This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
And, finally, all of this discussion does not change the fact that now sexual harrassment can be persecuted if "a woman's experience of the same treatement differs *subectively* from a man's."
This decision significantly expands the types of behaviors that may furnish a basis for a claim of discrimination.
Because women found the behavior subjectively more intimidating than men did, and reasonable women would do so, the conduct treats women differently.
Finally, the court's logic raises the question of whether the case would have come out the same way if the director engaging in the abusive behavior was a woman. Given one of the Ninth Circuit' remarks, perhaps not.
Did I miss something somewhere (serious question)? Who got 50 million bucks??
Feminists didn't actually feed on the president of Harvard University, but it's certainly been all-you-can-eat-at-Sizzler night, metaphorically speaking. In January, you might recall, Larry Summers raised the possibility - nay, the hypothesis! - that as a statistical matter biological differences may partially account for the disproportionately low number of women at the top ranks of science. In response, an activist feminist professor from MIT contracted a case of the vapors, and when she arose from her fainting couch she was on the "Today Show" complaining to a supportive Katie Couric about what a bigot Summers is. Fast forward from her Café Vienna moment with Katie, through more groveling than Jake Blues offered to Carrie Fisher at the end of "The Blues Brothers," and we have the recent announcement that Summers will spend an additional 50 million of someone's tuition dollars over the next 10 years to atone for his - and Harvard's - alleged bigotry toward (just-as-smart-as-you-Mister-Man) female scientists.
You gotta take both stuff like this, and stuff like the article appearing on a recent thread on SYG--
http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6361&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
with a grain of salt.
Poking fun at the harpies who made Larry Summers grovel, eh?
The article doesn't say whether the police or prosecutors did anything to the girls. They should have been charged for filing a false police report.
iFeminist.com MAY have started out as a possible means to provide an egalitarian approach to relations between the sexes, but has for the entire time I have been there principally been a forum in which those with feminist viewpoints explain away and dissemble any possible responsibility feminism may have for societal ills facing us today.
Brian is a philosopher, and takes great pleasure in teling you which fallacy you have just espoused, all without addressing the issue.
And for the record, while I applaud her articles on occasion, I am most definitely no fan of Wendy McElroy.
girls smarter than boys
Screaming and yelling by men at work may now be sex-based discrimination if women at work find the behavior more intimidating than men do. On September 2, 2005, in E.E.O.C. v. National Education Association, (No. 04-35029), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the "reasonable woman" standard applies to workplace abusive conduct, even if there is no sexual content to the behavior. This decision significantly expands the types of behaviors that may furnish a basis for a claim of discrimination.
Different Effects of Abusive Conduct on Women and Men Equals Disparate Treatment
Under the "reasonable woman" standard devised in an earlier case, Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991), the qualitative differences in the subjective and objective effects of the behavior are the way to determine whether men and women were treated differently. Because women found the behavior subjectively more intimidating than men did, and reasonable women would do so, the conduct treats women differently. That it may not have been the director's intent to treat women differently does not matter. What matters is the effect of the behavior, both subjectively, and objectively. While the court did not clearly differentiate the subjective from the objective, it took the extremity of the reactions of the plaintiffs to the director's behavior as evidence that the behavior was objectively more intimidating to women.One woman resigned; another filed a police report, a third did not put in for payment of overtime she worked because she was "too scared."
Finally, the court's logic raises the question of whether the case would have come out the same way if the director engaging in the abusive behavior was a woman. Given one of the Ninth Circuit' remarks, perhaps not. The court said, "this case illustrates an alternative motivational theory in which an abusive bully takes advantage of a traditionally female workplace because he is more comfortable when bullying women than when bullying men."
Posters for Jerry Hall show deemed too sexy for the Tube
by Julia Pearlman Brand Republic 31 Aug 2005
Posters for Jerry Hall show deemed too sexy for the Tube
VH1: ad too saucy for the Tube
LONDON - London Underground has taken down posters promoting Jerry Hall's new show 'Kept' after Tube bosses decided images of the model with 12 semi-naked men on a dog leash was too saucy for commuters.
Wow, great list! I also second Celtic Druid.