What’s Wrong with the World

Regarding the above questions, there is one and only one "yes" that is tolerable to the ever-so-tolerant liberal establishment:

Populations of the above sexes going gay.

That's it. No more.

P.S. As a side note, there was mention that "not bathing for the environment" would also work, but I think this would be controversial even in the leftist community.

"Is there any conceivable circumstance in which the great & good of our day would thank men for doing more than their fair share?"

Well, I think the local chapter of LALOGLO might - Ladies in Love with Gigalos.

Walked right into that one... :) (Sorry, Steve, one of those days).

The Chicken

My apologies to Steve and other readers for my last remark. It was out of line and unChristian. I have no idea where my better judgment is, today. Better quit and maybe try for better, tomorrow.

The Chicken

The problem, it seems, is not with the relative unwillingness of women to contribute to such a selfless enterprise. No: it's with the competitive, fact-obsessed (can you say phallocentric?) internet-geek culture which, by its very nature, discourages the ladies from participating.

I think it's more along the lines of guys are more often obsessive about subjects than women are; look at any big group of fans other than niches like, oh, Twilight Moms (which I'd class as a female version of Hermione Guys) and the fan(atics) will be mostly male.

Pick me, pick me!!

It means that they'd rather have society be much the poorer, or even be destroyed, than allow men to "dominate" any area thereof.

Did I get it right?

What do I win?

internet-geek culture which, by its very nature, discourages the ladies from participating

But even THAT's not quite adequate anymore. Guys still dominate those portions of the internet where facts and details are paramount, but I have this feeling that women dominate the number of internet hours spent on relationships and such: facebook, eg. Or on blogs that talk about romance stories. Maybe the NYT should notice that women crowd men out of the romance story business by a factor of about 20 to 1. Talk about injustices that cry out for intervention!

A lot of fan fiction writers are female, as well-- overwhelmingly so. (This includes those who have been picked up to be paid writers, so can we avoid the usual ignorant fan fic humor?)

Besides being male, wikipedia contributors and editors tend to be

-childless
-unmarried
-in their twenties.

You could just as easily write a triumphal story about how young people are taking charge and shaping other's understanding of the world.

(The curmudgeonly slant that twentysomethings are ruining our understanding with their pretensions to wisdom would make a better story, but that storyline isn't prominent on the internet.)

Is there any conceivable circumstance in which they would criticize women for not pulling their weight?

Assuming that the answer to both questions is "no" - what does this mean?

It means we're on the road to a world where nobody can be criticized for being incompetent or lazy; a world where nobody is a failure.

Also, since women have been oppressed for centuries in patriarchal societies, they are now, as part of the liberation payoff, entitled to a certain measure of indulgence while they "catch up" with men.

It means we're on the road to a world where nobody can be criticized for being incompetent or lazy; a world where nobody is a failure.

This should be taken to its logical conclusion. We should have a world where doctors don't need to pass board exams unless they want to, engineers don't need to be certified, pilots don't need to prove they can fly and so on. Everyone should contribute what they want, if they want and whenever they want, and everyone should be entitled to everything. I know Marx thought of something similar once but this would be version 2.00.

Also, since women have been oppressed for centuries in patriarchal societies, they are now, as part of the liberation payoff, entitled to a certain measure of indulgence while they "catch up" with men.

Of course these 1000 year old women should be offered a measure of indulgence. However, modern people start off on equal footing and there is no rationale for compensating modern women for any real or perceived injustices rendered to previous generations of long dead women. The ones who were oppressed by the Romans, Holy Roman Empire and the Victorians should be given some form of reparations.

The notion that Wikipedia is too male dominated is absurd. It is a community project and unless there are impediments to women joining in and editing entries which AFAIK can be done usually anonymously the NYT writer should have no problems with Wikipedia. If he wants to have more women edit the entries, maybe he should proselytize to them in his paper to get involved in the project. Most women have better things to do that edit Wikipedia entries on giant Japanese Gundam robots and long dead programing languages.

Most of the authors of Encyclopedia Britannica articles are male. What's his point, again?

The Chicken

Periodically they say the same thing about open source software projects. The reason that most women don't work out well in these environments is that there is no institutional referee like Human Resources to make the men "play nice" instead of acting macho, being arrogant, etc. Linus Torvalds could never get away with talking to a female coworker the way he roasts really bad ideas on the Linux kernel mailing list.

The women go to these projects and find men behaving as men naturally do in voluntary, male-dominated areas of endeavor.

Traditionalists might note that these behaviors, if allowed to return in force to the mainstream work environment, would be an invaluable tool in making traditional marriage more appealing to women. The anti-male regulations which suppress these natural male behaviors are a key support for the ongoing liberal social experiment.

A corollary to this might be that if the US were to withdraw from NATO and remove its troops from Europe, we'd similarly bring down the European welfare state.

Mike, I like your first idea. The NATO idea, not so sure. I have trouble seeing how our membership in NATO helps support the socialism of France, for example. Is it because without us they would have to start spending 10% of their GDP on defense? Not clear they would even try.

Mike,

As a Linux aficionado, at least from my reading of the Slashdot blog, while it's true that most open source coders are men, women are starting to make up a larger part of the IT industry. One of the reasons more people don't try Linux and other open source, by the way, is the rudeness of the "help" sites. People migrating to Linux from Windows as a new experience, tend to be point-and-click computer users who are used to the patronizing attitude of Windows software. They have little coding skills, if any, and to be told by a hyperactive eighteen year old to read the manual is really off-putting.

As for the NYT writer, he should get a clue. If women wanted to write for Wikipedia, they would. Heck, I'm the expert on a specific type of material used in musical instruments played primarily by girls and yet all of the articles on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the net on the material are written by men. Girls just don't want to do the grunt work, apparently. Nowadays, with the geek-chicque mentality, girls can be hackers, too, yet most hackers are male.

More than that, geek guys tend to be loners, whereas geek girls do not (don't yell at me, Foxfier, it's just my observation - yours may differ). Editing Wiki sites lends itself more to that isolated focus. Also, most Wiki pages involve science and technology - area where women do not congregate. If the NYT writer has any serious ideas on how to correct that, he should contact science education departments, because I am sure they would love to hear them. Women tend to go into biology and biochemistry, but not physical chemistry and physics. The more the math, the fewer the females. One of my best female friends when in graduate school went on to get a Ph.D in biophysics, but she was very rare and we worked well as friends and geeks.

The Chicken

I'm so puzzled. I read the article, and didn't see an "attack" on anything. I just saw another instance of Mill's argument from "On the Subjection of Women".

Look, the idea behind Wikipedia is that, as a community, we can get things right by contributing, which benefits all of us. But if we don't have everyone contributing, then we're all worse off because the information desired is missing. Women have things to contribute, so let's get them involved. By doing so, we'll all benefit.

As Kevin J Jones noted above, this argument has wider application than the Times article, but that's fine. The article chose to focus on one aspect in which Wikipedia hopes to improve. I see nothing problematic about that.

Traditionalists might note that these behaviors, if allowed to return in force to the mainstream work environment, would be an invaluable tool in making traditional marriage more appealing to women. The anti-male regulations which suppress these natural male behaviors are a key support for the ongoing liberal social experiment.

Mike T, depending on what the behaviors are, I might endorse this. (I think there are ways for men to behave like Christian gentlemen even among themselves, and that they should, but these don't necessarily require feminized "playing nice" or "working in groups" behaviors.) I think this point is relevant too to talk about how some sort of weird, feminized "meritocracy" favors women in the workforce. It's a highly artificial environment created, more artificial even than office work needs to be. Without that liberal artificiality, imposed in draconian fashion, the idea that women are "better suited" to the modern work world might evaporate.

Masked Chicken,

One of the reasons more people don't try Linux and other open source, by the way, is the rudeness of the "help" sites. People migrating to Linux from Windows as a new experience, tend to be point-and-click computer users who are used to the patronizing attitude of Windows software. They have little coding skills, if any, and to be told by a hyperactive eighteen year old to read the manual is really off-putting.

(Apologies in advance, if this is construed as thread jacking)

In my experience as one often on the side answering questions, the number one cause of rudeness is the unwillingness of many normal users to help themselves. They won't read the documentation or do Google searches for even a tutorial before asking the simplest questions. In many cases, it is actually obvious that the user hasn't done this and has no interest in doing it.

The issue of "coding skills" is generally non-sequitor for Linux these days. Anyone with a normal PC can install Ubuntu in a point-and-click process that's very similar to Windows 7's installer (I know because I've installed both recently). It gets more complicated when you have open source packages like WordPress and Movable Type where intermediate use actually does require the user to roll up their sleeves and learn some page design (HTML, CSS and some JavaScript) or a server-side language like PHP or Perl. Users frequently want to skip this step while getting others to do it for them... for free.

Mike T, depending on what the behaviors are, I might endorse this. (I think there are ways for men to behave like Christian gentlemen even among themselves, and that they should, but these don't necessarily require feminized "playing nice" or "working in groups" behaviors.) I think this point is relevant too to talk about how some sort of weird, feminized "meritocracy" favors women in the workforce. It's a highly artificial environment created, more artificial even than office work needs to be. Without that liberal artificiality, imposed in draconian fashion, the idea that women are "better suited" to the modern work world might evaporate.

Specifically, I'm advocating a complete abolition of all laws regarding hostile workplaces and such that are used to coercively reorder the workplace to make it amenable to female sensibilities. I would rather work in an office where the guy next to me has a bottle of whiskey on his desk, a playboy pinup behind him and who cusses like a sailor than the current PC office that is the norm.

In my experience as one often on the side answering questions, the number one cause of rudeness is the unwillingness of many normal users to help themselves. They won't read the documentation or do Google searches for even a tutorial before asking the simplest questions. In many cases, it is actually obvious that the user hasn't done this and has no interest in doing it.

Would you trust them to carry out the answer even if they found it? The do-it-yourself industry is tanking in the U. S. We used to build radios as kids, now they are all disposible. We used to blow stuff up, now the only things one is allowed to blow up is a picture or an air mattress. Ubuntu has come a long way, but if it doesn't work out of the box, most peole don't have the experience to use the command-line to modify the code. This was not the case back in the DOS day. Computers have become too patronizing and helpful. I say, let's give the computers back to the geeks. Manual typewriters were good enough for Hemingway and if you want to talk to people around the world, get a ham license and learn Morse code :)

The Chicken

More than that, geek guys tend to be loners, whereas geek girls do not (don't yell at me, Foxfier, it's just my observation - yours may differ). Editing Wiki sites lends itself more to that isolated focus.

Not yelling! *grin* Females do tend to be more social-- geek girls aren't very social compared to girly-girls, but in a geeky environment they tend to help group cohesion. (unless they're busy vamping, which just makes a mess. >.

Also, most Wiki pages involve science and technology - area where women do not congregate. If the NYT writer has any serious ideas on how to correct that, he should contact science education departments, because I am sure they would love to hear them. Women tend to go into biology and biochemistry, but not physical chemistry and physics. The more the math, the fewer the females.

I agree on the more-math-less-women thing, but I'm pretty sure wiki has more history or definition articles than science articles.

Now, if the guy writing the article wanted to do some actual RESEARCH, he might have looked around at other big wiki-type works, like TV Tropes, which (by google analytics) is 34% female, and has more people over 45 than under 17.

Mike T-
if we had a culture where guys would act like adults, instead of farm animals, I'd agree with you. I've found too many guys depend on the office rules to prevent them from being malicious, counter-productive (to the entire enterprise) jerks.
Cursing? Telling some rude jokes? Not a big deal. Harassing women because they can get a reaction out of them, along the lines of immature college boys, wasting the time they're supposed to be working and making it impossible for her to work? Problem.
We're too far in the other way right now, but wiping out all non-criminal-action level stuff isn't the solution. (Although getting rid of "work groups" might almost be worth it... I hate the "work in a group" stuff, I always seem to do it myself with chattering idiots watching.)

Cursing? Telling some rude jokes? Not a big deal. Harassing women because they can get a reaction out of them, along the lines of immature college boys, wasting the time they're supposed to be working and making it impossible for her to work? Problem.

We're too far in the other way right now, but wiping out all non-criminal-action level stuff isn't the solution.

Why should the state care if a woman cannot get her work done because her coworkers are behaving like frat boys?

if we had a culture where guys would act like adults, instead of farm animals, I'd agree with you.

Amen to that Foxfier. I recall reading a study some time back which contrasted male behavior in the presence of females with the behavior of men amongst themselves. Perhaps counter-intuitively, men were much less cruel, abusive and vulgar among themselves. Less bullying in all-male schools, for instance. There's something about the presence of women (competition for female attention?) that brings out the worst in a minority of men, which then sets the tone for the rest.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, men were much less cruel, abusive and vulgar among themselves. Less bullying in all-male schools, for instance. There's something about the presence of women (competition for female attention?) that brings out the worst in a minority of men, which then sets the tone for the rest.

It's not counter-intuitive in the least. Bullies are typically lower status men who have to behave like thugs in order to get power and status. The sort of men who are naturally good with women don't have to be jerks to the majority of men.

Should I assume you agree with Foxfier that all of the laws governing workplace behavior should remain in effect until men generally behave as you think they should? The point I made, that she disagreed with, is that the state should step aside and let businesses determine everything here.

As Lydia hinted, the laws in question artificially feminize the workplace. Take them away, and it's up to business to determine what is too uncouth and harmful to maintain employment. When that happens, the workplace will be less inviting and traditional motherhood more attractive to American women.

Should I assume you agree with Foxfier that all of the laws governing workplace behavior should remain in effect until men generally behave as you think they should?

I'm not an absolutist on this, but for the most part I'm against government telling businesses how their employees must behave beyond certain minimums. I'd have to take each law individually. For example I'm fine with banning the Playboy pinups, but not the whiskey. ;-)

I would much rather that Playboy pinups were outlawed as pornography than in this squirrely, feminist way that says that they "create a hostile work environment."

I agree, Lydia. But if the term "hostile work environment" were not so PC I wouldn't hesitate to use it. One of my first jobs out of high school was in a fabrication shop where the walls were plastered with the vilest hard-core pornography. When the office lady came out to deliver our checks at the end of the week I could hardly look her in the face.

Jeff C: "There's something about the presence of women (competition for female attention?) that brings out the worst in a minority of men..."

Well, indeed. 'Cause the sad fact of the matter is that lots of women - and not just the misfits among them - have a weakness for "cruel, abusive and vulgar" bullies. When they witness conflicts between such bullies and the authorities, they instinctively sympathize with the bully. They can't help wanting to help & to save him, far beyond their strength to do so.

Evolutionary theorists have plausible "just-so" stories to tell about this depressing phenomenon. I'm not sure that anybody else does.

Mike T writes: "Bullies are typically lower status men who have to behave like thugs in order to get power and status."

What Mike T *doesn't* write is that *this is an effective strategy* - otherwise, they wouldn't do it.

I just shudder when I think back to my brief stint as a high-school teacher, watching seemingly intelligent, sensitive young girls swooning over the most aggressive morons and malcontents.

Should I assume you agree with Foxfier that all of the laws governing workplace behavior should remain in effect until men generally behave as you think they should? The point I made, that she disagreed with, is that the state should step aside and let businesses determine everything here.

Not what I said, nor what I meant.

To turn it around, do you reject that we should have laws at all? It's just forcing people to behave as we think they should.

Some of the garbage guys did and do get away with in absence of laws should not be legal-- I don't like "hostile work environment" either, but harassing someone at work is flat wrong. Not as bad as harassment at home, but a step above harassing at a bar.

The laws are largely women-based because that's where the attention was when they were made. They should be applied fairly to guys as well, since there is NO shortage of women who do stuff that would be criminal if they did it anywhere but at work under the color of fighting a "hostile work environment." I'm a big fan of coming down like a ton of bricks on malicious accusations, since that's assault with law. (Had a roommate in the Navy that accused her entire shop of sexual harassment. The ONLY reason it was not enforced, entirely on her word, was that the only other female in the shop taunted her that it wouldn't do much to the female's career-- so the b**ch accused the gal's fiancée of sexual assault. Thank God she choose a time of supposed assault when he was in another state, in front of a half-dozen high ranking officers. The b**ch suffered no punishment.)

Steve Burton-
I just shudder when I think back to my brief stint as a high-school teacher, watching seemingly intelligent, sensitive young girls swooning over the most aggressive morons and malcontents.

I don't understand women, and I am one. We had two blankers that got a girl killed-- they were drunk, so the forced a drunk 15 year old to drive them home, and he hit the girl's car as she was headed home after a late study group-- and they suddenly had double the number of girls trying to date them. The thing that breaks my heart is the women who go from one user to another. Yeah, there seems to be a trend that they don't have strong father figures, or that they're emotionally immature, but it's only a trend-- girls with great relationships with their fathers who are by all appearances perfectly sane and mature will still try to "help" the raging, violent donkeys. Misplaced mothering instinct as another angle? Who knows.....

I guess there's something to be said for being a nerdy girl. I was always angrily terrified of bullying guys. Which didn't mean that I was looking for a feminized male, either. But the big bully types I hated with a kind of un-Christian virulence that I think one finds only in a bookish female who has been told in no uncertain terms by that sort of man that she is unattractive. Thus are feminists born. I suppose I escaped being a feminist by the grace of God alone.

What Mike T *doesn't* write is that *this is an effective strategy* - otherwise, they wouldn't do it.

And there are effective strategies for civilized men to contain it. There is nothing more devastating to a bully that to be first intellectually trounced, then physically trounced, by a gentleman.

I just shudder when I think back to my brief stint as a high-school teacher, watching seemingly intelligent, sensitive young girls swooning over the most aggressive morons and malcontents.

It's because women are primarily status oriented in what sexually motivates them, whereas men are visual. It has to do with our reproductive instincts. The primal reaction there is no different (or worse) than dumb teenage boys who get so caught up in a woman's beauty that they ignore the fact that she's a total bitch or slut.

Where we are falling down today is that we refuse to use this information about human nature to train some wisdom and self-control into teens. I think it offends certain romantic views about how the past was. To a large extent, I don't think conservatives have really purged themselves of the Victorian myth of innate female moral superiority which is a key reason why they tend to regard women who give into these attractions as victims rather than as people who acted foolishly (as one would regard a man who let a woman's looks cloud his perception of her character when choosing to date her).

But the big bully types I hated with a kind of un-Christian virulence that I think one finds only in a bookish female who has been told in no uncertain terms by that sort of man that she is unattractive. Thus are feminists born.

Considering what statistically follows when they get involved with the women they desire, you ended up with the last laugh. Nothing says "causality is a bitch" like such a man getting divorced and crushed through the courts by a bitter and cold woman.

Some of the garbage guys did and do get away with in absence of laws should not be legal-- I don't like "hostile work environment" either, but harassing someone at work is flat wrong. Not as bad as harassment at home, but a step above harassing at a bar.

The laws are largely women-based because that's where the attention was when they were made. They should be applied fairly to guys as well, since there is NO shortage of women who do stuff that would be criminal if they did it anywhere but at work under the color of fighting a "hostile work environment." I'm a big fan of coming down like a ton of bricks on malicious accusations, since that's assault with law.

Again, you're missing the point. If something is illegal for a good, objective reason, it is a legitimate state interest in what happens on the job. It doesn't matter where it happens, it is just as illegal in the home as in the office. The vast majority of "hostile work environment" issues don't fit that in the least.

Your safety, not your peace of mind, is the legitimate state interest.

Your safety, not your peace of mind, is the legitimate state interest.

Who the heck said anything about 'peace of mind'? There are all sorts of laws against making a reasonable person's life unbearable that aren't directly related to a physical threat/safety. Stalking, phone harassment, interfering with their lawful, day-to-day activities, etc-- not a matter of safety, but they do fall into that whole doing what you have a right to do.

You are missing the point, again-- just like you did when you thought I want "all of the laws governing workplace behavior should remain in effect until men generally behave as you think they should" in spite of my stating that we were too far in the over-regulation direction. I already pointed out that the laws go too far, are poorly enforced, etc.

That said, harassment is still illegal, and making sure businesses don't foster that illegal activity-- even by just not doing anything to stop it when it happens on their ground-- is valid. Protecting the rights of women to engage in lawful day-to-day activities without being harassed is valid, and is sadly becoming more needed as the culture shatters and scatters.

I bet a decent lawyer could build a good case on workplace harassment being a form of property damage, since if it impacts someone's ability to do their work as they could in an environment a reasonable person could expect, it has costs associated.
(Same theory behind that banker that has...ah... great assets and always wore tight clothing being fired when she wouldn't dress more appropriately. I understand why the guys who complained won't come forward, but they've got as much of a right to a reasonable work environment as anybody.)

Protecting the rights of women to engage in lawful day-to-day activities without being harassed is valid, and is sadly becoming more needed as the culture shatters and scatters.

I agree with the principle (although I have doubts about the idea of defining "hostile work environment"). But I don't think that law is going to be able to stem the tide as the culture shatters. What is more likely to happen is that law will be a tool in the hands of the manipulative instead of a tool in the hands of the just. Those who are unjust in their hearts won't care what the law is supposed to be for, they only care about what the law can be made to do. And as the culture shatters, the ranks of those are unjust in their hearts will swell, as the population finds justice doesn't pay enough.

I don't think that we should do away with workplace laws against harassment. Harassment is immoral anyway, and it DOES affect people's ability to work. What I would like to see is a workplace that holds way fewer women in 9-to-5 every day jobs present alongside the men, instead of in equal numbers. That feature of the workplace is socially damaging also, and adversely affects the ability to raise a family.

Foxfier,

Your entire comment above contradicts any claim about not liking "hostile work environment laws." You've advocated "a right to" everything they protect.

That is not to say that phone harassment or stalking should be legal, but rather that they are separate issues from the workplace. I'm not interested in discussing things which should be illegal in any context. Your comment above makes it clear that you see a very wide range of non-criminal offensive and annoying behavior which should be turned into a tort or crime.

Steve, nicely put but I think Kevin J Jones made a valid point: This could be equally about the young, like Srikeit the cricket-fan from India, being more adept at spotting ‘edit’ keys. You can’t criticise those who don’t pull their weight unless you think they have a weight to pull! We can't prevent girls from being nurtured to believe that all women are for in life is to become instruments for the propagation of the species. How can we ensure women aren't made to feel they carry no weight?

Lydia, I admit I haven’t been called ugly to my face; people were probably more polite where I grew up. Still, I see no reason for those of us less attractive than Mrs Palin to end up ‘right’ of her! I agree it must be some formidable power which placed you in that spot analogous to black defenders of Jim Crow.

Mike T, it looks like you have reasons to dislike women; but employees get paid for doing a day’s work, not for causing the constructive dismissal of half the workforce so as to pave their own way to promotion! Employers certainly have a direct interest in maintaining a work environment which won’t distract from or inhibit the job being done.

Mike T, it looks like you have reasons to dislike women; but employees get paid for doing a day’s work, not for causing the constructive dismissal of half the workforce so as to pave their own way to promotion! Employers certainly have a direct interest in maintaining a work environment which won’t distract from or inhibit the job being done.

Thanks for reiterating my point that the state is not needed for this.

Mike T, it looks like you have reasons to dislike women;

To the contrary. I like women a lot. I'm just not sentimental about women the way the average conservative is. Do you see me lamenting the attraction of good women to thugs anymore than good men to beauty c---s? Nope. I recognize human nature for what it is and don't fault female nature anymore than male nature.

The root of the disagreement here between me and others is that I perceive the laws that others here want to support as being critical legal supports for the environment we oppose. Any good they may do is inconsequential to me as they are a serious obstacle to social conservative goals. Thus I advocate for their removal, even if the result would be mistreatment of individual workers here and there in the interim. To me, that is nothing more than a cold, hard-headed realization of where policy should be directed.

Of course, this is all hypothetical as social conservatives have almost no meaningful representation in the body politic. What passes for them are establishment republicans who use very vocal opposition to anything homosexual as a smokescreen for their own latent homosexuality (*Cough*Lindsey Graham*Cough*Larry Craig*Cough*) and other problems.

Mike T-
Your entire comment above contradicts any claim about not liking "hostile work environment laws."

You either still don't understand what I am actually saying-- probable, since your statements of what I am saying keep being off the mark--or your notion of abusively restrictive 'hostile work environment' laws is insanely broad.

It boils down to going to work means you surrender a large portion of your ability to exercise freedom of association to your employer. They, in turn, have the responsibility to reasonably protect that right. Same as having a (reasonable) safe work environment. Those laws get abused too, but that is the nature of laws-- they get abused. Doesn't mean that not having any is better. (Didn't that movie, "A Man For All Seasons," have a lovely discussion on this topic?)

If something is illegal for a good, objective reason, it is a legitimate state interest in what happens on the job.

Ah, the real root of the problem, I suspect-- you disagree on what is a "good, objective reason."

Kinda like the guys who think sexual harassment by the boss, or teenage boys sleeping with their teacher, is fine-- it doesn't bother them personally, so they see no reason to have a rule against it.

Tony-
What is more likely to happen is that law will be a tool in the hands of the manipulative instead of a tool in the hands of the just. Those who are unjust in their hearts won't care what the law is supposed to be for, they only care about what the law can be made to do. And as the culture shatters, the ranks of those are unjust in their hearts will swell, as the population finds justice doesn't pay enough.

Systems will always be abused. It's probably not possible to write a law that can't be used as a weapon-- see the old stories about evil genies twisting wishes. (I believe that's part of why we have judges, jury nullification and such?) It's sort of like the old joke about democracy-- it's the worst possible form of government, except for all the rest.

Just because something isn't a perfect fix does not mean that it isn't the best (reasonable/obtainable) fix for a situation.

I don't think that we should do away with workplace laws against harassment. Harassment is immoral anyway, and it DOES affect people's ability to work. What I would like to see is a workplace that holds way fewer women in 9-to-5 every day jobs present alongside the men, instead of in equal numbers. That feature of the workplace is socially damaging also, and adversely affects the ability to raise a family.

Different topic, but-- while I don't see how it could be dealt with via laws-- I'd like it if more women were at home with their kids, too. Most of the kids when I was growing up had problems socializing with adults because they'd never really had a chance with their parents. My mom and dad, working on a ranch, were able to be around us almost all the time we weren't at school. Part of the issue with that wish is that a lot of kids only have a single parent at home.
There is some hope in the work-from-home type businesses, or the few family businesses that allow kids to be with the parents while they do their job. Long, slow process at best, though.

You either still don't understand what I am actually saying-- probable, since your statements of what I am saying keep being off the mark--or your notion of abusively restrictive 'hostile work environment' laws is insanely broad. It boils down to going to work means you surrender a large portion of your ability to exercise freedom of association to your employer. They, in turn, have the responsibility to reasonably protect that right. Same as having a (reasonable) safe work environment. Those laws get abused too, but that is the nature of laws-- they get abused. Doesn't mean that not having any is better. (Didn't that movie, "A Man For All Seasons," have a lovely discussion on this topic?)

I actually have a good idea where you stand. I disagree with you on the degree to what should be restricted. I think if a man propositions a woman every hour, on the hour, on the job that she should have no legal right to stop that behavior. It should be entirely up to the employer to contain his behavior by disciplining or firing him. Same goes for many other forms of annoying behavior... sorry... "harassment."

What I don't think you realize about my position, which I hinted at above, is that I'm not interested in a discussion of whether this is good for women now, but effective for achieving social conservative goals regarding the reordering of society in favor of the traditional family. In fact, I freely admit that in the interim it would not be pleasant. However, if it undoes much of what the left has accomplished, I don't regard that unpleasantness as a counterbalance to the good caused by undoing much of the left's progress.

Let's be clear about something. The left did the damage they did by ripping out the laws on which traditional marriage and community depended. They erected their own system in its place. Only naive romantics believe that at some point we won't have to respond in kind if we want to win.

Mike T

That what you or Lydia call ‘feminisation' may have made the workplace less inviting to men is not exactly the leading cause of male unemployment at present! So why would you expect that a workplace less inviting to women might suddenly increase female unemployment? It’s an employers’ market and competition is fierce, but it’s just an arbitrary assumption that were the victimisation of employees to become legal and not be resisted by employers, then it would be restricted to women only: Men would be equally if not more at risk, as they’re still more likely to be candidates for that promotion. So I don’t see anything particularly ‘feminist’ about the concept of constructive dismissal. Perhaps you mean the workforce rather than the employers to decide over staff retention; but you can’t hope to implement any non-Maoist agenda in such a haphazard way.

My mom and dad, working on a ranch, were able to be around us almost all the time we weren't at school. Part of the issue with that wish is that a lot of kids only have a single parent at home.

This is, in part ,because people no longer understand what love means. Love was re-defined in the 1960s as a feeling. In fact, love is like a candle: it gives light and warmth to others as it spends itself. We have single-parent families, for the most part, because people are selfish. Don't quote me statistics about poverty. Even poor people can be selfish. The Pill is medicated selfishness; living by feelings is personalized selfishness; living by handouts when on is able to do otherwise is socialized selfishness. No wonder Scripture says to avoid greed in all its forms.

The Chicken

I think it's probably not very common that the "hostile work environment" rules are enforced in favor of men qua men who are being bullied. Men qua minorities or member of some religious group, sure, but women sexually harassing or creating a hostile work environment for men? I doubt it.

Lydia

I don’t know and it’s unlikely we’ll find out; Mike T apparently agrees that employers have a vested interest in fostering an environment that won’t hinder the job getting done. How this constitutes an argument against employment legislation - i.e. that it’s precisely what a rational employer would want to have in place anyway - is beyond me, but the counterfactual situation I describe stipulates the absence of both legislation and company policy, which is why it will remain counterfactual. My guess is that the targets would be the people most likely to be favoured by the management and perceived as 'threats', and those wouldn’t be members of minorities or part-timers.

Businesses aren’t charitable institutions set up to do either bullies or women a favour; they know what they want and how to go about it. Nobody would put up with so-called conservative ‘Christian gentlemen’ roaming free to create havoc for the sake of creating havoc starting with elbowing women out of the workplace because women are so well suited to the work-environment that Blanche Dubois needs the environment to change! No wonder such ideas aren’t well represented in mainstream politics. Mike T didn’t deny it would suit his own ambitions to drive women out of business; what I’m saying is don’t cut your nose to spite your face.

Not all working women are mums and not all who are mums have dependent kids living at home. Want to encourage mums to stay at home with baby till age X when it’s off to school? Lobby for an X-year-long paid maternity leave and be prepared to finance expenditure through increased taxation or NI contributions. Being prepared to put our hands in our pockets is a fine measure of our commitment to an agenda.

Overseas,

That what you or Lydia call ‘feminisation' may have made the workplace less inviting to men is not exactly the leading cause of male unemployment at present!

I never claimed it was. Your statement here is completely non sequitor to my point, as I am not concerned with male unemployment now.

How this constitutes an argument against employment legislation - i.e. that it’s precisely what a rational employer would want to have in place anyway - is beyond me

Then you're not thinking very hard if it is "beyond you." A hypothetical, rational employer wouldn't want a club with which their employee could beat them with, even if they felt they'd naturally comply with the law's demands if for no other reason than the possibility that a judge and jury wouldn't see things their way.

Like most Westerners, you're only looking at the present. We're living in the last decade(s) of this age of Western civilization. The coming economic and demographic shifts will wash away the foundation that supports modernity. That's why on social issues, I don't argue for a short-term political solution, but for those of the conservative persuasion to steel themselves for the future.

The US is already on the verge of second great depression. Europe is staring down the barrel of a loaded gun thanks to its birth rates, immigration problems, debt levels and the utter idiocy of integrating such wildly different economies into the Eurozone. The damage has already been done demographically which means that it is only inevitable that the economy will follow irrespective of any political action done now.

Well, Mike T, that men don’t resign their jobs because the work environment may not be quite to their liking is not a far-fetched argument for why women won’t necessarily resign their jobs in similar circumstances; unless you think people - or women in particular - go to work because the world of employment has collapsed onto a world of fun. Of course you’re right that no employer would want a club with which their employees could beat them; that’s why they’d sack the ‘Christian gentlemen’ who’d start the Cultural Revolution. Employers have Personnel Departments; they want to stay in charge, and in business.

Westerners have been living ‘in the last decade(s) of this age’ of Western civilization since Western civilization was invented. History was an early invention dating back to the 5th century BC, during the 'Golden Age of Athens', which didn't last into the 4th century; history did. We all have to steel ourselves for the future because it tends to be invisible, and the omens aren’t good right now; I agree with you there. I’m just not as clear as you seem to be about how best to describe the problem: Europe may have a low birth rate but there’s no shortage of humans on the planet; and low birth rates haven’t exactly harmed the Chinese economy. If you have some ideal in mind perhaps you could outline what it looks like: Why would sharp elbows cover your social conservative objectives better than the ‘X-year-long paid maternity leave’ scheme?