The glass ceiling is now made of concrete.

[Loren Pechtel]

There is a difference between 'can't' and 'won't.' Mentoring the next generation always comes with risks. Always. The risk and the inevitable outcome is always that you will be replaced. Because you will be. We will all be replaced. It's supposed to be like that.

Are ALL top CEO's in Sweden male?

If management teams are 50/50 male/female, why can't women mentor other women? Why can't women mentor men? Why can't men leave the damn door open? Why can't men quit 'joking' with women about maternity leave? Do they also joke with men about paternity leave? Why can't men quit telling women they can have a job if the woman will sleep with them? Why do men work while drunk? Why can't men take responsibility for their boorish behavior without using alcohol as an excuse?

1) Mommy track. You would expect CEOs to be predominantly male because of this.

2) This answer doesn't even address the problem--namely that it's gotten too risky for men to mentor women. Down the road that's going to mean fewer women in the boardroom.

 

[Toni]

There is a difference between 'can't' and 'won't.' Mentoring the next generation always comes with risks. Always. The risk and the inevitable outcome is always that you will be replaced. Because you will be. We will all be replaced. It's supposed to be like that.

Are ALL top CEO's in Sweden male?

If management teams are 50/50 male/female, why can't women mentor other women? Why can't women mentor men? Why can't men leave the damn door open? Why can't men quit 'joking' with women about maternity leave? Do they also joke with men about paternity leave? Why can't men quit telling women they can have a job if the woman will sleep with them? Why do men work while drunk? Why can't men take responsibility for their boorish behavior without using alcohol as an excuse?

1) Mommy track. You would expect CEOs to be predominantly male because of this.

2) This answer doesn't even address the problem--namely that it's gotten too risky for men to mentor women. Down the road that's going to mean fewer women in the boardroom.

1. The mommy track and #MeToo are just excuses for men to refuse to promote women. Plenty of women do not have children. Plenty of women with children actually found companies and earn millions of dollars and serve as VP, Pres and CEOs. Plenty of men have children and instead of being penalized are rewarded with promotions and raises.

2. It will always be 'too risky' for chickenshit men to mentor women. Actual men do what is suggested in the article linked in the OP: They are just not jerks.

 

[Toni]

I was never a Seinfeld fan so I never saw the show you are talking about. I still don’t see the relevance. We’re talking about the real world here and not imagined events.

I suggest you read what I actually wrote. I am not discussing what happened on a TV show, but people talking about a TV show!

https://corporate.findlaw.com/human...on-to-executive-fired-over-racy-seinfeld.html

(Note that it seems to have been shot down on a technicality that I don't understand.)

Loren,

Thank you very much for providing a link. Just trying to decipher what you were getting at without the link was beyond my abilities. The link really helps.

My reading of the events of the link are as follows (Please feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding anything. It's a little confusing):

1. 20 years prior to the #MeToo movement. MacKenzie, who was employed by Miller Brewing, attempted to explain an episode of Seinfeld to a female co-worker named Best.
2. Best complained to Miller Brewing, alleging sexual harassment.
3. Shortly after, MacKenzie was fired by Miller Brewing.
4. MacKenzie sued Best and Miller Brewery for interfering with his employment. The jury, comprised of 10 women and 2 men awarded MacKenzie $26M, and found there was no sexual harassment. (FWIW, I think that Seinfeld was a stupid show, and it was a stupid conversation to have with anyone, much less someone at work but I agree that the actions as described in the linked article do not constitute sexual harassment).
5. The decision was appealed and overturned and ultimately the appeal was upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court which ruled there was no sexual harassment but that the firing was not predicated on the allegations of sexual harassment.

It sounds to me like Miller Brewing treated MacKenzie unfairly or at least was dishonest about why they fired him--or he reached the wrong conclusion OR that he purposely misled the court in the initial case about why he was fired, alleging that it was for sexual harassment which didn't actually take place.

I may have misunderstood something but this particular case does not seem to support your thesis that #MeToo is making it too difficult to employ women or to mentor women.

For one thing, the case took place 20 years prior to #MeToo.

More importantly, every single court decision found and upheld that there was NO SEXUAL HARASSMENT. MacKenzie was not fired for sexual harassment, according to Miller Brewing and the court of appeals and Wisconsin Supreme court found also that MacKenzie was not fired for sexual harassment.

My guess is that Mackenzie was a proper asshole and that's why he ultimately was fired. It was only in his own mind that his firing/demotions were due to allegations of sexual harassment. No one aside from Best seems to have thought it was harassment.

I don't know if Mackenzie was a proper asshole. That's just a guess. He may have genuinely thought there was a connection between the allegation of sexual harassment and his demotion/firing. He was successful in arguing this in the original court case. However, ultimately Miller Brewing was able to convince the court that wasn't why he was demoted/fired. Maybe Miller Brewing lied. Maybe MacKenzie lied. Or was simply wrong. Neither would not surprise me at all. He may or may not have been treated unfairly or maybe just badly. Or maybe he was a big enough asshole that he deserved to be let go.

But the important relevant fact here is that NO COURT EVER FOUND THAT THERE WAS SEXUAL HARASSMENT. Ultimately, his firing was found to be justified.

 

[RavenSky]

This answer doesn't even address the problem--namely that it's gotten too risky for men to mentor women. Down the road that's going to mean fewer women in the boardroom.

It has only gotten risky for men who behave in sexually inappropriate ways towards the women they mentor.

 

[skepticalbip]

This answer doesn't even address the problem--namely that it's gotten too risky for men to mentor women. Down the road that's going to mean fewer women in the boardroom.

It has only gotten risky for men who behave in sexually inappropriate ways towards the women they mentor.

No. It has gotten risky for any man that any woman claims had been sexually inappropriate. Not all claims reflect reality. To avoid the chance of being falsely accused, some men choose to never be in a situation (such as alone with a woman in the work place) where the woman's claim could be believed.

You seem to be intentionally missing the point Loren has been making which is really making Loren's point that any claim of sexually inappropriate behavior made by a woman is now taken as necessarily true.

If this trend continues then the only men that women should be afraid to be alone with at work are the men that are willing to be alone with them.

 

[Toni]

This answer doesn't even address the problem--namely that it's gotten too risky for men to mentor women. Down the road that's going to mean fewer women in the boardroom.

It has only gotten risky for men who behave in sexually inappropriate ways towards the women they mentor.

No. It has gotten risky for any man that any woman claims had been sexually inappropriate. Not all claims reflect reality. To avoid the chance of being falsely accused, some men choose to never be in a situation (such as alone with a woman in the work place) where the woman's claim could be believed.

You seem to be intentionally missing the point Loren has been making which is really making Loren's point that any claim of sexually inappropriate behavior made by a woman is now taken as necessarily true.

I won't speak for RavenSky, but I'm still waiting for an example of a woman making a false claim and it harming the man's career.

Dr. Z posted about some men in Sweden who lost careers after accusations but the accusations seem true by Dr. Z's description, although he claims they were false and no big deal because the police didn't prosecute.

Loren posted an article about a man who was accused of harassment and who won a judgment because the harassment allegation was garbage. Unfortunately, the award was overturned because higher courts decided that it was fair that he got fired for reasons other than harassment and that no harassment occurred.

I am really certain that some women make false claims and that some women exaggerate or consider something to be harassment that most people would not. I just haven't seen any evidence that a man has been actually harmed by false claims. By claims: yes, but they seem pretty legit to me. Harmed by companies behaving badly (Loren's example) yes, but in all cases, courts found that there was no harassment so that wasn't what got the guy in trouble.

Even the article posted in the OP ends with a man saying that men need to not be jerks as a solution to the perception of a problem.

 

[skepticalbip]

No. It has gotten risky for any man that any woman claims had been sexually inappropriate. Not all claims reflect reality. To avoid the chance of being falsely accused, some men choose to never be in a situation (such as alone with a woman in the work place) where the woman's claim could be believed.

You seem to be intentionally missing the point Loren has been making which is really making Loren's point that any claim of sexually inappropriate behavior made by a woman is now taken as necessarily true.

I won't speak for RavenSky, but I'm still waiting for an example of a woman making a false claim and it harming the man's career.

Dr. Z posted about some men in Sweden who lost careers after accusations but the accusations seem true by Dr. Z's description, although he claims they were false and no big deal because the police didn't prosecute.

Loren posted an article about a man who was accused of harassment and who won a judgment because the harassment allegation was garbage. Unfortunately, the award was overturned because higher courts decided that it was fair that he got fired for reasons other than harassment and that no harassment occurred.

I am really certain that some women make false claims and that some women exaggerate or consider something to be harassment that most people would not. I just haven't seen any evidence that a man has been actually harmed by false claims. By claims: yes, but they seem pretty legit to me. Harmed by companies behaving badly (Loren's example) yes, but in all cases, courts found that there was no harassment so that wasn't what got the guy in trouble.

Even the article posted in the OP ends with a man saying that men need to not be jerks as a solution to the perception of a problem.

Indeed, some women make false claims. Men have been fired because of them. Very few of these end up in a court case. Lawyers are expensive.

 

[Toni]

No. It has gotten risky for any man that any woman claims had been sexually inappropriate. Not all claims reflect reality. To avoid the chance of being falsely accused, some men choose to never be in a situation (such as alone with a woman in the work place) where the woman's claim could be believed.

You seem to be intentionally missing the point Loren has been making which is really making Loren's point that any claim of sexually inappropriate behavior made by a woman is now taken as necessarily true.

I won't speak for RavenSky, but I'm still waiting for an example of a woman making a false claim and it harming the man's career.

Dr. Z posted about some men in Sweden who lost careers after accusations but the accusations seem true by Dr. Z's description, although he claims they were false and no big deal because the police didn't prosecute.

Loren posted an article about a man who was accused of harassment and who won a judgment because the harassment allegation was garbage. Unfortunately, the award was overturned because higher courts decided that it was fair that he got fired for reasons other than harassment and that no harassment occurred.

I am really certain that some women make false claims and that some women exaggerate or consider something to be harassment that most people would not. I just haven't seen any evidence that a man has been actually harmed by false claims. By claims: yes, but they seem pretty legit to me. Harmed by companies behaving badly (Loren's example) yes, but in all cases, courts found that there was no harassment so that wasn't what got the guy in trouble.

Even the article posted in the OP ends with a man saying that men need to not be jerks as a solution to the perception of a problem.

Indeed, some women make false claims. Men have been fired because of them. Very few of these end up in a court case. Lawyers are expensive.

That's what the rumor mill says. But it's really hard to take seriously without actual evidence.

FWIW, just as no racist I've ever known, including a member of the KKK would ever admit to being a racist, I know a lot of men who insist they love women and would never engage in any kind of harassment or worse--but who have done some of the following--AT WORK:

tried to force a female co-worker's face into his lap

called a female co-worker who was returning to school stupid because everybody knew women weren't good at math

called female co-workers bitch, cunt and heavily implied whore

openly speculated how soon before woman would go on maternity leave after she announced her upcoming wedding

made it difficult for co-worker to use the company provided lactation room (provided in accordance with company policy to support lactation)

made lewd remarks about a co-worker's daughter after seeing daughter's photograph

Crap, it's late and I'm tired and all of this makes me more tired.

Here's the thing: all of that is the same guy, a former co-worker who truly sees himself as a 'good guy' who loves women, especially his wife and daughter and mother, sees himself as being fair and honest and supportive of all women. and so on.

 

[skepticalbip]

Indeed, some women make false claims. Men have been fired because of them. Very few of these end up in a court case. Lawyers are expensive.

That's what the rumor mill says. But it's really hard to take seriously without actual evidence.

FWIW, just as no racist I've ever known, including a member of the KKK would ever admit to being a racist, I know a lot of men who insist they love women and would never engage in any kind of harassment or worse--but who have done some of the following--AT WORK:

tried to force a female co-worker's face into his lap

called a female co-worker who was returning to school stupid because everybody knew women weren't good at math

called female co-workers bitch, cunt and heavily implied whore

openly speculated how soon before woman would go on maternity leave after she announced her upcoming wedding

made it difficult for co-worker to use the company provided lactation room (provided in accordance with company policy to support lactation)

made lewd remarks about a co-worker's daughter after seeing daughter's photograph

Crap, it's late and I'm tired and all of this makes me more tired.

Here's the thing: all of that is the same guy, a former co-worker who truly sees himself as a 'good guy' who loves women, especially his wife and daughter and mother, sees himself as being fair and honest and supportive of all women. and so on.

Just damned, you seem to really need to get some perspective. One ass hole does not identify an entire gender. If it did then I would have absolutely nothing to do with any female because I have run into a few really despicable females in my life. You seem to have some unresolved anger issues, perhaps?

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is a difference between 'can't' and 'won't.' Mentoring the next generation always comes with risks. Always.

No, it doesn't. The only risk is that you're wasting your time with someone who doesn't cut it.

The risk and the inevitable outcome is always that you will be replaced. Because you will be. We will all be replaced. It's supposed to be like that.

That's not a risk. That's a desired outcome.

Are ALL top CEO's in Sweden male?

About 80%. At the moment Sweden is the most gender equal country in the world.

If management teams are 50/50 male/female,

They're usually not. But when they are, that's to everyone's benefit.

why can't women mentor other women? Why can't women mentor men?

I have never said they couldn't. I'm also pretty sure that we're all also better off if we select candidates for mentoring based on competence rather than gender. So women mentoring women and men mentoring men, is a terrible idea. I think that's what is going to happen. But it's still a terrible idea.

Why can't men leave the damn door open?

We've talked about this in this thread already. We're talking about different things. This isn't a meeting now and again. This is a much more hands on and intimate affair. It's comparable to adopting a child. The mentor typically gets involved in all aspects of the mentored life. Being a top level manager/CEO is a massive commitment and time and energy. It's not just a job. It's an entire lifestyle. The mentored is going to spend many nights sleeping over at the mentors house, and being in hotel rooms, elevators and taxis together... alone. Lot's of two-on-two lunches and dinners. Not to mention all the parties and vacations spent together. Social functions. Situations where there's alcohol and typically plenty of sexual tension. Not between the mentor and mentored, but around them.

Why can't men quit 'joking' with women about maternity leave?

So you're going to police humour now? Of everything you've said in this thread, this is the dumbest. If we're relaxed and happy, jokes just pop out. If we're not relaxed and happy... get another damn job. Funny is funny. It doesn't matter how offensive a joke is, if it's funny, it's always appropriate. But it's got to be funny. That's the only rule. And I wouldn't want to work somewhere where people don't feel free enough to tell any jokes. It's an important part of making life bearable.

The fact that you think that policing humour is normal or even desirable, tells us about how anxious and uptight you are. You don't sound like a happy person?

Do they also joke with men about paternity leave?

Obviously. They're not going to stop. Better to get used to it.

Why can't men quit telling women they can have a job if the woman will sleep with them?

Because it's a trope? All tropes are prime fuel for good jokes.

Why do men work while drunk?

I think this is standard if you're a journalist. They're also never not working. It's a 24/7 job. So unless they're completely sober they'll at some point during the workday work drunk.

Why can't men take responsibility for their boorish behavior without using alcohol as an excuse?

Do they? I don't think it's ever an acceptable excuse. It's a common explanation. But I've never heard it used as an excuse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There is a difference between 'can't' and 'won't.' Mentoring the next generation always comes with risks. Always. The risk and the inevitable outcome is always that you will be replaced. Because you will be. We will all be replaced. It's supposed to be like that.

Are ALL top CEO's in Sweden male?

If management teams are 50/50 male/female, why can't women mentor other women? Why can't women mentor men? Why can't men leave the damn door open? Why can't men quit 'joking' with women about maternity leave? Do they also joke with men about paternity leave? Why can't men quit telling women they can have a job if the woman will sleep with them? Why do men work while drunk? Why can't men take responsibility for their boorish behavior without using alcohol as an excuse?

1) Mommy track. You would expect CEOs to be predominantly male because of this.

Sweden has heavily subsidised daycare. In Sweden there's zero reason for any woman to be a stay at home mom. The entire Swedish tax system is designed to encourage women to work. Being a stay at home mom in Sweden is very expensive and is not going to be worth it. In Sweden having children, for men or women, is not seen as an obstacle to make a career or be a top level CEO.

But even so, Sweden has the worlds most gendered work force. Women go for female coded jobs more here than anywhere else, and the same for male coded jobs. This is interesting sociologically.

 

[Toni]

Indeed, some women make false claims. Men have been fired because of them. Very few of these end up in a court case. Lawyers are expensive.

That's what the rumor mill says. But it's really hard to take seriously without actual evidence.

FWIW, just as no racist I've ever known, including a member of the KKK would ever admit to being a racist, I know a lot of men who insist they love women and would never engage in any kind of harassment or worse--but who have done some of the following--AT WORK:

tried to force a female co-worker's face into his lap

called a female co-worker who was returning to school stupid because everybody knew women weren't good at math

called female co-workers bitch, cunt and heavily implied whore

openly speculated how soon before woman would go on maternity leave after she announced her upcoming wedding

made it difficult for co-worker to use the company provided lactation room (provided in accordance with company policy to support lactation)

made lewd remarks about a co-worker's daughter after seeing daughter's photograph

Crap, it's late and I'm tired and all of this makes me more tired.

Here's the thing: all of that is the same guy, a former co-worker who truly sees himself as a 'good guy' who loves women, especially his wife and daughter and mother, sees himself as being fair and honest and supportive of all women. and so on.

Just damned, you seem to really need to get some perspective. One ass hole does not identify an entire gender. If it did then I would have absolutely nothing to do with any female because I have run into a few really despicable females in my life. You seem to have some unresolved anger issues, perhaps?

Who said one asshole defined an entire gender?

I simply used one asshole as an example of someone who truly, truly believes he is an excellent human being ---despite some very despicable behavior.

There are a lot of people out there who consider themselves to be very good people. Who don't think that their racism or sexism or homophobia or whatever is actually...bad. Or racist or sexist or homophobic. A whole lot of them think they're just being honest. Or in the case of my guy in the example: funny.



And yeah, I know some pretty horrible women, too.

 

[Toni]

No, it doesn't. The only risk is that you're wasting your time with someone who doesn't cut it.

Then there is no reason to not mentor women.

But I would disagree. There certainly are people in power who fear being replaced, even as they acknowledge that it is inevitable. And more than a few who find that a lot more palatable when their replacement closely mirrors the mentor. For plenty, that means being of the same gender.

I have never said they couldn't. I'm also pretty sure that we're all also better off if we select candidates for mentoring based on competence rather than gender. So women mentoring women and men mentoring men, is a terrible idea. I think that's what is going to happen. But it's still a terrible idea.

I agree that it is much better if candidates are selected based on their qualifications and not their gender (or race or gender identity, etc.). I don't believe that

We've talked about this in this thread already. We're talking about different things. This isn't a meeting now and again. This is a much more hands on and intimate affair. It's comparable to adopting a child. The mentor typically gets involved in all aspects of the mentored life. Being a top level manager/CEO is a massive commitment and time and energy. It's not just a job. It's an entire lifestyle. The mentored is going to spend many nights sleeping over at the mentors house, and being in hotel rooms, elevators and taxis together... alone. Lot's of two-on-two lunches and dinners. Not to mention all the parties and vacations spent together. Social functions. Situations where there's alcohol and typically plenty of sexual tension. Not between the mentor and mentored, but around them.

So, what you're saying is that men mentoring other men have difficulty keeping it professional? That they are often attracted to one another? I'm assuming you are talking about straight men, here. But what about gay men being mentored by straight men? Gay men mentoring straight men? Gay men mentoring gay men?

In the US, there is increasingly a move away from situations where alcohol is mixed in with business, at least in great quantities.

So you're going to police humour now? Of everything you've said in this thread, this is the dumbest. If we're relaxed and happy, jokes just pop out. If we're not relaxed and happy... get another damn job. Funny is funny. It doesn't matter how offensive a joke is, if it's funny, it's always appropriate. But it's got to be funny. That's the only rule. And I wouldn't want to work somewhere where people don't feel free enough to tell any jokes. It's an important part of making life bearable.

So, blackface is fine in Sweden? Racist humor is ok? Gay bashing is fine as long as it's funny?

The fact that you think that policing humour is normal or even desirable, tells us about how anxious and uptight you are. You don't sound like a happy person?

Project much?

Pretty much every adult younger than my father (may he rest in peace) that I know is able to know the difference between a joke that is funny and a joke whose humor depends on ridiculing some other group. And I'm not a young woman. People know their audience and know what is appropriate at work vs in a social situation. At least mature, thoughtful people do.

Why can't men quit telling women they can have a job if the woman will sleep with them?

Because it's a trope? All tropes are prime fuel for good jokes.

Maybe trope means something different in Sweden. It sounds to me like you are confusing trope with stereotype.

Feedback
Web results
Trope | Definition of Trope by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trope
Definition of trope. 1a : a word or expression used in a figurative sense : figure of speech. b : a common or overused theme or device : cliché the usual horror movie tropes. 2 : a phrase or verse added as an embellishment or interpolation to the sung parts of the Mass in the Middle Ages.

I think this is standard if you're a journalist. They're also never not working. It's a 24/7 job. So unless they're completely sober they'll at some point during the workday work drunk.

I didn't realize how great a problem alcoholism is in Sweden.

Why can't men take responsibility for their boorish behavior without using alcohol as an excuse?

Do they? I don't think it's ever an acceptable excuse. It's a common explanation. But I've never heard it used as an excuse.

You seemed to use it as an excuse upthread. Now you seem to be splitting hairs so fine that it's a miracle.

It's not acceptable to behave badly towards other people. It's worse when you blame it on alcohol consumption--and accept alcohol consumption as a given.

 

[laughing dog]

But what people worry about isn't generally based off of empirical data sets, whether or not they should be.

We don't have any good data that male executives are reacting this way in any significant numbers.

It'll take many years before it shows effect. The women already on the inside of these major companies aren't going to get kicked out. They've already proved they can be trusted. Nor effect older women that much. It's the young women who are now going to be treated like they are toxic. We'll in the coming years see a drop off of young female interns who are fast tracked for high level management positions. On the numbers that are measurable on the outside in the companies the numbers will be fine for about 10 years and then I predict a sharp decline of women on high level management positions. But of course, on the inside of these companies it's already obvious. Just talking to them says it all.

I hang out with top level managers and CEO's of Stockholm. I can hear how they're talking. They're all afraid of taking on young women now. It's genuine fear. They're all terrified that things they've said in the past can be used against them. Nobody knows if they're safe, because the incriminating statements are always taken out of context. According to the rules of #MeToo I'm sure all men are guilty. Because #MeToo ignores how men actually talk. Or I shouldn't say men... I mean humans.

If what you say is true, look for a continuing fall in the Swedish GDP rate of growth, because, if those men are a true representative sample of Swedish male management, Sweden is screwed royal.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Then there is no reason to not mentor women.

But I would disagree. There certainly are people in power who fear being replaced, even as they acknowledge that it is inevitable. And more than a few who find that a lot more palatable when their replacement closely mirrors the mentor. For plenty, that means being of the same gender.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I think you're just fantasizing now about something you know nothing about. High level managers put quite a lot of effort into helping young people for a variety of motivations.

For plenty, that means being of the same gender.

How the fuck do you "know" this? How did the line of reasoning go to the point where you thought this was an inciteful peace of information? It's absolute nonsense. I think it's the opposite. I think most of these men would prefer women to mentor, because there's less of them. There's only a tiny pool of young people with the required talent and ambition necessary.

We've talked about this in this thread already. We're talking about different things. This isn't a meeting now and again. This is a much more hands on and intimate affair. It's comparable to adopting a child. The mentor typically gets involved in all aspects of the mentored life. Being a top level manager/CEO is a massive commitment and time and energy. It's not just a job. It's an entire lifestyle. The mentored is going to spend many nights sleeping over at the mentors house, and being in hotel rooms, elevators and taxis together... alone. Lot's of two-on-two lunches and dinners. Not to mention all the parties and vacations spent together. Social functions. Situations where there's alcohol and typically plenty of sexual tension. Not between the mentor and mentored, but around them.

So, what you're saying is that men mentoring other men have difficulty keeping it professional? That they are often attracted to one another? I'm assuming you are talking about straight men, here. But what about gay men being mentored by straight men? Gay men mentoring straight men? Gay men mentoring gay men?

WTF is your problem? I don't know why you wrote this? You clearly have no interest in having an adult conversation about this.

In the US, there is increasingly a move away from situations where alcohol is mixed in with business, at least in great quantities.

Well... I guess USA can't be great at everything. I hope it gets better over there in time. We can only hope.

So you're going to police humour now? Of everything you've said in this thread, this is the dumbest. If we're relaxed and happy, jokes just pop out. If we're not relaxed and happy... get another damn job. Funny is funny. It doesn't matter how offensive a joke is, if it's funny, it's always appropriate. But it's got to be funny. That's the only rule. And I wouldn't want to work somewhere where people don't feel free enough to tell any jokes. It's an important part of making life bearable.

So, blackface is fine in Sweden? Racist humor is ok? Gay bashing is fine as long as it's funny?

Do you think blackface, racist humour and gay bashing is funny?

Pretty much every adult younger than my father (may he rest in peace) that I know is able to know the difference between a joke that is funny and a joke whose humor depends on ridiculing some other group. And I'm not a young woman. People know their audience and know what is appropriate at work vs in a social situation. At least mature, thoughtful people do.

So you seem to understand how humour works. Good for you. So I don't understand what your problem is?

Anyway... what I wanted to discuss in this thread was how #MeToo's suspension of due process impacts society. Something you've not addressed once in this thread. Instead you seem hellbent on trying to derail the thread. I've given you several second chances, and you keep trying to derail the thread. I have no interest in talking with you any more.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Anyway... what I wanted to discuss in this thread was how #MeToo's suspension of due process impacts society.

Well, a big part of that would be a discussion of examples where this has actually happened. If the examples you provide aren't clear cases of this and others don't see the injustices you're pointing out as actual injustices, then the discussion can't move on to the discussion of the impacts of those injustices.

It's like a Trumpster talking about the need for a large, physical wall across the south of the US to save Americans from the hordes of rapists and murderers streaming across that border. If he wants to take the hordes of rapists and murderers as a given and move on to discussion about what would be the most effective design of the wall but others keep interrupting him and going back to asking why he thinks these hordes are actually coming across, the "concrete vs steel slats" part of the conversation won't make any headway.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Anyway... what I wanted to discuss in this thread was how #MeToo's suspension of due process impacts society.

Well, a big part of that would be a discussion of examples where this has actually happened. If the examples you provide aren't clear cases of this and others don't see the injustices you're pointing out as actual injustices, then the discussion can't move on to the discussion of the impacts of those injustices.

It's like a Trumpster talking about the need for a large, physical wall across the south of the US to save Americans from the hordes of rapists and murderers streaming across that border. If he wants to take the hordes of rapists and murderers as a given and move on to discussion about what would be the most effective design of the wall but others keep interrupting him and going back to asking why he thinks these hordes are actually coming across, the "concrete vs steel slats" part of the conversation won't make any headway.

Do you have any examples of any #MeToo accusation not having immediate impact when the accusation was made, rather than after it had been run through the courts? They're all like that. I think they were all assumed guilty by the public. The only people who made it in one piece were people protected by due process. People like Kavanaugh. Because lawyers are good at following laws. Other than that I don't know? Can you think of any?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Anyway... what I wanted to discuss in this thread was how #MeToo's suspension of due process impacts society.

Well, a big part of that would be a discussion of examples where this has actually happened. If the examples you provide aren't clear cases of this and others don't see the injustices you're pointing out as actual injustices, then the discussion can't move on to the discussion of the impacts of those injustices.

It's like a Trumpster talking about the need for a large, physical wall across the south of the US to save Americans from the hordes of rapists and murderers streaming across that border. If he wants to take the hordes of rapists and murderers as a given and move on to discussion about what would be the most effective design of the wall but others keep interrupting him and going back to asking why he thinks these hordes are actually coming across, the "concrete vs steel slats" part of the conversation won't make any headway.

Do you have any examples of any #MeToo accusation not having immediate impact when the accusation was made, rather than after it had been run through the courts? They're all like that. I think they were all assumed guilty by the public. The only people who made it in one piece were people protected by due process. People like Kavanaugh. Because lawyers are good at following laws. Other than that I don't know? Can you think of any?

You're the one asserting the impact. I don't feel the need to research your own argument for you in order to back up a claim you're unable to back up.

 

[blastula]

Anyway... what I wanted to discuss in this thread was how #MeToo's suspension of due process impacts society.

Well, a big part of that would be a discussion of examples where this has actually happened. If the examples you provide aren't clear cases of this and others don't see the injustices you're pointing out as actual injustices, then the discussion can't move on to the discussion of the impacts of those injustices.

It's like a Trumpster talking about the need for a large, physical wall across the south of the US to save Americans from the hordes of rapists and murderers streaming across that border. If he wants to take the hordes of rapists and murderers as a given and move on to discussion about what would be the most effective design of the wall but others keep interrupting him and going back to asking why he thinks these hordes are actually coming across, the "concrete vs steel slats" part of the conversation won't make any headway.

Do you have any examples of any #MeToo accusation not having immediate impact when the accusation was made, rather than after it had been run through the courts? They're all like that. I think they were all assumed guilty by the public. The only people who made it in one piece were people protected by due process. People like Kavanaugh. Because lawyers are good at following laws. Other than that I don't know? Can you think of any?

What do you mean by due process? Due process protects people from going to jail without a trial. It doesn't protect someone from public criticism. If someone is publicly accused of rape, due process has not been violated.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do you have any examples of any #MeToo accusation not having immediate impact when the accusation was made, rather than after it had been run through the courts? They're all like that. I think they were all assumed guilty by the public. The only people who made it in one piece were people protected by due process. People like Kavanaugh. Because lawyers are good at following laws. Other than that I don't know? Can you think of any?

You're the one asserting the impact. I don't feel the need to research your own argument for you in order to back up a claim you're unable to back up.

What? How could it be any more obvious? It's like demanding evidence for your face having a nose