Question One: What if some woman says this about normal conversation? What if she asked for his views on a topic in some context, then found them unpalatable to her sense of feminist entitlement?
Nothing. If I ask someone "what is your views on black people?" and they say "well, I think that they're stupid baboons who should be put down, alternatively sent back to their continent of Darkness", of course I'm going to feel uneasy but it's not like he's treating me in a degrading manner (not necessarily at least).
Question Two: What if, after your scenario occurs, the person says, "OK. I don't care. If this a violation of company policy, report it to the management. If it isn't, sod off. I personally am only honestly stating my views. That you find them insulting is regrettable, but you were the one who asked me what I thought."
Now what? What if this occurs outside the work environment, but the woman's interpretation of everything after that is coloured by her prejudices from that point on?
Nothing. She might feel insulted, but you didn't go out of your way to be insulting and antagonize her. You feel that way, and you're professional enough not to let your own views affect how you are at your workplace.
The ultimate result of such laws is the stifling of free speech and an atmosphere of pervasive fear. You have to constantly watch what you say because one harridan could land you in jail. These tactics are tyrannical in the extreme. The Soviet Union used them to break up families and destroy all loyalties except to the state, and even that loyalty was one of abject fear. You are making it a crime to think certain thoughts, and to say that you think them All who do not profess belief in your egalitarian vision are liable to be punished under this law. If this is not tyranny, what is?
No, it's not a crime to think that women are useless. But it is a crime if you antagonize a woman for it.
Do we allow Nazis to exist? Yes. If a Nazi and a Jew are co-workers, would we allow a Nazi to verbally harass and degradedly treat the Jew, by, for example, walking up to the Jew and saying "you dirty Jew, you should've died in the holocaust"? No.
If the Nazi and the Jew have a conversation and the Nazi says "I'm a Nazi, I don't like you Jews", does that mean he was treated in a degrading manner? No.
Yes, if you have the choice of walking away. If a man does not find the atmosphere of some workplace congenial, he is free to quit and find a place more to his liking.
If a kid gets bullied at school, is it his responsibility to simply change school? No.
If a man has the choice of getting out of such a situation (where his precious feelings are hurt) but does not exercise it, then from that time forth, he and he alone is responsible. If, on the other hand, he chooses to disassociate himself from that situation, yet somebody follows him after that, that is already covered by normal harassment and stalking laws.
Again, what is the need for a separate category?
Separate category?
It's more like an extension.
So a man may not have the freedom to negotiate what he finds "tolerable"? Different people can tolerate different things, and a single state-mandated policy is utter folly.
You do live in a giant nursery. I never thought that the nanny-state was anything more than a metaphor, but I just realised that it's a very, very real phenomenon. These rules are like the ones parents and nannies apply to children. "Don't talk to <whoever> like that! It's rude!"
I've finally grasped the root of this thing. You want to the state to protect people from having to make the hard choices that life presents us all with, don't you? You want them pre-made for you, the way parents did, or at least hidden. You want the state to insulate you from reality. (When I say you, of course, I mean not you in specific, but a type.)
No. I just don't simply want to deal with my employer or co-worker making comments about my "firm ass", or making insulting jokes about how we men are useless all the time and should just stick to [insert profession or whatever], when I've made it clear that I don't appreciate it.
I go to work to earn my living and possibly make friends. If I wanted to deal with stuff like that I'd become a gigolo.
-
@Cheetah
Ahh, religion. Well, religion is different. The way I've understood it is that you can't treat someone in a degrading manner just because the person happens to be a Muslim. But I can't imagine any court accepting something like "Mohammed was paedophile" as "degrading treatment".
But I'm not a lawyer or anything. This is just how I've understood the laws.
Jämställdhetslagen beskriver sexuella trakasserier som ett uppträdande av sexuell natur som kränker en arbetstagares värdighet, såsom beröring, skämt, tafsande, sexuella förslag eller sexuella bilder. Trakasserier som har samband med kön är också kränkande för en arbetstagares värdighet. Exempel på trakasserier på grund av kön kan vara undanhållande av information, förlöjligande, ignorerande eller nedvärderande generaliseringar av kvinnliga/mannliga egenskaper (JämO 2006).
The Equality Act describes sexual harassment as unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that violates an employee's dignity, such as physical contact, jokes, groping, sexual suggestions or sexual images. Harassment related to gender is also an affront to a worker's dignity. Examples of harassment based on gender may be withholding information, ridiculing, ignoring or disparaging generalizations of female/male properties (JämO 2006)
.
Just to lessen a little of the ambiguity.
