Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Keep em barefoot and makin sammachis in the kitchen.

Feminism is Damaging Women's Careers #MeToo

R_5oeuuz2_Q

Men Demand Consent Videos From Women Because Of MeToo

dlAZdTs8eGM&t

Yeah. Women infect companies and screw things up with their Fee Fee's making the calls. Sad to see really.

Robbie is such a CUCK!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Robbie is such a CUCK! Have you ever had sex? Spare us the answer we already know the answer.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Have you ever had sex? Spare us the answer we already know the answer.

Quannie is such a angry little incel.

Women aged 35 to 50 who have a family are the best and hardest working employees out there. They will do any extra work to keep the family financially secure.

Says the guy who under pays his housecleaner...SHAME !!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Says the guy who under pays his housecleaner...SHAME !!!!!!!!

Ha, I underpay no employees as my employees.

I don't think he's an idiot as I don't think women in general are just waiting and looking for some excuse to file a harassment and/or discrimination lawsuit, most women, like men, want to do their jobs and be recognized for their performance.

The odd case of false harassment/discrimination is going to happen regardless, as there's shitty people in the world, both men and women.

humans lie

in competitive environments like finance

humans lie and cheat (and steal) a lot

The finance industry is not a place to work if you are a gentle trusting soul

See this is the kinda thing that happens when you leave the women alive after you're finished with them. ****ing amateurs.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think he's an idiot...


I do think he's an idiot for thinking that all he has to do is "not be an ***hole." The problem is, most are not. But some of that set STILL end up in lawsuits.


Originally posted by Robtard
...as I don't think women in general are just waiting and looking for some excuse to file a harassment and/or discrimination lawsuit, most women, like men, want to do their jobs and be recognized for their performance.

I agree with this statement. However, the problem is not with "most women." 1 lawsuit is all it takes for a multimillion dollar company be taken down. "If only I had not been unlucky enough to have that one woman working here." That type of thinking spreads like a meme (how Dawkins originally defined "meme" and you see aversion to hiring women. The trend the article is pointing out.

Originally posted by Robtard
The odd case of false harassment/discrimination is going to happen regardless, as there's shitty people in the world, both men and women.

This is where you fall out of line with people who run complicated models by collecting a crap ton of dating and are determining that liability of women in the workplace is increasing.

It's a numbers game. Some organizations exist to do consulting for others. They review things such as sensitive cases from HR, do all sorts of demographic analyses and determine insurance policies and company based on those results. If you are this type of consultant, you make a lot of money.

But you also see trends. When you get expensive insurance to mitigate the financial risk of a female in your work place, you probably have to take a step back and ask yourself what the hell is wrong with the workplace.


There ARE men who still harass. And they should pay the price for it. But more often than not, it's stupid crap that ends up in HR and stupid crap that results in lawsuits.This is what they are talking about in that article. No one is arguing that sexual harassment is okay. No one should. The problem is the pendulum swung too far one way and now it is becoming less of a financially secure investment to have women in the workplace.

I did indeed love the stupidity of "just don't be an a-hole". As well as those dumb enough to parrot it as if it's some sage advice.

It is quite the pickle we've gotten ourselves into. I don't know if there is much else we can do beyond mutual respect, common sense, and due process. And with time.

We need a good romcom to help us through.

Originally posted by Surtur
I did indeed love the stupidity of "just don't be an a-hole". As well as those dumb enough to parrot it as if it's some sage advice.

^Triggered*

*Especially hilarious since he's unemployed and leeching off the state

Originally posted by Robtard
^Triggered*

*Especially hilarious since he's unemployed and leeching off the state

^Butthurt over his stupidity being pointed out. Do better, don't be so stupid next time.

Surtur: "Women are a liability now in the workforce!"
Casual Observer: "Oh, and what field of work are you in, sir?"
Surtur: "I'm unemployed"

Originally posted by Mindship
It is quite the pickle we've gotten ourselves into. I don't know if there is much else we can do beyond mutual respect, common sense, and due process. And with time.

We need a good romcom to help us through.

It's annoying that it's gone too far, now.


Timeline goes like this:

1. Women are treated subhuman in most cultures.
2. Some cultures mature and treat women as human but with less rights (Mesopotamia).
3. Some cultures mature and treat women is co-equals but different rights (Spartans)
4. Some cultures mature and treat women as equals (women's rights movements and Suffrage Movements)
5. Most cultures mature and treat women as equals - codified but not in actuality (Western Culture after the 50s and 60s)
6. Most cultures mature and treat women as equals in almost all situations.
7. Some cultures go too far and excessive demand for unequal rights to be codified to force outcomes of equality.
8. Some cultures continue going too far with 7 and the culture becomes risk adverse to interacting with women, reverting all the work done from 1-6.
9. Women are now treated as risks and we are back to 2.

Originally posted by Robtard
Surtur: "Women are a liability now in the workforce!"
Casual Observer: "Oh, and what field of work are you in, sir?"
Surtur: "I'm unemployed"

lol, had a chuckle.


Surtur works, I believe. But he learned his lesson about posting personal info already so he won't say anything.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol, had a chuckle.


Surtur works, I believe. But he learned his lesson about posting personal info already so he won't say anything.

He does not, he's said in unrelated threads to me or anyone he bickers with prior to all the back-and-forth shit that he is not employed and that he's on Country Care. Being on County Care means the household (of two) has to bring in a very low amount of income, ie less than working 40hrs at min wage.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Women are treated subhuman in most cultures.
2. Some cultures mature and treat women as human but with less rights (Mesopotamia).
3. Some cultures mature and treat women is co-equals but different rights (Spartans)
4. Some cultures mature and treat women as equals (women's rights movements and Suffrage Movements)
5. Most cultures mature and treat women as equals - codified but not in actuality (Western Culture after the 50s and 60s)
6. Most cultures mature and treat women as equals in almost all situations.
7. Some cultures go too far and excessive demand for unequal rights to be codified to force outcomes of equality.
8. Some cultures continue going too far with 7 and the culture becomes risk adverse to interacting with women, reverting all the work done from 1-6.
9. Women are now treated as risks and we are back to 2. "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."

I think overall, with the Spiral of Civilization, things have gotten better for the Less Powerful, but we are, and will be for a very long time yet, emotional beings with deeply hardwired biological drives. It's gonna be baby steps all the way up the incline.

I know this guy who has a woman running his main operation.

She went to him as a junior staffer with an original project pitch

The guy approved it put her in charge of it and it was a very good earner for him.

Now she manages the business.

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol, had a chuckle.


Surtur works, I believe. But he learned his lesson about posting personal info already so he won't say anything.

Bingo.

I also never even said they are a liability. I just posted videos from people discussing the subject. Well the 2nd video was kinda related, but about men getting tweaked over getting accused of some shit over banging instead of just sexual harassment, at least according to the articles.

Originally posted by Robtard
Surtur: "Women are a liability now in the workforce!"
Casual Observer: "Oh, and what field of work are you in, sir?"
Surtur: "I'm unemployed"

Originally posted by quanchi112
I laugh at a person on disability while I live in my mommy's basement and My Job is to stay down here and be a big baby on the interwebs..


Sad.. But Oh So True.

Oh, they do you say? Guess it must me true.

I'm no fan of circumcision, I believe it shouldn't be done and once a boy turns into an adult at 18, he can then choose to get snipped if he so wishes.

But you comparing male circumcise to female circumcision is apples to oranges, it's vastly more harmful to a vagina than a penis. One is the removal of the foreskin, the other is the removal of most; if not all of the outer labia and sometimes the clitoris as well.

One thing I advise everyone who's working

Keep A Record Of Things

for example: emails, days and hours you worked

you may want to keep a record of who you were working with and where they were - this may be on a schedule / rota

And never ever sign anything without reading it.

Originally posted by shiv
One thing I advise everyone who's working

Keep A Record Of Things

for example: emails, days and hours you worked

you may want to keep a record of who you were working with and where they were - this may be on a schedule / rota

And never ever sign anything without reading it.

That is fair, but that is in itself is a burden. I know managers who have taken to recording, documenting and keeping track of meetings with women, never after work, and always in public places. And honestly, it's kind of annoying, and a drain on resources. It hampers efficiency. From a purely economic and financial standpoint, women are a bigger financial liability than men. The expected return from a productive female employee might not outweigh the potential cost.

Which sucks, because women in Finance from what I've seen are some of the coolest, toughest, and hardest working people (Man or Woman) in any industry...

The balance to this in today's climate is beyond my intelligence. We need to move to a more centrist social environment.

CCTV and/or body-cams should solve this problem.

Bodycams in the workplace would just result in people complaining that they're being recorded without consent.

So many fears from the MRAs, when in reality, how hard is it to not to be a sexual predator at work? Answer: It's not hard

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do think he's an idiot for thinking that all he has to do is "not be an ***hole." The problem is, most are not. But some of that set STILL end up in lawsuits.




I agree with this statement. However, the problem is not with "most women." 1 lawsuit is all it takes for a multimillion dollar company be taken down. "If only I had not been unlucky enough to have that one woman working here." That type of thinking spreads like a meme (how Dawkins originally defined "meme" and you see aversion to hiring women. The trend the article is pointing out.



This is where you fall out of line with people who run complicated models by collecting a crap ton of dating and are determining that liability of women in the workplace is increasing.

It's a numbers game. Some organizations exist to do consulting for others. They review things such as sensitive cases from HR, do all sorts of demographic analyses and determine insurance policies and company based on those results. If you are this type of consultant, you make a lot of money.

But you also see trends. When you get expensive insurance to mitigate the financial risk of a female in your work place, you probably have to take a step back and ask yourself what the hell is wrong with the workplace.


There ARE men who still harass. And they should pay the price for it. But more often than not, it's stupid crap that ends up in HR and stupid crap that results in lawsuits.This is what they are talking about in that article. No one is arguing that sexual harassment is okay. No one should. The problem is the pendulum swung too far one way and now it is becoming less of a financially secure investment to have women in the workplace.


Agreed.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Bodycams in the workplace would just result in people complaining that they're being recorded without consent. Then make it clear during terms of hire. Also most states are one-party consent only, meaning the other doesn't need to agree to being recorded.

It works for cops after all:
usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/05/24/body-cam-video-exonerates-texas-state-trooper-accused-sexual-assault/639858002/

Originally posted by Robtard
So many fears from the MRAs, when in reality, how hard is it to not to be a sexual predator at work? Answer: It's not hard
Yeah, the issue here is about false allegations, love-nuts.

Originally posted by Chuck_Schumer
Yeah, the issue here is about false allegations, love-nuts.


I tend to think that the people who fear false allegations, (some, but not all) do so because subconsciously they know their approach to sex/relationships is questionable.

Sounds suspiciously like victim-blaming.

Originally posted by Robtard
So many fears from the MRAs, when in reality, how hard is it to not to be a sexual predator at work? Answer: It's not hard

I already addressed this point of yours. Your kind of thinking is dangerous for men. This is not about men's rights, at all. This is about staying out of trouble and keeping your job.

Originally posted by samhain
I tend to think that the people who fear false allegations, (some, but not all) do so because subconsciously they know their approach to sex/relationships is questionable.

I guess your wording also leaves you plenty of linguistic space to play word games but my approach with the opposite sex has never been questionable.

But I do see the types that fear women in the workplace as victims of abuse, however. Every person I have met in real life that fear interactions with women are normal men who are even kinder than normal. They got wound up in some stupid controversy where they did absolutely nothing wrong. The fact that I've witnessed this BS, first hand, is also part of my perspective. But I also witnessed inappropriate behavior from a man at work to his female coworker, too.

Talk to the men at work. Ask them, sincerely, if they were falsely accused or were falsely implied to have sexually harassed a woman at work. If you get a yes. Listen to their story. Then ask them if they fear interacting with women at work.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Sounds suspiciously like victim-blaming.

It's an ad hominem. "Their argument is invalid because they are mild sexual predators."

The conclusion in that statement is almost 100% false most of the time, too. Just a shitty argument all around.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I guess your wording also leaves you plenty of linguistic space to play word games but my approach with the opposite sex has never been questionable.

But I do see the types that fear women in the workplace as victims of abuse, however. Every person I have met in real life that fear interactions with women are normal men who are even kinder than normal. They got wound up in some stupid controversy where they did absolutely nothing wrong. The fact that I've witnessed this BS, first hand, is also part of my perspective. But I also witnessed inappropriate behavior from a man at work to his female coworker, too.

Talk to the men at work. Ask them, sincerely, if they were falsely accused or were falsely implied to have sexually harassed a woman at work. If you get a yes. Listen to their story. Then ask them if they fear interacting with women at work.


I work in a high turnover industry so I guess I have that as a safety blanket should I ever be accused falsely, my attitude would be, 'Sorry she feels that way, I'll leave.' I'd get another job a few days later and I could spend those days chilling. I guess it helps knowing your audience somewhat, what might be hilarious flirting for one person, might be uncomfortable territory for another and I've unfortunately met a lot of men who could do with some schooling on that. I've even had 'sexual harassment at work day' where I suggested to a couple of female coworkers we all sexually harass each other for the shift, we had a great laugh, but I definitely wouldn't suggest it with just any female coworker I had.

Fly is a CUCK!

Originally posted by Eon Blue
Fly is a CUCK!

Originally posted by samhain
I tend to think that the people who fear false allegations, (some, but not all) do so because subconsciously they know their approach to sex/relationships is questionable. I agree with this for many, but in high risk jobs where false accusations do get made regularly, I think it's different.

Originally posted by shiv
I know this guy who has a woman running his main operation.

She went to him as a junior staffer with an original project pitch

The guy approved it put her in charge of it and it was a very good earner for him.

Now she manages the business.

Depends on the culture.

A lot of places are toxic to the extreme, and everyone hates everyone else. In that kind of environment, men, women, non binary', and probably the damned microwave and coffee machines are trying to undermine everyone they can. Because advancement, or just because they hate you.

As a tactic, if tactic it becomes, harassment is one more likely to be used successfully by a woman, then by a man, simply because women are protected classes who are taken seriously in their claims, while men are not.

Originally posted by cdtm
Depends on the culture.

A lot of places are toxic to the extreme, and everyone hates everyone else. In that kind of environment, men, women, non binary', and probably the damned microwave and coffee machines are trying to undermine everyone they can. Because advancement, or just because they hate you.

As a tactic, if tactic it becomes, harassment is one more likely to be used successfully by a woman, then by a man, simply because women are protected classes who are taken seriously in their claims, while men are not. we've all worked in a place like that at some point in our lives. I agree to a point.

Putinbot. Cdtm.


I Hear You.

Originally posted by shiv
Putinbot. Cdtm.


I Hear You.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's an ad hominem. "Their argument is invalid because they are mild sexual predators."

The conclusion in that statement is almost 100% false most of the time, too. Just a shitty argument all around.

Bingo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I already addressed this point of yours. Your kind of thinking is dangerous for men. This is not about men's rights, at all. This is about staying out of trouble and keeping your job.

You can't be too careful.

A cousin had a sweet job at Yale. Then he was let go, for "stealing."

The thing he stole, was broken tools, that a supervisor assumed were being thrown out, and gave his permission to take them.

The really sad thing, is I know from first hand experienced that some bosses could care less what another supervisor does. In my case, I was told not to come in on a certain day. I didn't, she forgot to fix the schedual, and her boss took it out on me. My excuse of "But my immediate supervisor" was met with "This may sound harsh, but if you had something worked out with her, it's NOT MY PROBLEM".


So yeah, "false" sexual harassment claims are something I'd file under a long laundry list of things that could get you fired.

And while I'm 100% certain false claims are not the norm, I'm still a cynic of my fellow man/woman having my best interest at heart, by experience..

I think all of us here have got a lot of stories.

Theres one woman you have to be really careful around in the workplace. She's the one who punches you. Shoulder charges you (you know you're standing maybe lost in thought and she'll say hi or something and bump her shoulder against yours) she's a very tactile person... she throws punches / you know the type friendly punches.

Don't ever do the same to her or let anyone see you doing the same don't block any of them step aside if you can.

The last thing you need is some person keeping a beady eye on you going Aha! Would you believe it he raised his hand against little miss cutie'

I knew one lady like this who took this up to 11. She would be punching this guy in a higher pay grade she was with full force. There was a little workplace romance thing going on. She threw something at me once it was some soft harmless thing. I threw something her direction... yep you guessed it... I was sitting down with the big boss explaining just what I thought I was doing.

Well I explained and the whole thing was dismissed. I caught up with her a few years later and said.... - you were cray zay back then. And she smiled and said... yes, I was. we laughed.

This other girl - she wanted me to -- her - -- I was like, uh -- anywhoo --

She moved onto some one in a higher pay grade. Long story short. cassanova handed in his resignation before he was... you can probably guess.

Some one who didn't like him put the report in.

Theres one lady who was a puncher she made some bet with some guy lost it and failed to honor the debt. The guy said but... she made the boxers feint, shrug of the shoulder slight arm movement, the guy flexed just the same. They faced off. That was it. Within a couple of days he was fired. I went to the lady (we're friends) and said -- you better tell them the truth of what happened) she wasn't malicious, it was all joking but some one reported it in.

Management were looking for a reason anyway... and that for them was it for the guy.

Poor guy didn't have a wittness.

Makes you wonder what these bosses are really thinking.

I mean, I'm sure they aren't idiots. They know things happen, that aren't intentionally bad.

I'd imagine it's mostly they're more obsessed with covering their rears, then they are being fair to you. Another part wonders if that's an excuse, and they WANT to chop your head off, if given an opportunity.

Originally posted by cdtm
And while I'm 100% certain false claims are not the norm, I'm still a cynic of my fellow man/woman having my best interest at heart, by experience..

I posted somewhere in the thread that all it takes is one false claim and it can bring down a medium size company (where annual revenue is tens to low hundreds of millions).

Just 1 bad person can destroy hundreds to thousands of jobs.

I think the term 'sexual harassment' is a bit too broad, it can range anywhere from (assuming the claim isn't bogus) unwanted compliments to unwanted physical contact and it seems a bit unfair to lump it all in as sexual harassment. I could imagine if I were ever disciplined for sexual harassment, (again assuming the claim isn't bogus) I'd be heavily reluctant to inform even close friends for fear they'd conjure up images of me waiting in bathroom stalls wearing crotchless pants.

Perhaps they could add degrees to it like they do with murder, scaling it accordingly. 3rd degree sexual harassment carrying leaner consequences and less social stigma than 1st degree, which would likely involve witnesses and/or video evidence and generally proof of malicious intent.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I posted somewhere in the thread that all it takes is one false claim and it can bring down a medium size company (where annual revenue is tens to low hundreds of millions).

Just 1 bad person can destroy hundreds to thousands of jobs.

Is that so.

Which makes it a viable tactic, to bring down competitors.

I am NOT saying that's what happens. I'm saying this "all's fair in love and war" mentality is a real thing, and it's bad for everybody. Ideally, you have a common social fabric that self enforces morality.

But today, you don't. So everything is fair game.

Sad thread and article, hopefully these same men avoid women outside the workplace as well, to avoid them from reproducing.

Yea, women that make false accusations should be avoided by everyone.

And since you can't tell the good 'un's from the bad un's..

dadudemom made it pretty clear he's strictly talking about covering one's rear against the odd false accusation, and not saying that women regularly make false claims.

Because, let's be honest, false accusations can ruin people. Accusing someone of being a racist is a similar tactic, that a journalist on the infamous leaked "Journo-List" baldly claimed should be wielded like a weapon against conservative media. (There may be no proof of collusion among the liberal press, even if nothing but liberals were invited to the group, but they still chose to entertain the possibility of a false accusation in a press war.)

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Sad thread and article, hopefully these same men avoid women outside the workplace as well, to avoid them from reproducing.

I somewhat agree. It's sad that the workplace has become so hostile to men and women that women are being held back by hysterical women and liars.

I don't trust those hollywood women either, dadoodoo

truly we live in the darkest timeline

Yes. I blame Social Media.

How could one possibly monetize lawsuits?

Unless one's a law firm, and suing themselves...?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So here's what you did: you just systematically took apart my opening post just to prove yourself wrong multiple times?

Why? That's just weird, dude. Did you experience any problems at all after realizing you were wrong? Any uncomfortable feelings trying to reconcile your wrong statement with the facts? I can't edit the OP. It's too late. Anyone can read it and see you were wrong.




And did you answer my question in your post about making your idea to help Wall Street? Sorry, I stopped reading your post when you clearly proved yourself wrong by quoting my post. Couldn't make it any further because my smug sense of self-satisfaction was too high. I was smiling so hard my eyes become narrow slits and I could barely see the rest of what you posted.
lol. every single "problem with women" is something that bothers men about being near women who might falsely claim that she was harassed...

and not even a single consideration for the damage to career and personal life of a woman who is actually harassed.

like, does it even occur to you that women are people too and their interests should be weighed equally to the interests of men in this discussion?

Your opening post is empty of redeeming qualities. It doesn't seem to occur to you that women are punished relentlessly for reporting harassment. It's almost like you don't care about women at all

Edit: (Sorry for the double post - whenever i click the "quote" button my entire post disappears so im hesitant to use any of the forum functions anymore)

Edit Edit: quick quote works fine, and editing seems to be ok as well.


RE: selling insurance - the lack of an insurance market is evidence that this is a fake trend. The efficient market hypothesis says if it was profitable it would exist already. Since it's not profitable, the companies actually don't give a flying fu ck about the "false reports" that these MRAs are complaining about.

Originally posted by cdtm
How could one possibly monetize lawsuits?

Unless one's a law firm, and suing themselves...?

Most companies don't get sued, but DDM is arguing that all companies are afraid of being sued, even after taking aims to reduce that chance (such as mandatory anti sexual harassment training).

I'm saying that if DDM is right, then there's a profit opportunity by selling insurance. Companies pay a little money every month, and then if they get sued the judgment comes from that pool of money. Most companies won't get sued, so the pool becomes self sustaining.

The fact that no such insurance plan exists is evidence that companies don't actually fear frivolous lawsuits as described by DDM

Originally posted by Zamp
Most companies don't get sued, but DDM is arguing that all companies are afraid of being sued, even after taking aims to reduce that chance (such as mandatory anti sexual harassment training).

Originally posted by Zamp
Your opening post is empty of redeeming qualities. It doesn't seem to occur to you that women are punished relentlessly for reporting harassment. It's almost like you don't care about women at all

Edit: (Sorry for the double post - whenever i click the "quote" button my entire post disappears so im hesitant to use any of the forum functions anymore)

Edit Edit: quick quote works fine, and editing seems to be ok as well.


RE: selling insurance - the lack of an insurance market is evidence that this is a fake trend. The efficient market hypothesis says if it was profitable it would exist already. Since it's not profitable, the companies actually don't give a flying fu ck about the "false reports" that these MRAs are complaining about.


Originally posted by Zamp
lol. every single "problem with women" is something that bothers men about being near women who might falsely claim that she was harassed...

and not even a single consideration for the damage to career and personal life of a woman who is actually harassed.

like, does it even occur to you that women are people too and their interests should be weighed equally to the interests of men in this discussion?

Try harder.


Originally posted by Zamp
I'm saying that if DDM is right, then there's a profit opportunity by selling insurance. Companies pay a little money every month, and then if they get sued the judgment comes from that pool of money. Most companies won't get sued, so the pool becomes self sustaining.

The fact that no such insurance plan exists is evidence that companies don't actually fear frivolous lawsuits as described by DDM

lol, that specific type of insurance exists and is included in most Business Insurance packages:

https://www.lockton.com/newsroom/post/how-insurance-can-protect-businesses-from-sexual-harassment-claims


haermm



It's such a common problem that it is a core-element in Business Insurance packages. haermm



Okay, so now what? Where do we go from here?

haermm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Try harder.




lol, that specific type of insurance exists and is included in most Business Insurance packages:

https://www.lockton.com/newsroom/post/how-insurance-can-protect-businesses-from-sexual-harassment-claims


haermm



It's such a common problem that it is a core-element in Business Insurance packages. haermm



Okay, so now what? Where do we go from here?

haermm

https://i.imgur.com/OsvcHna.gif

Originally posted by dadudemon
Try harder.




lol, that specific type of insurance exists and is included in most Business Insurance packages:

https://www.lockton.com/newsroom/post/how-insurance-can-protect-businesses-from-sexual-harassment-claims


haermm



It's such a common problem that it is a core-element in Business Insurance packages. haermm



Okay, so now what? Where do we go from here?

haermm


if these people are insured then they don't need to be scared, eh?

Originally posted by Zamp
if these people are insured then they don't need to be scared, eh?

Gosh, it's as if...as if...insurance policies have limits or something. Whatever will we do?

Edit - Saw the quote. So men afraid of getting fired due to false accusations, having things taken out of context, or being misunderstood have no business being the topic of this thread, right?

It's only about insurance and staying in business, right?

Originally posted by Zamp
if these people are insured then they don't need to be scared, eh?

Do you have medical insurance?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Gosh, it's as if...as if...insurance policies have limits or something. Whatever will we do?

Edit - Saw the quote. So men afraid of getting fired due to false accusations, having things taken out of context, or being misunderstood have no business being the topic of this thread, right?

It's only about insurance and staying in business, right?

my point stands: if the finance bros were actually concerned about spurious accusations they'd each be insured, maybe even individually (like doctors).

Thinking that being alone in a room with a woman is an invitation for a lawsuit comes from either a history of actual harassment or some sort of nonsense midwestern purity culture (like how Pence calls his wife Mother and thinks it's improper to be in a room alone with a woman).

Originally posted by Zamp
my point stands:

No, sorry, it doesn't. You needed to have one to start with.


So I think you're going on the ignore list. I don't actually put people on ignore. I'll just scroll through your posts like I do Fly's. You've been relegated to "idiot" status not worth my time.

Good job!


Now go solve all of Wall Street's problems with your remarkable new ideas.


Edit - More edits! Hooray! Most states require employers have insurance. Your Wall Street bros have Business Insurance of some kind: NY requires it.

So what did we learn? I learned Zamp is a time waster and literally has no idea how to be an SJW.

lol ok

people with money don't hold on to risk if they have to

if there's a real risk of spurious lawsuits that's not covered by existing insurance then there'd be a market for it

you tell me that male employees are ostracizing female workers

two offered explanations:
1. the male employees are sexist
2. the legal system is so badly managed that even rich white men can't argue their innocence to a civil court's satisfaction, and they take no measures to secure their finances in the face of this risk

and i'm the time waster. k

Zamp makes good points. No surprise that instead of a rebuttal, ddm responds with a hissy fit.

eat

Originally posted by Zamp
my point stands: if the finance bros were actually concerned about spurious accusations they'd each be insured, maybe even individually (like doctors).

Thinking that being alone in a room with a woman is an invitation for a lawsuit comes from either a history of actual harassment or some sort of nonsense midwestern purity culture (like how Pence calls his wife Mother and thinks it's improper to be in a room alone with a woman). Some truth in this

Originally posted by Zamp
lol ok

people with money don't hold on to risk if they have to

if there's a real risk of spurious lawsuits that's not covered by existing insurance then there'd be a market for it

you tell me that male employees are ostracizing female workers

two offered explanations:
1. the male employees are sexist
2. the legal system is so badly managed that even rich white men can't argue their innocence to a civil court's satisfaction, and they take no measures to secure their finances in the face of this risk

and i'm the time waster. k

The legal system is entirely self regulated. Lawyers become judges, who make up panels that decide proprieties.

I'd argue being regulated by "one of your own" does lead to being badly managed.

Edit: This probably has nothing to do with what you're saying, the legal profession happens to be one of my pet targets.

Along with the Harvey Weinstein's.

Don't mind me.

I like the cut of Zamp's jib

Originally posted by Robtard
I like the cut of Zamp's jib

I don't. Anything she posts is either outright wrong and very easy to demonstrate why it is stupid.

She is a waste of space poster. A long-winded, SJW version of Fly.

Originally posted by Robtard
I like the cut of Zamp's jib

http://i.imgur.com/a0doTy0.jpg

Fellas, I think I made him mad

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't. Anything she posts is either outright wrong and very easy to demonstrate why it is stupid.

She is a waste of space poster. A long-winded, SJW version of Fly.

I think Zamp is a 'he'. Says so in his profile at least.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't. Anything she posts is either outright wrong and very easy to demonstrate why it is stupid.

She is a waste of space poster. A long-winded, SJW version of Fly.

Don't be a Pendaran, friend.

Originally posted by BackFire
I think Zamp is a 'he'. Says so in his profile at least.

Oh, thought Zamp was a she for years, now. Zampano has never corrected me, either. I don't check profiles anymore. Too many socks jaded me.

Originally posted by cdtm
Don't be a Pendaran, friend.

I have no idea what that is.

I generally ignore people who demonstrate extreme amounts of idiocy. I ignored Firefly for about a year. He started to calm down and we got to have great conversations for a bit. But he just lost it towards the end until he rage-quit KMC. Poor guy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, thought Zamp was a she for years, now. Zampano has never corrected me, either. I don't check profiles anymore. Too many socks jaded me.



I have no idea what that is.

I generally ignore people who demonstrate extreme amounts of idiocy. I ignored Firefly for about a year. He started to calm down and we got to have great conversations for a bit. But he just lost it towards the end until he rage-quit KMC. Poor guy.

If you don't know who Pendaran is, you're lucky. You've also never been to CBR.

He's pretty infamous, for his encyclopediac knowledge of comics, and his absolute ruthlessness in debates.

He also catalogs percieved faults, and motions for bans. Often successfully.

I've seen him accuse good posters of outright lying, because of an honest mistake. Doesn't matter that this good poster was his biggest fan. Pendaran has no friends, he has meat and allies.

Originally posted by cdtm
If you don't know who Pendaran is, you're lucky. You've also never been to CBR.

He's pretty infamous, for his encyclopediac knowledge of comics, and his absolute ruthlessness in debates.

He also catalogs percieved faults, and motions for bans. Often successfully.

I've seen him accuse good posters of outright lying, because of an honest mistake. Doesn't matter that this good poster was his biggest fan. Pendaran has no friends, he has meat and allies.

He sounds like Quan. hmm

Quans his kinder, gentler mirror universe counterpart.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He sounds like Quan. hmm

Not really, Quan for the most part is just your run-of-the-mill troll.

I guess he wants attention. The poster called da-dude-mon dared call someone he thought was a woman, "dude", and now that poster's feelings are hurt.

Originally posted by the person who revealed my most guarded and darkest secret that I loathed Ush and Peach modding KMC: Zampano. How dare you do this to me. How dare you.

Paraphrased:

The population growth in the US is still geometric which means complaints have sharply decreased per capita since 1994 despite sexual harassment rates remaining the same, despite spending on HRM per employee, despite increases in spending on business insurance, despite the costs of employer-employee suits increasing, and despite training costs increasing over these same periods of time. Every measure of quality, on average, points to sexual harassment in the workplace being more and more costly without actually being very effective.

And it has gotten so bad, lately, that some are seeing diminishing returns and have determined that they passed the "critical point" to where it costs more to have women in the workplace than not. If you're a business of less than 15 people, you're in luck: Article VII doesn't apply and FMLA doesn't apply. So if you're a Wall Street firm of 14 people deciding to hire a new investment consultant, it might be financially more appropriate to steer clear of women. If your sense of right and wrong gets the better of you, hire the best candidate that could possibly be a woman. If it is a woman, use some of my tips to keep out of trouble.

Sexual harassment training is largely ineffective.

EEOC reports sexual harassment suits keep costing more and more up 13% 2016 to 2017.

Sexual harassment "training" may actually worsen opinions in the work place and create a bias against "overly emotional and scary women" in the work place.

Despite the personal feelings of retaliation in polls, retaliation lawsuits vastly mismatch feelings. This is also despite the easy-to-win cases if retaliation actually took place...but it requires evidence which is why women are vastly over-reporting retaliation.


Additionally, it has been proven over and over again that courts favor women. For good or bad, even judges seem to want to white-knight women through court caes. So if a woman had evidence of retaliation, winning that case is a slam dunk. With the feverish "save women and minorities" gold rush with things like the #metoo movement, lawyers salivate over sexual harassment suits. If you saw a 13% year over year increase in your investments, I'm sure you'd be salivating, too.

You tried to sneak in the fact that federal harassment suits are capped while ignoring the hundreds of millions it has cost the federal government. Perhaps a person quickly reading your post would gloss over the fact that civil cases are not capped. Additionally, some recent "commercial sector" sexual harassment cases had judgement ruled in the tens of millions: hence the increased spending on business insurance and HRM. It's risk aversion. Businesses who make it their business to manage and invest in risk will obviously be the first to adapt to risk trends such as the increasing cost of women in the workplace. That's terrible news!


So why are you upset with me posting about tactics for men to avoid getting into trouble at work so you can still employ women? Why do you want to prevent men from equipping themselves with tools to stay out of trouble in the work place?

Does it irritate you that some men have a fear of working with women? Why?


As I said, I think talking to you is a waste of time. Look at all this time I spent gathering information to demonstrate why you're clearly wrong. You even lack fairly normal understanding of putting into context numbers that are decades apart (1994 vs 2015).


And, look: I wasted a ton of time proving very easy to understand, very normal facts. That's so much time! I don't want to spend that time talking to idiots.

Don't be mad that some businesses are making correct opportunity cost decisions by avoiding working with females. Instead, you should focus on the tools I'm trying to equip young men on this forum with so they can do better in the workplace. Some of them are legit incels. Who knows what kind of awkward bullshit they will say at work. They will remember good 'ol uncle dadudemon telling them "don't be alone in the room with your female coworker" advice. And maybe even keep their job!

Now watch as you respond to literally everything and I don't read it. I'll beat you to it:

HR training needs to be "better" to be effective to reduce sexual harassment. <- I've been hearing this for almost 20 years, now. Why aren't things changing and why does it cost more? This is an area that is great to be proven wrong about. I'll wait 20 more years.

Sexual harassment is decreasing if dadudemon's point about population is good. <- But that runs contrary to the increasing and ineffective costs of HRM. See above.

People very very much under-report sexual harassment because they fear retaliation. <- So? Are you trying to prove the sexist Wall Street bros right? That they should not hire women for fear of retaliation suits? That's a terrible point. That's, of course, other than the point I made about retaliation cases being slam dunks if they are legit especially after the EEOC changed the rules to make it even easier to sue the shit out of your employer.


I did this while working out. It's because I'm a sexist Wall Street Bro who #MAGA's all over women's faces and #metoo's their dirigibles at work at all times.

Originally posted by cdtm
Quans his kinder, gentler mirror universe counterpart.

I like Quan. Except the fact that he just can't let things go with Surt and Fly.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Not really, Quan for the most part is just your run-of-the-mill troll.

What? No. Maybe. I don't know. Depends on the topic and people. Quan and I can have good discussions with little issues. But he holds grudges like a mofo.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kimberly-webb-video-former-huntsville-texas-officer-knocked-down-hurt-by-her-sergeant/


Former police officer filing EEOC suit against the Huntsville police. Video comes forward that shows her supervising officer showed her a leg sweep and she hurt her arm on the desk. Which doesn't help the case for that police department.

Here's the timeline:

1. She was fired. The article doesn't state why.

2. Something happened after she was fired that we don't know.

3. She files a suit against the police because of 1 and 2.

4. Loses the case.

5. Her supervising officer about a year after things have settled down, asks to see pictures of her boobs in a back and forth convo over text (what an idiot).

6. (Present) She uses that as evidence of unfair termination (Violation of Article VII under the American Civil Rights Act) and that her termination was due to her reporting assault in the work place (see video).



This is the exact kind of crap I'm talking about in the OP. Demonstrating leg sweeps in the office is the wrong place to do it. They have classes for that. Some municipalities have mandatory training, periodically, for this kind of thing. So there is clearly a time and a place.

He was smart enough to do it in front of other officers instead of alone. She was clearly fired for doing something wrong on the job or lots of somethings wrong on the job. But this officer completely screwed over the police department with his "leg sweep demos" and sexual text messages a year after she lost her wrongful termination suit. Why would you even try to hook up with someone that filed a lawsuit for a wrongful termination? It's just asking for trouble.





But what if they never hired her to begin with? None of these things would have been a problem and the case that they will probably lose would never happen. "But what if you just fired the supervisor instead of the woman?" She was fired before for a reason. A better argument is, "Fire them both." Good idea.

And regarding retaliation:


https://www.eeoc.gov//eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm

Retaliation has been increasing very steadily, year over year. Not sure if Zamp is trolling, a genuine idiot, or just ignorant that, yes, the very point he made is explicitly wrong in the most direct way possible.



1997 - 18,198 - 22.6%
2017 - 41,097 - 48.8%



Hey, PVS, how about that "trolling" in the OP? I'm just a troll, right? It's not that you're a hypocritical SJW. I'm just a troll. Easier to dismiss my points if you blanket me as a troll.


Let's recap:

1. Cost of EEOC-like cases and sexual harassment is increasing exponentially despite per capita cases decreasing.

2. Retaliation reports increasing rapidly despite actual cases going down, per capita.

3. Costs of Sexual Harassment training keeps costing more but shows no effect. In fact, some studies show it has a negative effect.

4. Costs of business insurance keeps increasing due to tort issues such as sexual harassment (litigation).

5. Men owning small businesses in some sectors are avoiding hiring women to keep costs down because of the above. And are directly citing the above as reasons why.

6. Some women are struggling to break into some industries because of female-phobia.



I offered tools in the OP to help men stay out of trouble in the work place and to avoid misunderstood situations and false allegations with women in the workplace.

What about women who see other women as threats

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/us/06cnd-astronaut.html

Originally posted by shiv
What about women who see other women as threats

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/us/06cnd-astronaut.html

Reading that story, you have to wonder how many of those astronauts takes part of the mile high club while in space.

Women in the work place suck, no doubt about it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Chauvinists see women as targets, and misogynists see women as threats; both are sexists.


And the worst yet are SJWs who see women as weak, pitiful, dumb, and in need of coddling.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Women aged 35 to 50 who have a family are the best and hardest working employees out there. They will do any extra work to keep the family financially secure.

Forget Christmas...Bring on the New Holiday.. The Menstruation Celebration!

DFCm-_K25M0

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Forget Christmas...Bring on the New Holiday.. The Menstruation Celebration!

DFCm-_K25M0

Love that guy. He could take a 1 and a half minute video, and turn it into an hour rant.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Chauvinists see women as targets, and misogynists see women as threats; both are sexists.
You are parroting Feminist diatribes.

Following is the situation:

Women see women as targets and threats
Men see women as targets and threats
Women see men as targets and threats
Men see men as targets and threats

Welcome to the realm of Wall Street or the Corporate World in general.

Every PERSON is SEXIST to a degree in reality.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And the worst yet are SJWs who see women as weak, pitiful, dumb, and in need of coddling.
Absolutely.

Women are just as capable of harming other people as men, and can take care of themselves. They don't need a man's protection to cope with challenges of life.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Absolutely.

Women are just as capable of harming other people as men, and can take care of themselves. They don't need a man's protection to cope with challenges of life.

https://i.imgur.com/TlGsSUw.gif


https://i.imgur.com/77G0VMM.gif

If Women Ran the World there would be Less Wars, but Assassinations would be Way WAY more Frequent.

Originally posted by Robtard
You sure showed her, didn't ya.

The problem with these sorts of physicals standards is that they are often not based on the physical requirements of the role, but on an arbitrary physical standard that was set at a time when only men held those roles.

Most women are not going to meet the same upper-body strength feats as most men, but most men are not going to meet the same lower-body strength feats as most women. Women are effectively being penalized for not meeting a standard that was modeled after men, and not the physical requirements for the role.

But hey, it allows people like SquallX to be a hard-ass and justify why women should not be in combat roles, even though there is no relationship between the number of push-ups one can do before exertion and their ability to pull a ****ing trigger.

Misogynist are a funny lot.

Forget where I read it, but a lot of male soldiers have second thoughts over shooting a woman opposed to a man, not saying they won't, but they may hesitate for a moment. That's something you want on your side when it comes to combat, enemy soldiers hesitating, even for a moment.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The problem with these sorts of physicals standards is that they are often not based on the physical requirements of the role, but on an arbitrary physical standard that was set at a time when only men held those roles.

Most women are not going to meet the same upper-body strength feats as most men, but most men are not going to meet the same lower-body strength feats as most women. Women are effectively being penalized for not meeting a standard that was modeled after men, and not the physical requirements for the role.



Your statement is patently false. Most women cannot meet the same lower body strength feats as men either.

It has absolutely nothing to do with when the requirements were set and it has more to do with biology then desire.

Women shouldn't be allowed in combat roles, after all, they can't pilot drones as well as men.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The problem with these sorts of physicals standards is that they are often not based on the physical requirements of the role, but on an arbitrary physical standard that was set at a time when only men held those roles.

Most women are not going to meet the same upper-body strength feats as most men, but most men are not going to meet the same lower-body strength feats as most women. Women are effectively being penalized for not meeting a standard that was modeled after men, and not the physical requirements for the role.

But hey, it allows people like SquallX to be a hard-ass and justify why women should not be in combat roles, even though there is no relationship between the number of push-ups one can do before exertion and their ability to pull a ****ing trigger.

This reads like typical SJW apologetics (for the weird excuses SJWs come up with for lowering standards so women can get into physically demanding roles that they conventionally could not) about Firemen and the physical tests they have to pass. Like...ascending a ladder with 70lbs of fire-hose? You know...an actual legit situation and scenario that really will happen in the line of work.

What about hiking 50+ miles with a 70lbs ruck (it starts out that heavy but gets lighter as you consume your rations and water) in the middle of a mission? You know, actual combat scenarios that these tests are intended to address. At any given moment, there are probably 100s of servicemen (and maybe even a few servicewomen) in these exact scenarios, on real missions. But you'd like to pretend Squall's just full of crap and the training is useless, right?




Worked out with a lady who was in her 40s but was still able to pass the fireman tests. She was awesome. Muscular, but not too muscular like a steroided bodybuilder. And she passed those tests every 2 years just like everyone else. Don't you think positions like yours are sexist? You wish to diminish the hard work and efforts women like her put in to meet real-world standards. You look down on women and think they need to be coddled because they just can't do things as well as men. So you want to look down on the hard working women out there who do meet those standards. That's sad and sexist.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The problem with these sorts of physicals standards is that they are often not based on the physical requirements of the role, but on an arbitrary physical standard that was set at a time when only men held those roles.

Most women are not going to meet the same upper-body strength feats as most men, but most men are not going to meet the same lower-body strength feats as most women. Women are effectively being penalized for not meeting a standard that was modeled after men, and not the physical requirements for the role.

But hey, it allows people like SquallX to be a hard-ass and justify why women should not be in combat roles, even though there is no relationship between the number of push-ups one can do before exertion and their ability to pull a ****ing trigger.

F*ck that dumb shit you just spewed, do the same shit a man can or make a f*cking sandwich. Period.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Your statement is patently false. Most women cannot meet the same lower body strength feats as men either.

It has absolutely nothing to do with when the requirements were set and it has more to do with biology then desire.

That gap increases when men and women complete equal kinds of training. Meaning, the men get stronger, faster, compared to women. It's rather unfair, biologically.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...they just can't do things as well as men.

Careful, your sexism is showing.

Implying that pulling a trigger is all there is to combat shows an amazing amount of ignorance.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Implying that pulling a trigger is all there is to combat shows an amazing amount of ignorance.

Remember: this is the same person who says if you aren't a rapist being publicly accused of being a rapist shouldn't bother you.

True, fragging your CO because he saw you raping a local village child requires a whole other set of skills.

Originally posted by BackFire
Careful, your sexism is showing.

The overwhelming results don't like and the lawsuits to get fire department to lower the physical standards don't lie.

Isn't it sexist to ignore these facts, though? I feel it is quite sexist to lower standards just to let women in. That's quite condescending and sexist to look down on women like that.


I agree with the intention of Adam's posts: make the standards legit match what the jobs would match.


Not everyone is going to be a recon marine, for example.

(NB4 "just a joke, suck it"

Originally posted by dadudemon
The overwhelming results don't like and the lawsuits to get fire department to lower the physical standards don't lie.

Isn't it sexist to ignore these facts, though? I feel it is quite sexist to lower standards just to let women in. That's quite condescending and sexist to look down on women like that.


I agree with the intention of Adam's posts: make the standards legit match what the jobs would match.


Not everyone is going to be a recon marine, for example.

(NB4 "just a joke, suck it"

I'm prepared to let people burn to death in the name of equality and who the f*ck are YOU to stand in the way of equality?

Tell me more about how you think women are worse than men.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm prepared to let people burn to death in the name of equality and who the f*ck are YOU to stand in the way of equality?

Adam clearly made a point to signify he was talking about specific physical exercise in relation to specific role(s). But you go on with your sensitive MRA nonsense; feelings.

Originally posted by BackFire
Tell me more about how you think women are worse than men.

eat

Originally posted by BackFire
Tell me more about how you think women are worse than men.

They are worse when it comes to physical standards. It's funny. Do I need to post the video of the feminist crying over this being pointed out? Cuz that shit is hilarious.

Originally posted by BackFire
Tell me more about how you think women are worse than men.


I never said women are worse than men. hmm

Careful, your sexism is showing.

Originally posted by Robtard
Adam clearly made a point to signify he was talking about specific physical exercise in relation to specific role(s). But you go on with your sensitive MRA nonsense; feelings.

Adam's a whiny b*tch. But you cucked for him here, so good, your triggerdom is also noted.

Originally posted by Surtur
They are worse when it comes to physical standards. It's funny. Do I need to post the video of the feminist crying over this being pointed out? Cuz that shit is hilarious.

How many push ups can you do in one set?

In fairness, I'll go first: I do 100 pushups every morning soon after getting out of bed.

Originally posted by Surtur
They are worse when it comes to physical standards. It's funny. Do I need to post the video of the feminist crying over this being pointed out? Cuz that shit is hilarious.

Some women are, yes. But some women do well. You have to remember that many men fail those tests, too.