and cannot justify to his satisfaction the basis for her concept of fairness.
3. Women are used to the government protecting them. The woman knows that if she marries a financially successful man (more financially successful than she is anyway) her chances of profiting in a divorce are high and her chances of not at least breaking even are very low. Most women resist negotiating directly on an equal one-to-one basis with a man with no government involvement that tips the scales in her favor.
4. If you have been cohabiting with her for awhile she feels that because you love her and now "know her well enough" you should trust her. Thus she feels insulted by a prenuptial contract that she deems unnecessary.
With respect to item 4, note that by culture and tradition there will be an onus placed on the man for even suggesting deviating from the default.
It is precisely in the default and the onus mentioned in item 4 where the new British Columbia (BC) law can be exploited before cohabitation begins. BC law considers that:
A relationship between spouses begins on the earlier of the following:
(a) the date on which they began to live together in a marriage-like relationship;
(b) the date of their marriage.
Note that condition (a) in BC law, provides a new justification for discussing a cohabitation agreement that did not exist before the new law. Additionally, before cohabitation begins, the premise in item 4 is gone. Specifically, you do not know her well enough because you have not cohabited with her. At this point, it is quite reasonable to discuss and agree upon a cohabitation agreement. Note also that the default (or reference) financial arrangement is how you currently handle financial affairs. The onus is on her to specify a reason for changing the current default and specifying how she wants it changed. If she objects to a cohabitation agreement, the onus is now on her to explain why you should put yourself at huge financial risk (with her as the beneficiary of that risk) before you really know her. If she is unwilling to sign or even discuss a fair cohabitation agreement, run, do not walk, away as fast as you can.
If she is willing to discuss a cohabitation agreement, then item 2 should help ensure that it is a fair agreement. Once a fair cohabitation agreement has been signed, smile and relax. (GROAN: Be sure she has independent legal counsel so that she, even as a supposedly competent adult woman, cannot suddenly claim that she should not be held responsible for what she signed.) You can smile and relax because you have now shifted the default agreement (if BC effectively marries you without your consent) from BC's default terms to the terms of the cohabitation agreement.
Furthermore, because negotiating the financial terms of the cohabitation agreement takes the pre-cohabiting financial arrangement as a starting point, you will not have been subjected to the legal legerdemain I was subject to in California. (See http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/p/what-men-should-understand-about.html section 5 "5 Beware of Family Law's Dishonest Tactics About Prenuptial Contract Advice")
Also, if you do decide to "make it official" by actually consenting to marriage, the onus will be on her to explain if, and how, the marriage contract should be different than the cohabitation agreement. The cohabitation agreement becomes the starting point and not the mercenary "default" marriage contract.
Also, if you do decide to "make it official" by actually consenting to marriage, the onus will be on her to explain if, and how, the marriage contract should be different than the cohabitation agreement. The cohabitation agreement becomes the starting point and not the mercenary "default" marriage contract.
Hammers, Nails, and Unintentionally "Severe or Pervasively" Hostile Work Environments
Hammers, Nails, and Unintentionally "Severe or Pervasively" Hostile Work Environments
Not only does the law give women a huge hammer with which to smash unintentional "harassment" that is "severe or pervasive," the law lets the women with the hammer define what is "severe or pervasive." There is the old adage that "to a person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." The law takes this adage into "the twilight zone" - "to a person with a hammer, everything actually BECOMES a nail."
Swimsuit calendars that women never actually have to see can still constitute "severe or pervasive" harassment, simply because women say so.
Sunday, December 27, 2015
Hostile work environment enforcement and the "reasonable person of the opposite sex standard"
Hostile work environment enforcement and the "reasonable person of the opposite sex standard"
1. The more dishonest, intolerant, or militant one sex is in asserting that things that sex dislikes reach the "severe or pervasive" standard, the more biased the hostile work environment laws become in favor of that sex.
2. The more honest, tolerant, and moderate one sex is in accepting that not everything that sex dislikes reaches the "severe or pervasive" standard, the more biased the hostile work environment laws become against that sex.
3. With no penalties for losing hostile work environment lawsuits that are commensurate with the gains sought by filing those lawsuits, one can expect legal creep toward ever more dishonest, intolerant, and unreasonable lawsuits as attorneys fearlessly try to extrapolate legal precedence. After all, if some court accepted moronic argument A as valid, and argument B is only a little bit more moronic, maybe some court will accept B. Even if the court does not accept B, the plaintiff faces no significant penalties commensurate with the gain sought. With no restraining penalties, this legal creep tends to continue until it becomes legal crap.
Does this make any sense? Surely rewarding dishonesty, intolerance, and extremism does not result in a fair and tolerant work environment for all?
Friday, December 25, 2015
Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars - Dishonest Nonsense
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.
(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.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Fixing the Abuse of "Hostile Work Environment" Law for "Unintentional Harassment"
Fixing the Abuse of "Hostile Work Environment" Law for "Unintentional Harassment"
(This is a work in progress and it likely will be modified [especially in response to comments received] to help ensure correctness [real correctness, not "political correctness"], clarity, civil tone, and openness to new information and/or viewpoints. I am not a social scientist nor a lawyer and there may be things that I have not yet considered because they have not been brought to my attention.)
It is worth noting that hostile work environment law did not come out of nowhere with the intent of giving women unlimited power over any male conduct and/or thoughts. Instead, the hostile work environment law was a response to a serious problem with "severe" and/or "pervasively" hostile work environments. The need for hostile work environment law still exists; the need has not magically gone away. There are most definitely work environments so "severe" and/or "pervasively" hostile I would not want the women in my life (or anybody) subjected to. But, in some cases, the law has been abused for tyrannical purposes. This article will first point out ways in which the vagueness of the law is being abused to promote tyranny. Afterward, this article will suggest clarifications of the law. These clarifications should increase compliance with the law by reducing the uncertainty about what is allowed and what is not allowed.
Let me begin by apologizing for the bizarre term "unintentional harassment." This term probably seems like an oxymoron (and perhaps moronic as well) to most people because "harassment" (almost?) always has the connotation of intent. Hostile work environment laws and training associated with things that bother women use the term "harassment" even when the "harassment" is incidental with no intent to bother women. It is important to understand that hostile work environment laws have essentially redefined (or at the very least used a very uncommon definition for) "harassment." Debasing the language by promoting unintentional annoyances to "harassment" is unfortunate because the debasement causes unnecessary confusion making rational discussion far more difficult. (Unfortunately, this debasing of the language is not unique. In my sexual harassment training at work I learned that "sexual harassment" need be neither sexual nor harassment by standard usage of those words.) The "unintentional harassment" in the title of this article is necessary for clarity because the law seems to use a nonstandard definition of harassment.
This article will be confined to the issue of hostile work environments where there is no intent to make women feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, etc. Please keep this limitation in mind because some people discussing often use the same terminology regardless of whether there is intent or not. Actions intended to make women feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, etc. should be in a very different category than actions that have no such intent. This note is NOT concerned with intentional harassment.
Double Sawbuck Corporation's Hostile Work Environment Lawsuit
Note that a "hostile work environment" is supposed to involve conduct that is so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of the alleged victim's employment. It is hard to disagree that such conduct should not be permitted. Unfortunately, the law is so vague about what counts as "severe" and/or "pervasive" that nobody seems quite clear on what is allowed and what is not allowed. For example, people had quite different reactions to the clip below on Double Sawbuck Corporation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Shallot Financial News (04/01/2013)
A lawsuit was filed today alleging that Double Sawbuck Corporation (XX) had fostered a hostile work environment. XX dropped more than $2 on the news. The plaintiff, Mr. Exwye alleges that Double Sawbuck encouraged women, but not men, to report hostile work environments. The plaintiff alleges that all of Double Sawbuck's hostile work environment training related to male behavior that women found objectionable but included not a single instance of female behavior that men found objectionable. In particular, plaintiff alleges that management repeatedly emphasized that simply having a magazine such as the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue in a man's office created a "hostile work environment," whether or not the magazine was actually seen by anybody but the magazine owner. Additionally, a male employee (not Mr. Exwye) was forced to remove a picture of his wife from his computer, even though the computer screen was not visible from the hallway and the employee habitually used a lockscreen whenever he left the office or another person entered the office.
Plaintiff alleges that Double Sawbuck has neither enforced any "hostile work environment" rules against women, nor has Double Sawbuck even provided training in what males find objectionable in many females' behavior. Pressed for examples by this newspaper, Mr. Exwye declined citing Double Sawbuck's unwritten, but nonetheless enforced, policy that negative comments about hostile work environment rules would not be tolerated as these negative comments themselves created a hostile work environment. Mr. Exwye indicated that he did not want to create a hostile work environment, he just wanted to keep women from doing things that men found objectionable in addition to keeping men from doing things that women found objectionable. He said "Nobody should be subjected to a hostile work environment."
Double Sawbuck said that its policy and training were completely consistent with standard "hostile work environment" rules. Double Sawbuck said the company had not surveyed male employees about what Double Sawbuck males found objectionable about female behavior to avoid, on the advice of the company's lawyers, possible charges that the survey itself created a hostile work environment for women. When pressed for further details, Double Sawbuck declined citing ongoing legal action, but noted that its "hostile work environment" training was contracted out to the Habeas Viginti Training Corporation and that company's experts indicated that such a survey was completely unnecessary.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This story was meant to be an obviously ridiculous spoof of "hostile work environment" rules. (Can anyone seriously argue that simple criticism of the law creates a hostile work environment?) In addition to some obviously ridiculous policies, there are numerous clues that this is a spoof. (If you have trouble identifying all the clues, send me a note and I will point them out.) About half the people did indeed find the spoof hilarious.
There were two very scary alternative reactions:
1. Unfortunately, some people reacted with ire because they had trouble distinguishing their employer's policies from Double Sawbuck's policies.
2. Even scarier, some people actually thought that all of Double Sawbuck's policies were reasonable and those same policies applied at their employer. Mr. Exwye was attacked as malicious for challenging the reasonableness and/or fairness of the policies.
The fact that people have wildly different opinions about Double Sawbuck's policies and Mr. Exwye's complaints indicates that there is a general confusion about what constitutes a hostile work environment. Part of the problem is that the law conflates behavior intended to harass women with behavior that has no such intent. To call both behaviors "harassment" is both confusing and dishonest. The law uses a warped definition of harassment. Outside of hostile environment law, "harassment" is almost always intentional. Of course, the fact that behaviors do not qualify as intentional harassment, does not mean that the behaviors need to be permitted; they DO need to be seen as different and distinct and they need to be described in distinctly different, clearer, and more honest language.
Almost since the invention of photography men have displayed photographs of sexually attractive nude or scantily clad women in men's workplaces. Men displayed such photographs in work environments containing no women (e.g. until recently, US Navy ships). As Americans we freed ourselves from British tyranny and, in the Declaration of Independence, declared that there were "... certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness .." It is almost beyond question that men displayed such photographs in accordance with a "pursuit of happiness," and not in an attempt to harass non-existent women in their workplaces. It seems unlikely that men have changed their motivation for displaying such photographs from a pursuit of their own happiness to an attempt to harass women. Men today still want to display such photographs because it gives them pleasure, not to harass women. Women perhaps can argue the case for denying men their "pursuit of happiness" because of the special character of the workplace environment, but it is without basis and disgustingly dishonest, arrogant, and self-centered to suggest that these photographs are intended to harass women.
People trying to defend Double Sawbuck's policies against Mr. Exwye's claim that the policies were unfair to men did so in at least two ways. One woman ("the first") claimed that Double Sawbuck's policies were fair because the policies applied to all Double Sawbuck employees and not just men. When I pointed out that although the policies might apply to all employees, Mr. Exwye's complaint was that the policies all targeted men. When I asked the woman whether it would then be fair for men to write the policies that applied to all employees but targeted women, this was not acceptable. This woman was comfortable with the pretense of fairness, but would not accept any suggestion that did not allow women essentially exclusive control over what was permissible in the workplace and what was not.
A different woman ("the second") apparently had no problem admitting that Double Sawbuck's policies were unfair, but she still would not admit that the policies were wrong. Specifically she justified the unfair policies by writing "Equality is very important to me. Across the board. Like many things though, there are generally layers of complexity involving historically relevant imbalances." Now, the woman who wrote this had a legal background, so perhaps this gobbledygook actually means something to her. My background is in science and engineering and this gobbledygook is indistinguishable from a simple "get out of jail free" card.
The second woman's automatic gobbledygook dismissal would seem an attempt to accomplish:
1. women are not subject to the same process as men
2. because of 1, it is unnecessary to consider whether that process is fair and reasonable
3. men cannot be victimized by women and this preserves the special victim status of women
4. preserves women as the victims and men as the victimizers
5. controls the message
In some sense, the second woman's comments at least honestly acknowledge her belief that hostile work environment policies are not required to be fair to men, even if the gobbledygook justification for the unfairness is, to put it mildly, highly questionable. The first woman's comment shows an abysmal shallowness of thought, apparently based on the notion that if a law targets men, but does so in gender-neutral language, then the law is fair. This is, of course, simply a pretense of fairness because if the law targets women, but does so in gender-neutral language, the law is unacceptable to women. (At least any woman that I have talked to find such a law unacceptable.)
Suggested Law Changes for Returning Sanity to the Law
The first change should be to separate harassment from "unintentional harassment." This will preclude women claiming "harassment" when men simply are doing things that men have traditionally done in workplaces even when completely devoid of women.Note that the fact that women find a behavior intolerable, does not mean that men are harassing women. It also does not mean that the behavior has to be permitted. It just means that the behavior has to be prohibited because women are intolerant of some traditional male behaviors. As such, "harassment" is not an appropriate category. A new category such as "Behaviors Prohibited by Intolerance" can be added to the modified law. This should both make it clear that even though these behaviors are not harassing, people do not have to tolerate these behaviors.
If the law sanctions women's intolerance of male diversity, what does this mean for men? Possibilities include:
1. The law should allow men to be equally as intolerant of female diversity.
2. The law should drop the pretense of fairness and equality and the new category would be "Behaviors Prohibited by Women's Intolerance." If the law cannot be fair, at least the law should be honest and clear about the unfairness.
3. At an absolute minimum, the law should be clear about what behaviors are prohibited by women's intolerance. If men are expected to obey the law, the law should be clear about what male behavior is prohibited and what male behavior is not prohibited. There will always be some gray area, but the law should minimize the gray area to the extent possible. The hostile work environment training should make it clear that some things are not prohibited by the law because they do not reach the "severe or pervasive" hostile work environment standard. Currently the gray area, as least as understood by both women and men in the workplace, is unnecessarily large making management's enforcement arbitrary, capricious, and tyrannical.
With respect to item 3, note that most women who read the Double Sawbuck clip saw nothing wrong with Double Sawbuck's policies. My guess is that most of these women consider themselves to be "a reasonable woman." By the current "reasonable woman" standard, almost any behavior that women do not like can be prohibited simply by abusing power and defining any behavior, no matter how minimally and indirectly women are affected, as "severe or pervasive"
The following changes to "hostile work environment laws" are necessary:
1. Separate intentional harassment from "unintentional harassment." These should not even be part of the same law, Different laws and different language are needed because these are vastly different.
2. Women have tyrannically abused "hostile work environment laws" to unnecessarily restrict men's pursuit of happiness. Inasmuch as a basic American freedom is involved, any restriction on this freedom must be for compelling reasons (e.g. one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater for fun). Any laws should trample on this freedom as little as necessary and only for compelling reasons. Rewrite the laws recognizing that competing rights are involved. Women's right to intolerance needs to be appropriately balanced against men's right to pursue their happiness.
3. Get rid of the "reasonable person of the opposite sex" standard in favor of a "reasonable solution" standard. If there is a clear and compelling need to restrict men, this restriction should be a reasonable restriction. If a woman objects to a man's swimsuit calendar and a "reasonable solution" is presented whereby the woman does not have to view the calendar, then the woman must accept such a "reasonable solution." If the matter comes to court, the court can then decide upon the reasonableness of the solution. If the court decides that the solution is not reasonable, the court can assign damages. If the court decides that the solution is reasonable, the court can assign damages against the woman for trying to deny men's pursuit of happiness for her own arbitrary and capricious reasons, rather than for a clear and compelling need to restrict men. If this is done, then because both parties have something to lose by being unreasonable, this should allow reasonable solutions to compelling problems without unnecessarily and unduly restricting basic American principles.
[[[[ More to come later. Especially suggestions for improving the law. Keeping real protections for women, ensuring fairness to men, and ensuring that the law goes no further in denying American men "... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ..." than absolutely necessary. ]]]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)