Men Need To Protect Themselves In the Workplace

 

Don't be fooled, guys.

It doesn't matter how relaxed your workplace feels or seems. It doesn't matter what your boss does, what other men do, or what the women do there.

You must always remember that normal adult behavior, including harmless behavior that has gone on in workplaces for as long as workplaces have been a thing, can now get you in deep trouble. Normal behaviors, normal conversations, can lose you your job, your entire career, and more.

Your job, your workplace, is not a place to find a date, or a lay, or a girlfriend, or a wife. It doesn't matter that people have done that for as long as there have been workplaces and are still doing it now. It is far too much of a risk for you. You need to think about you, and covering your donkey.

No, it's not just crude jokes, or lingering hugs, or cheesecake screensavers, or trading favors. The way you look at a woman, even if she is fine with it, can get you into trouble.

So, how do you prevent accusations?

The best way is to work for yourself, or for very small business at which no women work and no women will ever work. Even then a woman who interacts with you as a customer or supplier or whatever can make accusations, but you have more control and protection than if you're working for a large employer, especially one where misandrist feminists are in control, or at least in control of dealing with alleged sexual harassment.

But if you do work somewhere that women also work, you need to be very careful, deliberate, and consistent in what you do:

Keep your interaction with women strictly professional and to the minimum that is absolutely necessary.

What does this mean in practice?

What Should A Rejected Spouse Do?

What are the options when one partner wants sex far more often than the other?

There are people, including women, who point out that spouses are entitled to sex from each other and that one spouse should not deprive the other except temporarily for mutual consent. As such, one account on Twitter cited an instance in which a wife declined her husband's request for sex, only to wake up later in the middle of the night with him doing things anyway.

The law and our culture both say that this is rape.

The person describing the instance says that the wife should give her husband grace.

(I want to make it clear that it is a major turn-off to me if she doesn't want it, so I wouldn't be in this guy's position even if I believed it was OK.)

In the Biblical framework, spouses owe each other sex. General consent to sex is part of getting married. Don't like it? Don't marry. Of course, people who don't consider the Bible an authority can, with integrity, ignore what the Bible says. But someone who claims to care what the Bible teaches can't.

As far as the law, our laws will force the higher earning spouse to financially support the other spouse, no matter what. By marrying, the higher earning spouse is giving general, ongoing consent to this, and crying "slavery!" later or saying "I don't feel like it" won't change it. And although our laws, in some places, still allow a spouse to sue for "alienation of affection" in the event of an affair and "loss of consortium" for any number of things done to their spouse, other than that, the law does not say one spouse owes the other sex. Think about that. If your wife doesn't feel like sex because her employer committed illegal discrimination against her, you can claim "loss of consortium" as one of the reasons her employer owes you money. But you're not owed sex. Laws aren't always consistent.

The woman who said the wife should give her husband grace, and people like her, would also say a husband viewing porn is a terrible sin, even masturbating without porn would be. In their beliefs, a person's sole sexual stimulant or outlet should be their spouse. No sex outside of marriage is acceptable.

When a caller to Dr. Laura presents the situation of a husband wanting more sex and the wife not wanting to meet him at his level, Dr. Laura usually will provide the options as follows:

A) Wife has sex more often with the husband
B) Husband leaves
C) Husband hires sex workers
D) Husband gets a girlfriend on the side
E) Husband masturbates to porn

She says the wife can pick one. Of course, most of the wives don't want any of those. They want option F, which is just that the husband just be completely sexually frustrated. But in Dr. Laura's mind, even though she isn't a Christian nor a Bible believer in the conventional sense, a husband is owed sex because he's paid for it by laying down his life and signing a state contract that financially obligates him.

While sometimes the wife wants it more than the husband, it is usually the husband who wants it more. The norms of various cultures have dealt with this throughout history with polygyny (multiple wives), prostitution, and mistresses. Most American women reject that. Some of them encourage or "allow" their husband or boyfriend to use masturbation, porn, and toys. Other women don't.

Culturally and legally, there is no shame applied at all to men who stay free and run game, who can have sex any night they want. If one woman isn't in the mood, he just moves on to the next woman in his phone's list of contacts, until he finds one who will welcome him. He doesn't need to share his earnings, or run errands, do chores, romance her, go on long walks, listen to her ramble on, or even buy her dinner. He doesn't need to care for her when she's sick, or deal with her parents or siblings, or even her friends. Nope. All he needs to do is text her when he wants some, and show up. He can repeat this with a different woman every night. Meanwhile, the Good Husband can go night after night, for weeks, months, even years, being rejected and going sexless no matter how good of a husband he is. And if he decides he can't take it anymore, he'll have to give up at least half of everything, pay for two legal teams, and likely pay ongoing alimony, maybe even for life.

Which one of those two guys will most men choose to be, if they really grasp that they have a choice? Of course there's always the "monk mode" choice, too, of staying free and not bothering with the sex. We are seeing men make these choices.

I urge men not to assault or harass or otherwise burden women. Only see them when they want you.

Why Married Men Should Have an Affair

To Whom Does Your Body Belong?

Is It OK For a Spouse to Withhold Sex?

Rejecting Your Man

When A Wife Rejects Her Husband

One Flesh or Not?

How to Prevent Domestic Violence, Cheating, and Divorce

This is how you can prevent domestic violence, cheating, and divorce:

Do not marry.

Do not live together.

Do not promise nor expect exclusivity.

Free Men who want to remain free men in good standing do not engage in rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, stealthing, stalking, or revenge porn.

Free men, if they want sex, run game, which ensures that they don't waste time with women who do not want sex. Free men do not marry nor live with women. Free men do not agree to exclusivity. This prevents domestic violence, cheating, and divorce. It also prevents rape.

More men should be Free Men.

Free Men Are Morally Superior

Rape and sexual harassment are immoral.

If you're a good man, you don't want to rape or commit sexual harassment. According to informed, enlightened, educated people, including women (and we are to believe women), rape includes sexual activity between spouses when there wasn't an enthusiastic desire in both of them to immediately have sex with each other when they started to touch each other. We also know that sexual harassment includes asking for sex when the other person doesn't have an enthusiastic desire to have sex with you at that exact moment.

What Happened Next Door

If you'd told me when I was twelve years old that multiple women who'd appeared in Playboy magazine were going to live in the Playboy mansion, appear in the magazine multiple more times, and be in a "reality" cable television show with Hugh Hefner, I would have known that those women, who were several decades younger than him, were going to expected to be his girlfriends and have sex with him even though he was old and not in the best shape and not committing to any of them, and they would be expected to participate in parties whether that seemed like fun or more work, and that what they were going to get out of this deal was fame, money, access, networking, and visits to Disneyland and wherever else. He's an older man, not in the best shape, and yet these women were going to have to show him a good time.

I would have known that at twelve.

My siblings would have known.

What thinking person over the age of sixteen wouldn't have known this?

But once Hefner was dead, and thus no longer useful, he was cast as a villain by some of the people who used to praise him and cling to him.

Nope. Not buying it.

If you weren't saying this was bad behavior at the time, but rather were profiting off of it, you don't get to bash him now and get any sympathy or points from me at all. Those women knew exactly what they were signing up for. The same goes for anyone going to an adult party at the mansion. Of course staff, such as cooks, cleaners, etc. shouldn't be targeted for harassment, but it was the Playboy mansion; home to a man who built the magazine and brand from the ground up. Nudity and shenanigans should have been expected.

Why Some Men Refuse to Interact With Women in the Workplace

In some places in America, sexual harassment laws and polices have gotten so absurd we may look back someday and laugh at our own stupidity. But it isn't funny for people who have to deal with the problems now. It isn't funny for grade school boys who get labeled harassers for hugging grade school girls. [This was posted here in May 2012. It is even more relevant than ever.]


As with so many other things that involve the government, the cure is worse than the problems.

Imagine three workplaces:

1) A workplace where interaction between coworkers is dull and strained, with little socialization; everyone is fearful of acting naturally.

2) A predominantly male workplace where men talk and bond freely about things like the latest leading lady in the movies and how hot she is, and where women get asked out for dates, and everyone jokes.

3) A predominantly female workplace where women talk and bond freely about things like the latest leading male in the movies, a star male athlete and his physique, PMS, a jerk of an ex, and everyone jokes.

Now, I know those are just three examples and do not exhaust the spectrum, but who really prefers the first option?

Here's where we are in the workplace in some states:

A regular customer comes in, chats with a favorite employee, and hugs that employee before leaving. A different employee, who was on the other side of the room, files a complaint for a "hostile work environment". The customer and the first employee are barred from hugging again.

That is the world that has been created. Normal, harmless (even beneficial) human behavior that has gone on forever in the workplace is now banned. It isn’t by employer choice, really. Since I believe in property rights and freedom of association, I think business owners should generally be able to hire, fire, promote, or demote anyone or any or no reason, and set the tone of the workplace to their liking. Under that policy, if they create a workplace someone finds hostile, that person can take their services or business elsewhere. Guess who loses? The business owner, if that was a good customer or employee. But employers have lost or are losing the freedom to set the terms and conditions and tone in their own workplace, due to laws and court decisions about sexual harassment.

It’s another way trial lawyers and stupid juries are doing some harm. It is another way the Left takes the fun and joy out of life. Yes, this is a Leftist issue. Sexual harassment is something that has been the drumbeat of Leftist feminists. Leftist feminism was, to borrow from El Rushbo, largely about getting less attractive women greater access to the mainstream, and “hostile environment” sexual harassment is their way of punishing men they find unattractive. That is evidenced by the fact that two people can say the exact same thing ("that's a nice blouse") to the same woman in the same tone, and the male who says it is punished while the lesbian who said it isn't. It is also about forcing all workplaces to cater to female sensitivities, even if there are 100 men there and 1 woman. The people who investigate allegations are usually, guess what, women. Leftist women. And men are more prone to violate restrictions because we're visual creatures, we want sex more than women, and we're expected to do the pursuing.

Policy and law about quid quo pro isn't as ridiculous, but even with that, I tend to prefer property rights and freedom of association. If your boss asks for sexual favors, it is time to find a new place to work, if you don’t want to do your boss.

The Left loves to convince people they are victims, and this is just one more way they can be victims.

I know that discrimination and a bad work environment do hurt some people. None of this is to say I think assault, exposure, stalking, or slander/libel should be legal, nor that I think quid pro quo or creating a hostile work environment is morally acceptable. I have a mother, a daughter, sisters, and a wife. I don't want them treated crudely and rudely. However, I'd like to think they all know how to hold their own against rude jerks. But I'm also a man and I have a father, a brother, and a son, and I don't want any of them screwed over with ridiculous laws and polices stacked against men.

Creating a workplace in which nobody will ever be offended in regards to their sex, body, love life, sexual orientation, or delusions about "gender identity" is not possible. I can only conclude that stringent laws and standards regarding "hostile work environment" in regards to sexual harassment are those that everyone knows will not be followed or met most of the time, and are meant to give women an edge over men and to punish employers and reward trial lawyers and government bureaucrats. Employers subject employees to laughable prevention training for the sake of liability issues, though sometimes it doesn’t matter if everyone's been through training – the employer will still get nailed and have to pay out large sums of money.

Why does sexual harassment get special status? If an employee eats bacon in a lunchroom, is that dietary harassment to someone trying to avoid pork products for weight loss, health, or religions reasons? What about if I eat a big, beefy hamburger in front of a devout Hindu? Or if a vegan tells me how wrong I am for eating meat?

Why has the workplace had to conform to female sensitivities, rather than how things used to be when a woman entered a male-dominated workplace or profession: the thickening of her skin, and often sharp wit on her part that disarmed rude men and charmed others? I've personally known women who broke glass ceilings with no help of quotas or sexual harassment polices – they succeeded because they were outstanding employees who knew how to deal with people as adults.

If I invite someone to my home and I want to be a good host, I’ll strive not to offend them. But since when has there been a right to never be offended anywhere, especially if you are a member of a group favored by the Left? (Nobody cares about offending heterosexual white Christian males.)

Why couldn't I run a workplace the way I’d like? As it happens, I would choose to have a policy against quid pro quo harassment and I would have a fairly high standard for decorum. But that should be my choice, not something determined externally and imposed upon me.

What say you?

*****

UPDATE: Post "#MeToo", some men are refusing to mentor or even hire women, or women who are at all attractive. It's sad, but it is an understandable reaction. Saying "Just don't be a jerk" expresses a nice sentiment, but one that doesn't deal with reality. Men could act within the rules of today, only to find in 10 or 20 years that they're being attacked because their behavior or the words they used have since been deemed problematic.

A Comment Worth Reading

I hate it when I get a great comment, especially one that obviously took some time to write, and one "profanity" is included. I'm trying to keep profanity off of this blog. If there wasn't much to a comment with profanity, I simply don't publish it. When the comment actually had worthwhile stuff to read, I might do what I'm doing with this comment: make a new post out of it.

"Unknown" left a comment on an entry about one of those articles that tried to get men to sacrifice themselves.

I can’t tell you how much guilt I’ve been shouldering from people on why I am single. I am single at 34 while many of my friends are married. Parents aside I understand they want grandchildren and so do I but NOT now maybe when I’m 45. But this whole shaming from my friends wives to co-workers to relatives to just about any person in a relationship is so ridiculous.

It should be considered sexual harassment when done by coworkers. Seriously. If we're going to have sexual harassment laws and policies, people should get busted for that. It creates just as much of a hostile work environment as an unwanted request for a date.

Hey Anonymous Commenter: Stop Seeing Your Coworker

There are hundreds of comments on this blog's most popular entry, so it is easy to miss one. I'm addressing one in particular with this entry, but also below I will post an edited version of two recent comments on the same entry. I tend not to actually publish comments with "profanity", but if they're worthwhile, I'll address them like I'm doing here, edited.

Anonymous 6:36 AM:

Ok so, I'm not sure if anyone will read this or help me by responding but let me explain a bit on whats been going on. I'm 29 years old and have had my eye on this woman I work with for months,

WOAH!!! Hold up there.

If you care about your job, NEVER NEVER NEVER date a woman you work with, or who works for the same employer, or in the same location. NEVER!

Guys, do not ask them out.
Do not flirt with them.
Do not joke with them.
Do not socialize with them.
Do not compliment them.
Do not touch them (except for a handshake, when it is absolutely necessary). No hugs, no high-fives, no taps on the shoulder, no touching!!!
Do not look at them for more than a second at a time, and only in the eyes, or better yet, at their forehead.
Do not gossip or chit chat with them.
Do not talk about personal matters with them, or listen to them talk about personal matters.
Limit your interactions with women at work to what is STRICTLY NECESSARY per your job responsibilities.

When asked a personal question, redirect.

Example:

Play Ball?

Katherine Blakeman wrote at Townhall to blast Sports Illustrated and praise someone who is harassing his employees, because sexy women make her feel insecure, or something.

This defensive article is not too surprising since Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition is nothing more than the peddling of hypersexualized, objectifying nude or nearly nude images of women—it's their most financially profitable issue of the year.

"Hypersexualized" is her opinion. A lot of people would disagree.

"Objectifying" is a word I wonder if she or most of the women reading this piece can explain without looking it up. All media is objectifying. And yes, men look at women as sex objects. If it weren't so, none of us would be here. Women look at men as success objects. 

But with this article, Sports Illustrated is criticizing the smart decision by Kansas City Royals General Manager Dayton Moore to educate his team on the detrimental impacts of pornography consumption.

I haven't read the article. I haven't even clicked on it. Subjecting his players to what is likely hysterical panic about depictions of nudity and sex is silly and smacks of sexual harassment.

Does Blakeman have a clue what life is like for professional baseball players in the Major League? Young, hot women are constantly throwing themselves at these players, many of the women hoping to get pregnant by the players. Unless the players are especially restrained, they are having casual sex right and left with a variety of women. They could be doing far worse than spending their time, energy, and semen on porn. Want to lecture them about their penises? Tell them to get vasectomies, use condoms, and not let their penis prompt them to marry, and certainly not without the tightest prenup possible.

Hands Off

It has been a while since I brought up a Dear Abby column here, even though I have been a regular reader. This time, "GRIEVING GRANDDAD" wrote in with:

My two adult granddaughters have rejected me, their doting grandfather. Their father gave me this explanation: "They are uncomfortable with the way you rub their shoulders and necks."

These girls and both parents have misinterpreted my innocent expressions of affection, which haven't changed since the girls were little. The only change is in their perception of my actions.

I am devastated. I asked twice to meet with these family members to discuss their concerns. It has been three months; no meeting time has been offered. There has been no contact, and neither girl has called me for any reason this year.

I can't just stop loving those with whom I have forged a 20-year bond of affection. How can this rupture be repaired?

I'm going to assume he's not a pervert or otherwise inappropriate, or leaving anything important out of his letter.

Something happened that the letter writer hasn't been told about. Maybe one or both of the granddaughters was attacked or molested by someone else. Perhaps they hate/suspect men in general now thanks to higher education. Or, maybe they "recovered memories" in a counseling session.

How many lives have been ruined by bogus "recovered memories"? Each life ruined is one too many. At least some such memories aren't really memories at all. Dr. Laura states on her show she doesn't believe ANY of them are real, stops calls when the caller claims that there was a recovered memories, and cites PTSD in soldiers as her reason, and other people who've been molested, along the lines of "If people could me made to forget memories we could make a lot of money selling that."

The problem I have with this is this:

That some people are haunted by traumatic events they are unable to forget does not necessarily mean nobody is ever able to "forget", and later remember, an actual traumatic event. But, this is more Dr. Laura's area of expertise than mine and she may be right... I just don't find her short explanation entirely convincing.

Anyway, I have point when it comes to men.

Heterosexual men are rapidly being marginalized in our culture and are increasingly at risk for being publicly humiliated and vilified, fired, sued, fined, and incarcerated for normal male behavior or based on mere accusations. Some prominent Christian leaders have refused to meet with women behind closed doors; the door must always be open and witnesses nearby. People like Tom Leykis advise men to avoid accusations of sexual harassment by either working for themselves or keep interaction with women in the workplace to the absolute minimum possible. Many others have said a man should never be a coach to anyone else's children or otherwise be in a position where they would be alone with some else's children or touching those children, so as to avoid accusations. And now, we see an example of how a man is taking a risk by having his own children.

At some point, the risks are just too high. A man protects himself the most by being self-employed and avoiding situations with women, by not marrying, by not having children, by not being around children. But what kind of society does that leave us with?

ON MY SHIFT IN OHIO: Look Up "Anita Hill"

"ON MY SHIFT IN OHIO" wrote in to Dear Abby:

I'm a 27-year-old professional who works long hours at a hospital.

She probably doesn't remember Anita Hill, because she is too young.

Dating isn't easy for me, so I decided to try an online service.

That's understandable, given the hours.

My first time online I recognized a co-worker I see on a regular basis and have always exchanged smiles with, but don't know personally. I wrote him a message just to say hi.

BZZZZZT WRONG! Well, since you're female and most of HR is female, you have nothing to worry about. But you shouldn't have done that.

I didn't say I was interested in him. I never heard back from him.

He's trying not to get fired and sued.

Since I sent that message he has checked my profile several times.

He shouldn't do that. He's risking his job, his finances, and putting your employer at risk.

But when he sees me in the hallways, he turns red and now just gives me half-smiles.

He should ignore you completely.

I was waiting at the elevator with him the other day, but he was so embarrassed by the silence that I bailed and took the stairs.

That was merciful of you.

He continues to smile, but I'm not sure what to say to him the next time I see him.

Nothing. Do not interact with him at all. Unless you want to get him fired and score some money from suing your employer.

I think it's rude that he didn't reply to my message -- even with a "See you around!" -- but I'm too embarrassed to do or say anything when I encounter him.

Yeah, well, welcome to the world creating by laws, courts, lawsuits, and employer policies. Never mind that people have met their spouses on the job. Now, whether or not a man keeps his job or an employer has to pay out is entirely up to the whims of a woman. Man A can say X, Y, and Z to a woman and get fired. Man B can say the exact same thing to the exact same woman and get laid. It is all up to her whims. It doesn't matter if you wouldn't get the man fired or sue your employer - the fact is, you can. And some women do. Besides, you might become one of those women if you dated him and then he dumped you. It is just too risky for men. This is what we're doing to our brothers and sons, as well as our sisters and daughters who would, in the past, find a good husband on the job.

Men used to say X, Y, and Z to each other and there was no problem. Now, if a woman overhears them saying that to each other, they can get fired.

Dear Abby responded:

The next time you run into him in the hall, just say hello. If he has any manners at all, he'll return your greeting and it may melt the ice.

Easy for you to say, DA. You don't have a penis (as far as I know). It's not about manners. It is about survival. Enjoy the world that lawyers, juries, "sensitive" men, and anti-male feminists (not all feminists are anti-male) have created. It's great, isn't it?

Now, Bark Like a Seal

Some people who have shacked up for years and have kids plan these elaborate weddings, complete with a white dress. And have you seen any of those elaborate flash-mob-dancing wedding proposals?

Yeah, well, it is getting worse.

Teresa Watanabe reports at LATimes.com about a high school senior named Alex Hom asking a freshman by the name of Brooke Drury to the winter formal dance. This is at South Pasadena High School in California. That city is often referred to as Mayberry, yet is home to a lot of Hollywood people (some famous actors have attended that public high school, including at least one Oscar winner I can think of.) So if it can happen there, it can happen anywhere, as evidenced by the rest of the article.

So he rounded up more than 20 friends, supplied them with red roses, choreographed a dance routine and wrote out his plea on signs. Then he had a friend bring Brooke, blindfolded, to a spot on campus for the big production.

"I thought, this is my senior year and I gotta go out with a bang," Alex said.

He's not the only student elevating the art of the school dance invitation.

Students are folding the question into homemade fortune cookies, tucking it into pinatas, knitting it into scarves, spelling it out with pepperoni on pizza and orange chicken on fried rice.

There are animal-themed invitations, using live puppies and turtles as messengers.

Ugh.

Camille Santos, Van Nuys High's student body vice president, recalled one student who dressed up as a knight and got a friend to dress up as a dragon to "attack" his prospective date. Then he rode onto the scene on the back of another friend dressed as a steed, "slayed" the dragon and popped the question.

"We live in a generation where flashy is good, bigger is better," said Camille, whose boyfriend placed his invitation to prom two years ago inside a rhinestone-studded fortune cookie box after dinner at a Chinese restaurant.

"We want to be seen. We want the world to know how romantic we are."

TMW. Too much work. Especially for a high school dance. This is stuff you do for a wife. If a guy does this kind of thing and she doesn't react well, he could easily be accused of being a stalker or a sexual harasser.

I won't even get into the potential problem of a 12th grader (who can often be 18 years old) taking a 9th grader (who can often be 13 years old) on a date. That's nothing new. Way back in the Dark Ages when I was in high school there were those girls who went to all of the formal dances starting in their freshman year, asked by seniors. But a senior asking them used to be impressive enough.

There's a line between being endearing and romantic and being narcissistic or beta.

Yeah, the kids in the article had some cute ideas.

But the larger issue I see with this trend towards more showy and elaborate schemes for not just marriage proposals but now high school dates is that it is a reaction to the flip side, which is the prevalence of casual and promiscuous sex. Today, guys can get sex from many girls for little or no effort and no strings attached. So the more hoops guys are made to jump through to go the traditional route, the more guys will go the other way instead. Aside from getting to see lots of hits for their online video, how many of these guys have more fun on the evening in question than the guy who just shows up at an after party, not having spent any time or money on the event at all?

Yes, men tend to value things for which we work, but if we perceive the escalating requirements are frivolous or simply about feeding egos, we may bow out. We'll work by saving up money, dating a woman to get to know her, and buying an expensive ring, but if we have to hire some Broadway director and choreographer to ask a question, something is very, very wrong.

Will the Academy Get Even More Hostile to Men?

Townhall.com can be a great place to find conservative opinion on current issues and breaking news. They feature a wide variety (and thus sometimes they disagree with each other) of columnists who fall under the "conservative" designation (which means they might be in the GOP, or libertarians, or fiscal conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, social conservatives, etc.). The site is part of Salem Communications, which is a media company that has a lot of radio stations and syndicated programs with some of the best talk show hosts.

Today, I wanted to point out a column from a couple weeks back by Michael Barone.

He points out the university used to be place in society where you would find the widest allowance of free expression. But things have changed:

Today, we live in an America with enormous cultural variety in which very few things are considered universally verboten. But on campus it's different. There, saying something considerably milder than some of the double entendres you heard in cable news coverage of the Anthony Weiner scandal can get you into big trouble.

What brought this on?

These reflections are inspired by a seemingly innocuous 19-page letter on April 4 from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights to colleges and universities. The letter was given prominence by Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which has done yeoman work opposing restrictive speech codes issued by colleges and universities.

OCR's letter carries great weight since there are few things a university president fears more than an OCR investigation, which can lead to losses of federal funds -- which amount to billions in some cases.

In my opinion, the only institutions of higher learning that should be getting federal funding in the first place are ones doing work (such as training) for the military, or some other Constitutionally-stipulated federal government work.

The OCR letter includes a requirement that universities adopt a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof for deciding sexual harassment and sexual assault. In other words, in every case of alleged sexual harassment or sexual assault, a disciplinary board must decide on the basis of more likely than not.

That's far short of the requirement in criminal law that charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And these disciplinary proceedings sometimes face charges that could also be criminal, as in cases of alleged rape.

Uh-oh. This means things are going to get even worse for men - a minority on campus already.

Lukianoff notes that campus definitions of sexual harassment include "humor and jokes about sex in general that make someone feel uncomfortable" (University of California at Berkeley), "unwelcome sexual flirtations and inappropriate putdowns of individual persons or classes of people" (Iowa State University) or "elevator eyes" (Murray State University in Kentucky).

All of which means that just about any student can be hauled before a disciplinary committee. Jokes about sex will almost always make someone uncomfortable, after all, and usually you can't be sure if flirting will be welcome except after the fact. And how do you define "elevator eyes"?

Simple. "Elevator eyes" are when a man looks in the general direction of a woman and she finds him unattractive or dislikes him for any reason, and she wants to complain about him. Isn't that easy?

As Lukianoff points out, OCR had other alternatives. The Supreme Court in a 1999 case defined sexual harassment as conduct "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities." In other words, more than a couple of tasteless jokes or a moment of elevator eyes.

Now now, the Supreme Court is only to be listened to when it says something these people like.

Look, fully half my ancestors were women, I have sisters, I have a wife, I have a daughter. I don't want them to have to deal with sexist hate or crude behavior. But this is being ridiculous and downright dangerous. You may be sympathetic to this cause, especially if you are a woman who has been subjected to crude comments, but do you want your brother, your son, your husband, your male friends to be railroaded off campus on the whims of a, perhaps, emotionally or psychologically unstable woman?

For sure, throw violent people off campus and into prison. Remove anyone on staff or in the student body who is proven to persist in actual harassment. But if it is going to be merely "he said vs. she said", her word is going to be given more weight.

The Minefield of Complimenting Beauty

What ever happened to giving and accepting compliments? MARRIED TO A KNOCKOUT wrote to Dear Abby:

Twice, while attending social functions, my wife and I met couples for the first time. On each of these occasions as we were saying goodbye, the husbands said to me, "Your wife is gorgeous."

Certainly, that’s better than "Does your wife play fetch?" Isn't it?

They said it in front of their wives, which surprised me.

Why? Isn't that better than doing it behind their wife's back? They're not saying, "My wife is ugly compared to your hot babe."

The first time it happened, I didn't know what to say.

How about, "Thanks. I blame her mother."?

The second time, I replied, "So is yours," even though the women weren't all that attractive.

Well, that was polite of you.

I'm wondering if their comments were appropriate, especially because they were made in the presence of their wives. I wasn't offended, just caught off-guard and felt uncomfortable for their wives.

It could just be compliments. I mean, would you feel this way if they told you that your wife was so sharp, or so nice? On the other hand, maybe they are swingers and are doing some early testing of your waters. If the next time they see you they say, "Won't you join is in the hot tub... for some drinks... and some wild sex" you'll know.

Dear Abby responded:

The comments those individuals made strike me as insensitive to the feelings of their wives because it invited a comparison which could have made the women feel uncomfortable.

Really?

I think you handled both situations gallantly.

Okay. Well, I don't recall putting anyone in that same position, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with the situation. Back in my bachelor days I would make a point of shaking a man's hand and telling him "way to go", nodding slyly towards his attractive wife or girlfriend. But that was usually a moment between just the two of us.

Recently, one sister-in-law was asking another who is getting into even better shape, and who is involved in the performing arts (no, not stripping or anything nude), if she is going to get breast implants. The question bummed out the second sister-in-law, and I wanted to tell her that there's nothing wrong with her body the way it is. I didn't say a thing, though, because I thought it my freak her out or upset my wife. I like my wife's body better, mind you, and I think about my wife and her body constantly, but there's nothing wrong with that sister-in-law’s body. When my wife and I were back home, I mentioned the situation and what I had thought. She didn’t seem like she would have been upset. Instead, the conversation diverted to the first sister-in-law who'd asked the question. She's so out of shape that it is clear she envies her sister's body and even said that if she could do one "simple" thing to have the perfect body, she would.

Anyway, when in doubt, it is best for a man, especially a husband, to stay silent. I can't help but think this is related to "sexual harassment" policies in the workplace and radical feminism, and in Christian circles, the concern that a man may possibly admire the female form, even if that form doesn't belong to his wife. Complimenting a woman's appearance is now a minefield. And make no mistake about it - when a man is told his wife is beautiful, it is also a compliment to the man. It says he has good taste and that he was capable of attracting a beautiful wife.

Should These Common Rules Be Ditched?

Lisa Cericola, who has written for Cosmopolitan and First for Women, writes about six "dating rules" that she thinks should be dumped.

Rule #1: Never date a coworker - Obviously, there are plenty of good reasons to be cautious if you’ve fallen for someone you’ll be running into every day at the office. But unless your company handbook forbids relationships between employees, there’s no reason why you should abandon any hope of romance.

No reason? Maybe not, if you've got a vagina or don't care about being fired. Any person with a penis who wants to keep his job, however, has plenty of reasons, thanks to sexual harassment laws and policies. It is not unlikely that a woman could regret a relationship after the fact, or get jealous of a relationship between coworkers, and file a complaint. Guess who will be handling the investigations and decisions about this? Mostly, it is women. Who are they going to side with when it comes down to "he said, she said"?

“Dating people you work with makes practical sense - after all, we spend so much of our lives in the office, there’s often no other way or time to meet anyone else,” says dating expert April Masini, author of Think & Date Like a Man.

Yes, yes, and you have a lot in common. Too bad. Certain feminists and female opportunists have poisoned the well, so this is one of those many things in life that has to suffer as a result. Now, do I think men should be crude and hound coworkers? No. If I had control over a workplace and the ability to fire someone for any reason, I'd fire any guy who treated my female employees this way. But that's not the world we live in now. Now, it is in the hands of others - the government and lawyers can get involved if a man pays a woman a compliment.

Rule #2: Rebound relationships never last - Give yourself time, they always say. While it’s healthy to mourn a relationship’s passing, that doesn’t mean you should ignore anyone great you meet while you recoup.

Okay.

Rule #3: Never date a friend’s ex - Your friends’ exes are usually off limits when it comes to dating… but what if you felt a genuine connection with a friend’s old flame?

Most friends can't handle this. If that is the case, you are choosing between the two. Personally, I wouldn’t care if my friends dated any of my girlfriends. There's one I would have warned my friend about, but other than that, it would have been fine by me. But then, I didn't mind bumping in to any of them.

Rule #4: Only date one person at a time

That is a stupid rule. You should also be exclusive with someone if you’re on the verge of engagement, engaged, or married. Even my mother, who was a virgin when she married my father, had the attitude that as long as there wasn't a ring on her finger, she was free to date anyone she wanted to date. Likewise, whether you are saving your virginity for your spouse or you're sexually active, dating only one person is not the way to go. Dating is a numbers game.

Rule #5: Wait for your date to say “I love you” first

This rule commits suicide if both people follow it. Or maybe that’s not the right term. Maybe it is a Mexican standoff.

Rule #6: Couples who are in love spend all their free time together

Ugh. No, they don't. And they don't have to constantly be in conversation, either. Someone who insists on always being together and always talking is likely a control freak or very insecure.

Can you think of any other commonly held rules or commonly given dating advice that you think is wrong?

The Law Applies to All

More men are filing sexual harassment claims, reports Associated Press writer Sam Hananel.

During more than two years as a food runner at an upscale steakhouse in Scottsdale, Ariz., [John] Pilkington says his male supervisor groped, fondled and otherwise sexually harassed him more than a dozen times.

I'm a firm believer in the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery. I'm also a firm believer in freedom of association and property rights – things that although are supposedly Constitutional, aren't enforced as well as the Thirteenth Amendment.

My point?

The way I see it, Pilkington had three possible good options if he didn't like the groping:

1. Go to the supervisor's boss or the business owner and complain. The owner should be responsible for the tone of the workplace.
2. Quit.
3. Tell the supervisor that he will quit if he does it again, and then quit if the supervisor does it again.

Now Pilkington, a married father of two, is the star witness in a federal lawsuit against Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar and one of a growing number of men claiming they are victims of sexual harassment in the workplace.

I fail to see why the owners of the steakhouse should be held responsible in a court of law if Pilkington didn't like the work atmosphere. He wasn't a slave. He was free to quit. Somehow, we go the idea in this country that if someone hires you, they are obligated to make you feel comfortable in perpetuity. They aren't – or shouldn't be. They are obligated to compensate you as mutually agreed for the work you do. If I hire someone to add on to my house, I should not be obligated to make sure that person is never offended by anything he sees at my house.

I agree that the supervisor's actions were wrong. But I don't think that everything that is wrong should be addressed in the law or a court.

From 1990 to 2009, the percentage of sexual harassment claims filed by men has doubled from 8 percent to 16 percent of all claims, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Well why not? The law applies to all. Either we have equality under the law or we don't. Some of the people who supported sexual harassment laws, like some supporters of other laws, only meant for the laws to be used by certain people against certain people - but that's too bad. I remember how upset some self-identified feminists, who had been so insistent that sexual harassment claims against (now Supreme Court Justice) Clarence Thomas be taken seriously, got when sexual harassment law was applied against President Clinton. That wasn't supposed to happen. Other feminists, like Tammy Bruce, recognized that Clinton's behavior was wrong and called him on it, and called other feminists out for defending Clinton.

Women still file the overwhelming majority of sexual harassment claims with the EEOC and state and local agencies.

That's a given considering the previous sentence – that 16 perfect of claims are filed by men. The options are kind of limited as to who is filing the rest.

While some cases allege harassment by female supervisors or co-workers, most charges involve men harassing other men.

That's because most men who are being sexually groped or pressured by females or being subjected to females exposing themselves or touching themselves don’t mind it. Okay, so I’m joking. Partially. Actually, it probably has more to do with testosterone. But hormone defenses in court cases don’t work as well for men as they do for women.

In the past, some employers might have shrugged off such antics as "boys will be boys" horseplay or fraternity-type behavior. But the EEOC has been filing more lawsuits involving male victims, saying it wants to send a message that such behavior is unacceptable and unlawful.

So not only have women been successful in making previously male cultures be readjusted to the sensitivity levels for women who are present, but even when a female isn't there, we're still supposed to act like there is a sensitive female there.

What ever happened to people handling things like grown-ups? Harassment is childish, but people used to respond along the lines of "sticks and stones may break my bones...". A clever comeback used to smooth the situation over. A swift kick to the nuts of the groping supervisor would have done much to get the message across.

The EEOC said the abusers would drag some victims kicking and screaming into a walk-in refrigerator, touching and grinding against the victims' genitals and take turns simulating rape.

There's a difference between harassment and assault.

Again, I do not justify harassment. It is morally wrong. But what we're seeing is a predictable result of 1) women making inroads into previously male-only professions and positions; 2) a general increase in crudeness and sexuality in the culture; and 3) the ideas that we have a right to ongoing employment regardless of what our boss thinks and a right to not be offended or uncomfortable when interacting with other people.

I'll stop here before I end up rewriting the rest of what I already wrote in this previous entry.

There's a lot of truth in this video from Saturday Night Live.

Letterman and Leno

What exactly did Letterman do wrong?

As Letterman mixed wisecracks with contrition, he said his wife, Regina Lasko, had been "horribly hurt by my behavior" and stated flat-out that those affairs "are in the past."

Well of course they are in the past, by definition. This does not mean there will not be any more. However, if these affairs happened before Lasko and Letterman married, then he really doesn't have much to apologize to her about. Just because he was shacking up with her doesn't mean he was obligated not to have sex with anyone else. If he explicitly made such a promise, then he broke his promise, and that's about it. (Since Letterman doesn't publicly proclaim to follow Christ, I'm not applying Biblical standards.) He has more obligation to apologize to her for knocking her up out of wedlock and not marrying her until after the baby was born, shacking up with her for years. Even then, she consented to all of that, right?

During the hour, Letterman apologized to his staff, which, he said, had been subjected to "being browbeaten and humiliated" by reporters since his revelations.

And then there are the sexual harassment and favoritism issues. If we're going to have government regulation of employer-employee relations, then sexual harassment needs to be treated seriously. We can't only apply it to unattractive conservative men who aren't wealthy or powerful.

Letterman, 62, began dating Lasko in 1986, and they have a son, Harry, who was born in November 2003. All the affairs took place before Letterman's marriage, said Tom Keaney, spokesman for Letterman's production company.

So why the apologies - honestly? We expect a man to only sleep with a woman to whom he has no formal commitment? Why would it be okay for him to fornicate with her, but not other women?

But the CBS producer accused of blackmailing Letterman used pages from a former assistant's diary that described an affair with the "Late Show" host, a law enforcement official said Monday. The ex-assistant, Stephanie Birkitt, went to live with CBS News producer Robert Halderman, who found her diary describing her relationship with Letterman and used it to help blackmail him, the law enforcement official said Monday on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.

Gotta love those physical diaries that some people keep around. She probably also told all of her girlfriends too, giving every detail imaginable. But the written word is something else – especially in the hands of a desperate and perhaps jealous guy.

For a celebrity the caliber of Hugh Grant, publicity - including speculation of career suicide - was unavoidable when he was arrested with a prostitute on Hollywood's Sunset Strip. But then he retreated to NBC's "The Tonight Show" to try to explain.

What was to explain? It was easy for Hugh Grant to get sex. Guys like him go to prostitutes for one or both of the following reasons: 1. He wants the woman to go away and leave him alone after they have sex; 2. He has some sort of fetish, or perhaps a somewhat normal desire, that his girlfriend won't accommodate.

Back to Letterman – some people are calling on CBS to dump him. I don't know if they should or not. What would happen to the average CBS employee under the circumstances? But on the other hand, isn't Letterman more of an independent contractor? His actions are a liability for his own production company for sure – someone could easily sue for sexual harassment. It is probably a liability for CBS, too, but as the article says, ratings are way up because of this.

People screw up and have sex with people they shouldn't. Letterman is just the latest in a long line where it has gone public. I don't think he was doing right by his employees, and I also don't think he was doing right by Lasko, but that is more about things to which she willingly consented. Although I haven't committed these sins (sex with employees, "cheating" on a shack up), anyone who reads this blog knows I've done plenty of wrongs of my own.

The fact is, if CBS dropped his show, he would be able to go elsewhere easily. That gets me into my other topic, which I am keeping short. NBC already runs Leno at 10pm (Eastern/Pacific), eliminating five expensive hourlong dramas from the schedule. ABC could do the same by taking Letterman aboard. Some TV industry people blame Leno for reducing good TV jobs. But considering that even with five less evening hours for drama programming, NBC is still running SVU twice a week (showing the same episode twice), is Leno really to blame? Looks like NBC would have dropped at least five hours of drama with or without Leno.

Risky Business: Workplace Romances

Ellen Wulfhorst has this Reuters story about an office romance survey for CareerBuilder.com.

Forty percent of U.S. workers have dated an office colleague, with 31 percent of them going on to marriage, according to a survey released on Tuesday.

Coworkers may have a lot in common, and they spend a lot of time together. In the past, it was natural to find your spouse on-the-job, and I've known many people who have done that.

However, in the post-Anita Hill era, it is VERY risky (especially for a heterosexual man) to date a coworker. It is so risky that it is stupid to do so.

Those eyeing a co-worker was skewed between the sexes, with 14 percent of men but just 5 percent of women saying they would like to date a colleague.

Probably because most women would only date someone earning more than themselves, which limits the choices.

Of those who dated a co-worker in the last year, a third said it was someone with a more senior position in the company. Of those, 42 percent have dated their boss, said.

Those bosses are idiots – that is, if they care about their jobs at all.

Since men are usually (and expected to be) the initiators, sexual harassment laws and polices are designed to punish less attractive men. They are arbitrarily applied based on the subjective feelings of the person approached. Two male coworkers could say the exact same thing to a woman, and if she likes one, but not the other, the one she doesn't like could get fired for saying the exact same thing as the guy who doesn't get fired. When it boils down to "he said/she said", guess who is favored by the female-dominated Human Resources staff?

Welcoming women to all levels of the workplace was generally a good thing. Unfortunately, instead of asking women (the newcomers) to adopt to the workplace cultures that had long been established according to male standards and tendencies, everyone had to readjust to things being set by feminine standards and sensitivities, emasculating men.

Am I saying I would like some creep being lewd towards my mother, sister, wife, or daughter? Of course not. But I would hope that the women in my life could handle themselves like adults instead of running to someone else to make things right and comfortable for them. When I was a kid, my parents taught me how to deal with other kids who said or did things I didn't like - it was usually along the lines of "ignore them" or "have a good comeback".

I find the very phrase "sexual harassment" curious. We don't talk about (much less have training about) "nutritional harassment" when a vegetarian chides someone for eating meat. If sexual harassment is to be condemned in the workplace, shouldn't all forms of harassment be prevented and punished? And if it is wrong because it makes someone uncomfortable, then I want to know if anyone is allowed to object to having to take sexual harassment prevention training on the grounds that the training sessions make them uncomfortable? Why is that person's discomfort any less valid? I suppose the fact that we have the phrase "sexual harassment" is just another example of how sex is different and not just another activity or body function (like how guys will pay to see a woman strip, but who pays to see a steak slowly unveiled and waved around)?

Hedonist male-targeting radio talk show host Tom Leykis reacts to sexual harassment issues in the workplace by advising his listeners not to interact with female coworkers any more than strictly necessary, not saying one word more to them than absolutely essential to get the job done. No small talk, no compliments, no joking, no greetings, no socializing. How boring things would be if everyone followed that rule. But having a boring workplace is preferable to being fired. Leykis can work that way due to the nature of his work. Most of us would have a very difficult time doing that.

Aside from sexual harassment issues (not to mention charges of favoritism), there's another reason to avoid dipping your pen in company ink. Most relationships do not last as romances, and the fallout from a breakup, even if it isn't nasty, can be tough to deal with – not just for the participants, but for their coworkers. Also, some (potential) spouses have a hard time dealing with the idea that their spouse is working with someone they used to date.

People don't always think things through, so I expect workplace romances will continue to happen. But I will tell any guy who listens to to me to avoid them.