It is currently Sun Dec 15, 2019 11:01 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 943 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 48  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:08 pm 
Offline
Hobbit
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Posts: 5825
Location: Missouri
Wow... I just looked over on B77 for posts regarding that era of my younger daughter's life.... and her dating the older boy was the turning point for her- he helped her out of a serious downward spiral. Here's the link if anyone is interested.
http://board77.org/viewtopic.php?p=304249#p304249

It was 10 years ago and I'd forgotten many of the details. Raising teenagers is rough! :help: I was pretty torn up at the time. Life is so much better now. 8)

Edit:
My point being that maturity varies from person to person, if that was at all apparent. :whistle: She had already been making serious bad decisions before she started going out with the college guy. That fellow wasn't such a bad guy, just not smart enough to keep up with her once she matured.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:09 pm 
Offline
Ni Dieu, ni maître
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:19 pm
Posts: 1824
Location: Home
In Switzerland the age of consent is 16, but there is special clause for young persons who have less than three years of age difference. So, it would not illegal for a 17 year old to have a sex with a 15 year old. I think it is a good way to handle things.

Matthias and I have twelve years of age difference. When I met him first, I was 18 and he 30 and it is not surprising that at this time neither of us thought of the other as being remotely sexual attractive (or interesting in any way, by the way).

Now, his son has a new girl-friend since a few months and they speak about getting pacsed (legal civic union, but not marriage). While we always knew that she was older than him, we only realized the age gap fully when he filled out the papers to move back to Switzerland. She is 14 years older than him - he is 29, she is 43. That makes my stepson's partner only four years younger than me. It is a bit weird - but we never asked even for her age, because somehow both of us assumed that at the age of 29 someone can choose his partner all by himself.

Yes, there certainly is a grey area. I tend to see 16 year old boys much more as kids as 16 year old girls. Boys still physically grow at that age, girls usually not any more.

_________________
"nolite te bastardes carborundorum".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:13 pm 
Offline
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 8868
Location: Ireland
Speaking of the Echo Chamber:

https://www.cato.org/blog/poll-71-ameri ... ve-58-have

_________________
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:33 pm 
Offline
I miss Prim ...
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 14348
Location: Florida
OMG so much stuff to dig into in that link....that's like a dozen threads worth of topics right there....

_________________
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:44 am 
Offline
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 8868
Location: Ireland
Very interesting article given the current climate.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/sexism-wo ... ev-test186

_________________
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:53 pm 
Offline
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 8868
Location: Ireland
Another interesting article, from a female perspective on the damage that may be done to the female cause by the recent spate of allegations.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the- ... -sr06d3x7x

_________________
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:26 pm 
Offline
Lán de Grás
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:54 pm
Posts: 4545
That article is for subscribers only :(

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:45 pm 
Offline
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:43 am
Posts: 40006
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
It looks like a familiar kind of handwringing that occurs when any group of people begin to assert their rights more emphatically—"they should be nice about this or no one will like them any more." But I can't read the whole thing.

Toward that argument in general, which we've all certainly heard in regard to this issue, Black Lives Matter, etc.—but particularly in regard to women, what have we lost if "flirtation" is no longer considered OK at work? If in exchange women are safe from "flirtation" (which may be nonconsensual and much more repugnant than "flirtatious" men realize—really, honestly, guys), but also safe from the kinds of things we've been reading about lately, that anyone would find gross and frightening? Because it's much farther to reach that extreme now, and women can safely assert their nonconsent at a much earlier stage?

_________________
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:28 am 
Offline
Meanwhile...
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:31 pm
Posts: 15608
Location: Out on the banks
IAWP

A counterpoint: The myth of the male bumbler

Quote:
There's a reason for this plague of know-nothings: The bumbler's perpetual amazement exonerates him. Incompetence is less damaging than malice. And men — particularly powerful men — use that loophole like corporations use off-shore accounts. The bumbler takes one of our culture's most muscular myths — that men are clueless — and weaponizes it into an alibi.

...

Breaking that alibi means dissecting that myth. The line on men has been that they're the only gender qualified to hold important jobs and too incompetent to be responsible for their conduct.

_________________
Image

“I am not so blind that I can't see darkness.”
Dangerous Beans
Terry Pratchett, The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:07 pm 
Offline
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 8868
Location: Ireland
Primula Baggins wrote:
It looks like a familiar kind of handwringing that occurs when any group of people begin to assert their rights more emphatically—"they should be nice about this or no one will like them any more." But I can't read the whole thing.

Toward that argument in general, which we've all certainly heard in regard to this issue, Black Lives Matter, etc.—but particularly in regard to women, what have we lost if "flirtation" is no longer considered OK at work? If in exchange women are safe from "flirtation" (which may be nonconsensual and much more repugnant than "flirtatious" men realize—really, honestly, guys), but also safe from the kinds of things we've been reading about lately, that anyone would find gross and frightening? Because it's much farther to reach that extreme now, and women can safely assert their nonconsent at a much earlier stage?


Its a far more interesting article than that when read in full. Firstly, its written by a woman, and is talking about the potential damage to womens careers if this gets out of hand. Not genuine harassment, but if it extends past harrasment into treating every interation as a potential threat. But judge for yourselves. And remember, this space is supposed to be about challenging the accepted liberal viewpoint, not just reinforcing it.
Quote:
The sisterhood is turning women into victims
clare foges

Blurring the line between assault and flirtation makes employers less likely to hire female staff

If the scandal in Westminster has left male MPs confused about what is and is not acceptable, they should heed the late Julian Critchley, long-time Conservative MP, who advised that “the only safe pleasure for a parliamentarian is a bag of boiled sweets”. I confess to being somewhat confused by the way trivial incidents have been cast as serious offences — and concerned, too.

I fear for the damage this will do to the reputation of women in work. I worry that when women are “empowered” to label the most minor incidents as sexual harassment, half the population is cast as perpetual victims, not potential leaders. By “calling out the patriarchy” at every clumsy flirtation, some self-described feminists are, unwittingly, constructing invisible barriers to female ambition. They are painting the rest of womankind with the same brush, the stereotype of the irrational drama queen that women have been trying to shrug off for decades.

I’m not suggesting anyone who has experienced real harassment should just buck up and take the gropes. But when a female journalist is allegedly brushed on the knee by the deputy prime minister, and he then faces calls for his resignation, this is not a victory for the sisterhood. It is a sop to victimhood. It affirms the views of all those misogynists who like to imply we are too weak and wilting to be taken seriously.

The more that women are perceived as hypersensitive, the riskier they will be deemed by employers. Imagine a recruitment situation in which a twentysomething man and woman are the final candidates. Many things will be taken into account: qualifications, experience, interests. The recruiter will also consider whether the person before them is a PPITN, a Potential Pain in the Neck. In future colleagues, we look for benign team-players, non-troublemakers. Not, please God, a PPITN. Yet now that a man brushing against a woman’s knee can be regarded as harassment, now that millennials may be “triggered” by the slightest infraction of their personal space, how many employers might fear that the female candidate is a risk? A PPITN?

Already many see it as a greater risk to employ women. In 2014 a survey of 500 managers showed a third would rather hire a man in his twenties or thirties over a woman of the same age, for fear of maternity leave and its costs. Yes, we should be glad that we live in a country where discrimination is taken seriously, and where there are pregnancy and maternity rights. But we must be alert to the danger that the way these rights are used and abused can make it less attractive to employ women.

In recent months I have had conversations with two senior executives: one the head of a finance company, the other the director of a creative firm. Both had been taken to the cleaners by an employee who had recently had a baby. On returning to work, these women had demanded the same role, on the same pay, but with far shorter hours. When their demands were seen as unreasonable, the employer was accused of being inflexible and the women started legal proceedings on the grounds of indirect sex discrimination. Both organisations knew it would be easier to settle out of court. What struck me was how resigned they were. The women were just doing what was financially rational, they said. They’re right, because sex discrimination awards are uncapped, making it highly attractive to make a claim.

The bar for discrimination is set low, too. Citizens Advice suggests that “where there have been one or two incidents of name calling or banter” a tribunal “would be likely to award between £1,000 to £5,000”. This is by no means the limit. A BAE Systems manager commented to a female secretary that “women take things more emotionally than men” and it cost the arms manufacturer £360,000 in compensation.

Such cases may be rare but they add to the impression that female employees can be riskier prospects than men. Now, to add to employers’ concerns, we have the febrile climate around sexual harassment. Under the Equality Act 2010, an employer may be liable for the actions of his or her employees, including harassment. Frances O’Grady, general secretary of the TUC, has said that businesses must “offer specific training on sexual harassment”. If only it were that simple. If only employers could just hold some death-by-powerpoint presentations about boundaries and respect. The trouble is that the bar for harassment has sunk so low, well into the grey area of flirtation, that it has become almost impossible to guard against it. Would it be any wonder if employers became wary of young women who might treat a Carry On joke from an older colleague as tribunal-worthy?

Of course, women must have the ability to complain about men who genuinely harass them. There should be a place to report them that is independent, confidential and powerful enough to get that person removed. I’m not proposing we dismantle the Equality Act either, or repeal maternity rights.

But the bar for what constitutes discrimination and harassment has been set too low. Receiving a flirty text is not even on the same spectrum as rape. Off-colour office jokes are hardly compensation-worthy. Being asked by your employer to work reasonable hours after maternity leave is not discriminatory. Ultimately, those who encourage women to see harassment in every clumsy flirt and discrimination in every slight are doing womankind no favours. In the echo chamber of Twitter, these might feel like victories against the patriarchy. In the real world, they undermine women in the long and tiring battle to be taken as seriously as men.

_________________
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:38 pm 
Offline
2018 Fitbit Balrog*
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:03 pm
Posts: 12318
I have many things to say in response to that article. But I came here to post this, and I will try and get back to Al's article.

Rebecca Traister, writer-at-large for New York Magazine, on the post-Weinstein reckoning:

"A powerful white man losing a job is a death, and don’t be surprised if women wind up punished for the spate of killings.

Many men will absorb the lessons of late 2017 to be not about the threat they’ve posed to women but about the threat that women pose to them. So there will be more — perhaps unconscious — hesitancy about hiring women, less eagerness to invite them to lunch, or send them on work trips with men; men will be warier of mentoring women.

The only real solution may be one that is hardest to envision: equality."

_________________
*title copyright: Teremia

'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:13 pm 
Offline
2018 Fitbit Balrog*
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:03 pm
Posts: 12318
One reason articles like that make me jump up and down (and this is not just left-media or right-media, all media does this) is that they cherry pick certain examples to make their case, not providing their context, and not providing the overall picture. Yes, some women will use certain situations to sue their employer without due cause, as will some men.

As the data shows: From Oct. 1, 2013, to Sept. 30, 2014. The following are the top 10 categories of work discrimination charges filed with the EEOC:

Retaliation under all statutes: 37,955 (42.8 percent of all charges filed)
Race (including racial harassment): 31,073 (35 percent)
Sex (including pregnancy and sexual harassment): 26,027 (29.3 percent)
Disability: 25,369 (28.6 percent)
Age: 20,588 (23.2 percent)
National Origin: 9,579 (10.8 percent)
Religion: 3,549 (4.0 percent)
Color: 2,756 (3.1 percent)
Equal Pay Act: 938 (1.1 percent) but note that sex-based wage discrimination can also be charged under Title VII’s sex discrimination provision
Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act: 333 (0.4 percent)

The percentages add up to more than 100 because some charges allege multiple bases, such as discrimination on the bases of race and color, or sex and retaliation.

(source: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/n ... 356405.htm)

So, it is NOT as if sexual discrimination charges make up a majority of the claims. They don't. But - please let's make an example of these two women and use that as a bludgeon against the hundreds of woman who *have* been sexually harrassed and have had the guts to speak up about it.

My friend working for a VC firm was laid off the *day* she told her manager she was pregnant. Apparently, they were planning to do it anyway. She didn't file charges. For the 26,027 who filed, I am willing to bet my a$$ that ten times that didn't file when they had solid reasons to do so.

_________________
*title copyright: Teremia

'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:36 pm 
Offline
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:08 am
Posts: 10921
Location: the dry land
So I read Al's article and am not impressed. It struck me as a little one-sided. In the case of the new mothers, I'm left wondering what the drastic cut in hours these women demanded looked like. Were they really asking for a cut in hours or were they telling their supervisors to stop expecting them to put in more than the standard 40/week? I ask because the fact I couldn't just be in the lab all the time anymore after I had my first kid was basically a death sentence as far as my relationship with my post-doc advisor went. Support sort of withered up after that. I have good reason to believe it won't be anything like that this time but, having been sidelined because I reproduced before, I'll be in fear of it happening again. We'll see what happens once I'm back at work on Monday.

In the harassment cases the author cites, I'm left with the same question. I will acknowledge that there's some mass hysteria happening right now but were those incidents the author cite really as trivial as they are portrayed? Is telling women to toughen back up again really the direction to go in? Especially since women have been doing that for decades and gotten where, exactly? If claims are spiking, there certainly will be an element of hysteria within them - we're in the grip of a witch-hunt mentality right now - but there's also going to be an element of women who've been trying to tough it out for too long just saying enough is enough.

_________________
When you can do nothing what can you do?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:09 am 
Offline
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:08 am
Posts: 10921
Location: the dry land
So something struck me...

It hasn't just been women coming forward accusing powerful men of sexual misconduct. There've been men accusing men as well. Yet no one's been accusing any women of being a perpetrator. So maybe, rather than suggest that it's women who're a liability in the workplace, we should discuss the risks of placing men in positions of power. Clearly some do not handle it well.

_________________
When you can do nothing what can you do?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:15 am 
Offline
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:43 am
Posts: 40006
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
What River said.

_________________
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:19 am 
Offline
Meanwhile...
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:31 pm
Posts: 15608
Location: Out on the banks
Attachment:
uploadfromtaptalk1511065129717.jpg
uploadfromtaptalk1511065129717.jpg [ 37.56 KiB | Viewed 4319 times ]

_________________
Image

“I am not so blind that I can't see darkness.”
Dangerous Beans
Terry Pratchett, The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:13 pm 
Offline
2018 Fitbit Balrog*
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:03 pm
Posts: 12318
Charles M Blow at NYT said it:

This Is a Man Problem
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/opin ... -men-.html

_________________
*title copyright: Teremia

'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:11 pm 
Offline
Lán de Grás
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:54 pm
Posts: 4545
Are you sure about that link? I'm getting a 404 (not found).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:30 pm 
Offline
1000%
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 35514
I fixed it in Inanna's post, and here is the correct link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/opin ... -men-.html

_________________
In gratitude forever … .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:35 pm 
Offline
of Vinyamar
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:39 pm
Posts: 8868
Location: Ireland
I think this thread has been a failure. :(

_________________
Image
The Vinyamars on Stage! This time at Bag End


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 943 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 48  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group