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: [Same number of complaints made to the (federal) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1994 and 2015]
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.