So this article is trying to say that offices in the US were once dens of debauchery and men victimized women in all three orifices, and that draconian sexual harassment laws and policies have made the workplace a world fit for women to inhabit (the only people that matter, obviously).
Sexual harassment that is ”sufficiently severe or pervasive” to create ”a hostile or abusive work environment,” is a violation, even if the unwelcome sexual demands are not linked to concrete employment benefits, the court ruled.
The landmark case arose from a suit by Mechelle Vinson, a former employee of the Meritor Savings Bank of Washington, against the bank and a branch manager. Vinson said that her supervisor had forced her to have sexual relations many times, and that he had raped her, and fondled her and other women who worked at the branch.
You see? Just like all other feminist laws, this one arose from a situation which was the exception, not the norm. These feminists took this one case and painted it as if it was representative of the plight of all women in all offices.
Just look at it – can you seriously believe that most women in the workplace were subject to rape and fondling (presumably at the office) just because the rapist was a co-worker? I call BULLSHIT. I don’t for a second believe that this case was representative of all workplaces. You don’t need new laws to combat rape and sexual assault in the workplaces, you just need to apply the existing ones. But that’s not enough for feminists, is it. They’re there to make sure that laws are applied unequally, so that women can not be perpetrators of DV or harassers in the workplace.
For many workers of a different generation, behavior like Debby’s was not sexual harassment at the time. But today, touching a co-worker is taboo, if it is unwelcome.
What brand of crack are you smoking, you idiot? Since when was rape not “sexual harassment”? Touching a co-worker is taboo, if it is unwelcome? How about you wake up and smell the coffee and realize that if someone sees something that doesn’t concern her and she is offended by it, she can file a sexual harassment ($$$$$) claim. Whatever happened to minding your own business? Oh, I forgot, it takes a village right.
“Remember,” George-Falvy said, “harassment is in the eye of the beholder.”
The courts look for whether the alleged harassment creates a hostile or abusive work environment, and whether it interferes with the harassee’s ability to do the job. The plaintiff must also prove that the behavior is severe and pervasive, and affects the terms of employment.
Finally some truth. Maybe the plaintiff has to prove something in court, but any woman taking a complaint to HR is treated like an angel, even if she shows off her thong and skank mark every time she bends over. And working stiffs like you and me don’t stand a chance – the company would get rid of us in a heartbeat to prevent a lawsuit.
But, the positive effects of the law have been that the workplace is now safer, and “definitely more welcoming to all.”