Conference back40::soapbox

    So what's the point of .0? To attack conservatives? Or to talk about
    what is apparently a continuing problem, a problem that years of laws
    and civil judgments has failed to rectify.

    The plaintiffs in the Misubishi case seem to be riding the
    sueing gravy train.  Many women at the Mitsubishi plant have refuted
    their claims or dismissed them as over sensitivity.  

    
      I am waiting for the mother of all class action suits : all
     the people breathing in, suing all the people breathing out.
    
      bb

    Don't forget the case against Cabletron! There was a New Hampshire
    finest moment! The two owners, the short owner was up on
    a table in a restrant, in a poodle skirt (50's style), showin his
    ding-dong to the word at some sort of company Chirstmas party. 
    Talk about cross dressing with a message.:) So,there was a settlement 
    and a wilder than life case. Even funnier is the tall guy owner is 
    going to run for the goveners seat! This case went down about two/three
    years ago.. There was a class act suit against the company and the
    owners. 
    
    There was a case where some woman was horrasing a male subordanite and
    I guess he won. There is that case on going against the 'Hooters'. 
    
     
    

    
    my eyes hurt from reading that last note...

    
    the Hooters case has been dismissed.

    
      I'm curious as to the judicial reasoning.  Did they saw male
     applicant was obviously unqualified ?
    
      bb

    >the Hooters case has been dismissed.
    
     Are you sure? I understand that the Justice Department's (sic) EEO
    case against Hooters has been dropped, but I thought there was some
    sort of lawsuit still pending against Hooters by some individuals.

    The Justice Department did indeed drop it's case against Hooters, as
    they should have.
    
    The issue around the "sexual harrassment" cases popping up today are a
    far cry from the original concept of harrassment.  Right now, as in the
    Mitsubishi case, boorish behavior is termed sexual harrassment.  The
    concept is coming about to talk about a hostile work enviroment.  There
    are a lot of things that can make an individual uncomfortable at work
    and view the environment as hostile, it does not make it sexual
    harrassment.
    
    

    If a female employee is threatened after refusing her 
    managers advances then it is sexual harassment plain and 
    simple.  This was the case at Astra with at least one young 
    woman.

    Do not underestimate the danger a women faces when   
    her manager makes aggressive advances toward her.  This 
    person has power over your future employment, your 
    credibility and reputation.  He also, mostly, has the 
    physical advantage with height and upper body strength.  

    If you take the situation to personnel you stand the very 
    real risk of being the one who is shown the door, if you let
    it go for on any length of time you also stand the same risk.  
    It takes a heck of a lot of luck and quick thinking to avoid 
    and survive such a situation.

    The "hostile work environment" was used when some thickhead of a judge
    dismissed a class action suite from a bunch of women from a factory
    floor.  They reformed their case using the hostile work environment and
    won.  

    
    >>He also, mostly, has the physical advantage with height and 
    >>upper body strength.
    
    i have to chuckle when i see this...only because my boss is barely 5
    feet tall, and i doubt if he weighs 100lbs soaking wet... :>
    
    

    
    you are correct doctah, should have said the Justice Dept's
    investigation. mea culpa

    >Right now, as in the Mitsubishi case, boorish behavior is termed 
    >sexual harrassment.  
    
     Details? I ask because it occurs to me that I saw a short expos� on
    one of the myriad of "news magazines" that detailed some of the
    allegations being made, and the impression I'm left with through my
    hazy recollection is that it went beyond mere boorishness and could be
    legitimately described as sexual harassment.

    maybe rocush thinks that grabbing a woman's breasts and
    behind is a mere act of boorishness.  who knows?
    
    the boyz were just having some fun down on the assembly
    line.

    
    Oph, love your new p_name.

    re. Mark
    
    One of the examples cited in the Mitsubishi case had to do with female
    employees opening their toolboxes or lockers to find that dildoes had
    been thoughtfully provided by male co-workers. [along with a certain
    gathering about and sniggering to see how she reacts]. This was deemed
    "horseplay" when reported.
    
    Other examples cited having one's breasts and/or crotch grabbed. This
    was considered "boorish" when reported.
    
    A lot is being made of men's and women's differing views on horseplay.
    Even so, maybe "horseplay" could fly once or twice, but once it's been
    made clear that a certain type of behaviour really spooks an employee,
    then I think managment has a responsibility to see that the employee
    isn't subjected to it.
    
    [this would also include someguy opening up his toolbox or locker to
    find his girlfriend's face pasted on a porn picture or something ...]
    
    Annie

    why, thank you, mr battis.

    And of course the diversity crowd makes the assumption that all men get
    their jollies by putting dildoes in women's lockers, therefore, we are
    all guilty and in need of sensitivity training.

    how's that satellite dish coming?

    Perhaps it's not such a matter of "all men" getting their jollies by
    putting dildoes in women's lockers as it is a plurality of men finding
    that acceptable behavior. When someone does something like this and
    "everybody" laughs, that sends the perpetrator (and the victim!) the 
    message that the behavior was acceptable. That's how a "hostile work
    environment" is created, even without the active participation of the
    majority. The passive participation of the many lends credence to the
    actions of the few. Ever hear that "all that is needed for evil to
    triumph is for good <people> to do nothing"?

    
    	Is anyone in the mood for cake?
    

    
    I see trouble taking shape.

    The problem is it becomes a guilt by association issue.  Obviously the
    act of doing this is crass, unsophisticated, and plain harrassment.
    So if I'm the guy in the corner who doesn't approve of this, which I do
    not, then it becomes my obligation to tell the perpetrators to grow up?
    
    Well, for the record, I would!

>        <<< Note 719.23 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
    
>    Well, for the record, I would!

	good for you.  now just work on that "bimbo" thing, will you?

    >So if I'm the guy in the corner who doesn't approve of this, which I do
    >not, then it becomes my obligation to tell the perpetrators to grow up?
    
     At the very least, it becomes your obligation not to laugh.

    
    	I actually did have a reason for mentioning "the cake" ... it's
    	strange that I find "the cake incident" amusing while this dildo
    	incident seems like a more obvious form of harassment.
    

    yes it does seem like that, doesn't it?

    somebody baked a dildo cake?

    it's been my experience that most guys don't have the
    'nads to tell other guys when the fun's over and the
    harassment begins.

 ZZ    good for you.  now just work on that "bimbo" thing, will you?
    
    Temporary insanity.  I saw America's representation at the woman's 
    conference as inequitable.  They may have represented women's interests
    but not all women.
    
    By the by, Michele railed at me one evening for using the term.  You
    can rest assure it will not be used again!!!  
    
    -Jack 

    
    Michele...Michele...oh yes, your little tax deduction.
    

    I DID NOT CALL HER THAT!!!!  The womens luncheon was entitled,
    "Exemplary Exemptions".  The women could have done likewise!

    
    >The women could have done likewise!
    
    
    	But wouldn't ... right?
    

    Probably not, they aren't as smart as I am.

    Chock one up for equality.  Women don't like how men have always
    treated other men in the work place: rude, insenstive, and
    inconsiderate.
    
    Mike

    Ooops....I mean they have other ideas that I don't have...uhhh.....
    

    |Chock one up for equality.  Women don't like how men have always   
    |treated other men in the work place
    
    oh well, in that case, i'm off to a good scrotum pull.

    Chalk!

    wear your gloves

>          <<< Note 719.35 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

>    Chock one up for equality.

	Duh... yup, we shoulda jes stayed in our place.

    |oh well, in that case, i'm off to a good scrotum pull.
    
    I've got a bad feeling about this.

    re.18
    
    I think your assertion is a bit much.
    
    Once upon a time [pre-Digital for me] I brought my ring-of-fire chili
    to an on-sight release celebration. I put my big old calphalon pot of
    chili on the stove on low and someone saw fit to put a dildo in it
    whilst no one was looking [OK, so maybe a few someones were looking,
    but the area was essentially unattended]. Suffice it to say that I was
    not expecting what came up in the ladle when I went to serve up the
    chili and my face reflected that.
    
    It was a real riot! I thought it was pretty damned crass, my boss
    looked like he was torn between laughing so hard he'd pee the carpet
    and apoplexy, several guys laughed uproariously, and one young woman
    ran from the room crying. Management took this young woman's reaction
    serious enough to let everyone know that a line had been crossed. [I
    think they might have even without her extreme reaction, because the
    president of the company turned positively pastey]
    
    I think that this was a responsible thing for management to do. It
    didn't assume that all guys -- even all guys from shipping and
    receiving -- were crass. It did say this is unacceptable behaviour.
    
      Annie

    |wear your gloves
    
    wear a smile.

    Z    I think that this was a responsible thing for management to do. It
    Z    didn't assume that all guys -- even all guys from shipping and
    Z    receiving -- were crass. It did say this is unacceptable behaviour.
    
    Well Ann I can appreciate what your saying and I happen to believe the
    corporation took the proper response here.
    
    There are still plenty of individuals out there who take the "all men
    are beasts" attitude.  These are the ones I have a problem with.
    
    -Jack

       What ever happened to just asking a woman out to a movie show ???
    ( and no, I'm not a relic from the 40's )
    
      I think those who are guilty of repeated sexual advances should do
    100 hours of community service and forced to watch 100 hours of the 
    AMC cable channel. 8^)
    
     8^)
    
     Jack
    

>        <<< Note 719.44 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
    
>    There are still plenty of individuals out there who take the "all men
>    are beasts" attitude.  These are the ones I have a problem with.

	you would never generalize like that.  we know you wouldn't.

    Chili Willy and the Red Hot Peppers.

    
    Sure that's not peckers?
    

 ZZ    you would never generalize like that.  we know you wouldn't.
    
    Di, I do tend to generalize against fencesitters.  These are people who
    put their finger up in the air to see from whence the wind came and to
    where it is going!  Now these people would make very good media folk.  
    They don't really have an opinion on anything and they tend to speak
    out of both sides of their mouths.
    
    Taking a firm stand on something is actually difficult for these types.
    They believe something but voicing their conviction might rock the boat
    and therefore they take the easy way out.
    
    I go by what I see!
    
    -Jack

    |you would never generalize like that.  we know you wouldn't.
    
    oh, noooo.  jack?  never!

    People still find dildos (sp?) in chili funny?  Last time it amused me, I
    was seven - way before *either* became staples of everyday life.
    

    So, just when did the dildo become a staple of everyday life?

    I've got a bad feeling about this.

    dildos in chili was a "going" joke at one time?

>    So, just when did the dildo become a staple of everyday life?

	aagag.  that's what i was wonderin'.  i've never actually
	seen one in person, or however you'd say that.
  

	

    
    "That'll be $26.85, including tax."
    
    "Tacks?  I thought they stayed on by themselves!"

    
    I have to admit, I have never found a dildo in my chili. Not even once.

    If there's one in person, you likely wouldn't see it.

  .57  i knew you were gonna say something like that. ;>

    .56
    
    Do you always look for one?
    

    was this dildo/chili thing a standing joke or what?

    usually prone...
    

    it's quite a concoction.

    the whole thing is ridiculous.

    
      So, if I want to order it, what do I say ?  "Uh, waiter, could
     I have a dildo chili ?"  "Cup or bowl, sir ?"
    
      bb

    
    	Depending on where you go, you might have to order it without
    	a dildo if that's what you prefer.
    

    It were coq au vin when I were a lad.
    

    Now, it's chili dongs and beer.
    
    My how things have changed eh?

    Back to my original point: Except to the inane, dildos in chili just
    don't cut it as a 90's sight gag.  Per Buddy Hackett:
    
    "Man standing there.  Got a gun in his hand.  Says gimme all your
    money.  Not funny, right?"
    
    "Same guy.  Gun's up his [butt].  Now THAT'S funny..."

    Dildo chili snarf!

    re.60 
    
    at my workplace? no.
    
    when I was at university, the pesky things showed up in all sorts of
    places like black-eyed peas, egg nog, where-ever.
    
    I always found it a bit odd that dildos [the inanimate kind] were so
    common at social functions at a university with 500 women and 14,000
    men in attendance.
    
    I always wondered at so many guys going into shops to purchase dildos
    [coal to Newcastle?]
    
    But then, I was always the one sent in to the druggist to purchase the
    condoms [plain, non-lubricated, TYVM. why pay extra for features?] when
    it was water-fight time in the Quad ... perhaps the druggist wondered
    why a 17-year-old girl needed a gross of condoms whenever a home
    football game rolled around.
    
    Perhaps the logic is the same. A guy going into a shop in search of
    dildo isn't likely to need it as a primary under normal usage. And it
    wasn't like I was going to be asked to use a condom. [this was the
    early 70s after all]
    
      Annie
    
      Annie

    It would be interesting to find out how many sex toys; dildos,
    inflatable dolls, whips, etc., are used for sex, and how many are used
    for pranks. It seems they would be better suited to perform the latter.
    
    
    lunchbox

    > black-eyed peas, egg nog
    
    Now *I* don't like where this is going...
    

    If somebody put a rubber penis in my chili, I would be driven to give
    them a black eye.

    that, too, would be unacceptable workplace behaviour ...

    A lot of these incidents seemed to happen outside of the workplace. Is
    this behavior deemed especially unacceptable just because one is
    associated through work?

    If you're outside of the work place with people from work, it's the same
    as being in the work place when it comes to harassment.

    I remember hearing about a couple who were fired from their jobs
    (Wal-mart, maybe) because they had violated the company's "no-dating"
    policy. I can see the reasoning behind the policy(having dated a girl I
    was working with and bearing witness to the post break-up awkwardness),
    but I think that goes a little far.

    
    >If you're outside of the work place with people from work, it's the same
    >as being in the work place when it comes to harassment.
    
    
    	Well, I can't agree with this if it is not a company-sanctioned
    	get-together.
    
    	If a guy and girl who work together decide to go out for dinner
    	and the guy makes an unwelcome pass, this has nothing to do with
    	the company.
    

 ZZ   If a guy and girl who work together decide to go out for dinner
    
    

    to bad. That's the way it is.

    Haven't you had any harassment training?

    Everybody here has to.

 ZZ   to bad. That's the way it is.
    
    Not only that, it is too bad also!

    >to bad, that's the way it is.
    
    
    
    
     It's too bad, as well.

    Ah, Jack...so quick fingered...

>       <<< Note 719.1 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "a legend begins at its end" >>>
>    So what's the point of .0? To attack conservatives? Or to talk about
    
    Oh no! It's...super-con! Defender of the weak!
    
    And just how was anyone "attacked", hmmmm? Talk about being synsytyve.
    
    If I had a dime for all the euphemisms (and not-so-euphemisms) I've read
    in here that I could consider "attacks" -- I wouldn't worry about
    down-sizing, that's for damn sure.
    
    But take heart O cynical one. This is just another of my rare notes
    where I strike a blow for...broad-mindedness. No pun intended.

    yawn

    >>  <<< Note 719.45 by MKOTS3::FLATHERS >>>
    >>  ( and no, I'm not a relic from the 40's )
    
    
    but pretty close, right???  %^> %^>
    
    

       > but pretty close, right???  %^> %^>
    
     well, I'll confess to wearing bell-bottoms  8^)
    
    

    Some facts about the Astra case (refer to the Wall Street Journal for
    Thursday, May 2nd 1996 Page B2)

    Ms Kimberly Cote former Astra Salesperson brought suit originally
    against Astra and her supervisor Mark Hollands, alleging that he
    "repeatedly stated to Ms Cote that he was interested in having sex with
    her" during her 11 month tenure as a saleswoman, retaliated when she
    refused him by making unfounded criticisms of her work and then fired
    her in September of 1993.

    In 1994 Ms Cote agreed to settle her sexual harassment and
    wrongful-termination claim for an undisclosed sum, promising not to sue
    the company.

    In her present suit, Ms Cote argues that the company enticed her into
    signing the agreement by falsely claiming she was alone in making
    allegations of sexual harassment against the company. "She was not
    aware that there was a pattern of people bringing complaints and
    settling them quickly with non-disclosure agreement", according to her
    attorney.

    Astra USA which has 1,475 employees has had 16 complaints of sexual
    harassment in the last 10 years.  8 have been settled with undisclosed
    settlements, 5 have been dismissed in court, and 3 are still pending.

    My Note - This is hardly a pattern - 1.6 complaints per year - one per
    thousand employees.  Although what happened to the woman is wrong and
    the company effectively admitted so by the settlement,  it seems like
    she wants to back to the trough for more money, rather than a true
    desire to see justice done.

    /jim

Watched "Disclosure" the other night with Demi Moore and Michael 
Douglas. I seem to recall hearing rumors, when this movie was in 
the theaters, that this was loosely based on actual events that 
happened at computer co. So, I'm watching it with this in mind.
1. Computer co. on the coast (west coast in this case)
2. Housed in what appears to be a converted old mill building.
3. E-mail plays a major part.
4. Company name is DIGI-com

Hmmm...

Did anyone else hear these rumors?

daryll

    In the beook, Crichton refers to one of the proponents as being an
    ex-Deccie.  If memory serves.

    
    	But I believe the preface states that it is not based on a true
    	story.
    

.88 i dunno Jim. 1.6 complaints per year would be described as a pattern and a
    problem in my book. if those complaints were taken to court and found for
    the victims it would seem to me that a company could get hurt financially
    fairly quickly (not to mention their reputation).

    
    .90
    
    Colin, you are correct.

    It had to happen one day.  According to the laws of chance.

    Somewhere along the line I must have made a rather strange turn. 
    Reading the numerous entries about various sex items appearing in
    various locations, etc seems rather inappropriate to me.  the problem
    seems to be that no one appears to be offended by the discussion.
    
    this strikes me as being wrong, certainly in a business environment,
    but probably in a social environment as well, specifically if it is a
    mixed setting.  I fpeople are more than willing to blithley discuss
    this then why, in heaven's name, would there be any outcry when these
    things are taken to the next logical step.
    
    True sexual harrassment is wrong, grabbing or taouching a member of the
    oppoisite sex is wrong, demanding or insinuating consequences for
    refusing advances is wrong.  These are very simple and basic behaviors
    that should never be tolerated.  In our infinite wisdom, however, it
    seems appropriate to carry on a lenghthy discussion and no one is
    offended.  If you want to go down that road, then don't be surprised
    with where you end up.
    

    <---- duh.

    It's a discussion. 

    There are actually training sessions where things like this are talked
    about openly. It has to be talked about.

    .96
    
    You obviously missed my point.  If this is an appropriate discussion,
    and no one sees a problem, then why complain when it simply moves to
    the next level and the article is displayed.
    
    What happens is that you continue to break down the standards of
    conduct, but it's OK if done under your rules, and then complain when
    someone doesn't see a problem with taking the next "humorous" step.
     

    So if it's ok to talk about murder, then it's ok to commit murder by
    extension?
    
    If it's ok to talk about abortion, it's ok to drop an actual aborted
    fetus onto someone's lunch tray?
    
    You appear to be the one missing the point.

    Taking things to the next level changes things completely. One is a
    discussion, the other is an act.
    
    Are you for real?

    Eros Snarf!

 >>   If it's ok to talk about abortion, it's ok to drop an actual aborted
 >>   fetus onto someone's lunch tray?
    
    Gee, I dunno, you think you could be a little more descriptive Mark?
    

    Sure. Not to russian literary standards, to be sure, but I can get lots
    more descriptive than that. ;-)

    .98 .99
    
    In other words it doesn't matter what you talk about, that has no
    effect on how people will behave.  And as far as your "taking it to the
    next level" is concerned - it has already been taken to the next level
    and you are seeing the results now as it continues it move.
    
    If good taste and common sense don't apply then why complain when
    someone feels the limit should be just a bit further, and then a bit
    further.
    

    that's about the flimsiest excuse to justify execrable behavior I've
    seen all day. If someone does something bad, nobody can talk about it
    otherwise that justifies all future occurrences as being nothing more
    than "the next step."

    .104
    
    No excuse at all.  If you remember, I asked a question.  Also if
    someone does demonstrate "execrable" behavior you identify it as such
    and clearly identify that it isn't acceptable.  You don't go off and
    have a discussion about it.
    
    As a point of reference, would this discussion be taking place, in mixed
    company, 20 years ago.  If the answer is no, then what's changed to
    make it acceptable now.
    

    What's changed is, men can't get away with it, and things are out in
    the open.

    20 years ago, nobody talked about sexual abuse either. Everyone just
    kept the pain to themselves. It wasn't until people starting talking
    about it that things began to change.

    Discussing things like this is important.

A friend of mine has just setup an aquarium.  He has a silver molly who seems 
to think that he's `Mr Sex God', and goes around harrassing the other fish, 
plants, rocks, cats who look into the tank, passers by, anyone on the 
television, the wallpaper, the carpet, in fact everything.  It's disgraceful.

Chris.

    
    	How does one harass rocks and plants?
    
    	Not to mention wallpaper and carpet.
    

>    	How does one harass rocks and plants?
>    
>    	Not to mention wallpaper and carpet.

I've no idea, but this bloody fish manages it.  It was also harrassing a 
plastic bag earlier on today.

Chris.

    >Also if someone does demonstrate "execrable" behavior you identify it
    >as such and clearly identify that it isn't acceptable.  
    
     "Hey you, that thing you just did was unacceptable."
    
    "What thing?"
    
    "I'm not at liberty to discuss it. Just don't do it again."

    .106
    
    Since you apparently chose ignore my question, I won't belabor the
    point with you.  But then since you seem to think that there should be
    no limits to what gets openly discussed and acceptable, then stop
    complaining about the end result of your acceptance.
    

    
    <boggle>
    
    

    
    	[scrabble]
    

    [triple word score]

    re. 111
    
    I've been wondering exactly what the nature of your objection is.
    
    I entered the note about some of the particulars of the complaint
    against Mitsubishi.
    
    I later entered the original anecdote about finding a sex toy in my
    chili at a company function as an example of something that a co-worker
    found sexually threatening/harrassing.
    
    To say that I found some of the ensuing punning and joking in
    questionable taste puts a favourable spin on it. However, I didn't feel
    that the sniggering made my workplace a hostile environment.
    
    Are you concerned that such things even got mentioned at all? Or is
    your concern more to do with the aftermath?
    
    If it is the former, I can't agree with you. It doesn't do any good at
    all to say "well, he/she/they did some pretty awful stuff, let me tell
    you, so let's not have any of that going on about here" It just begs
    the question of "What awful stuff?." And not just from prurient
    interest. Not being clear about what isn't/wasn't acceptable will never
    stop the abuses.
    
    Not too many years ago there was a Digital employee who indulged in
    what he thought was playful and clever motivational behaviour, that
    female subordinates found intimidating and downright physically
    dangerous. A misjudgement on his part caused physical injury to one of
    his female subordinates. We certainly don't want anyone to do what
    he did ever again.
    
    Do you know the incident to which I refer? If not, do you know what
    implement you should never, ever bring into a Digital facility as a
    result of this incident? Is so, did it come to you in a dream or did
    someone tell you about it?
    
    If your objection is more to the crude word-play etc. in the aftermath,
    I can conceive of that making a lot of people uncomfortable. And I can
    imagine that there would be individuals who were afraid, to a greater
    or lesser degree, to come forward and ask for it to stop.
    
    [anticipating a possible question] I didn't mention my distaste for a
    lot of the snigger-and-nudge associated with this serious topic because
    this is the 'Box and I expect a bit of that here ... sort of like
    expecting drinking at a frat party.
    
    You _could_ be right about the "slippery slope," but then I bow out when
    my comfort level goes off the charts bad.
    
      Annie
    
      Annie

But what about my friend's fish?  It's a bloody perv!

Chria.

    
    Not too many years ago there was a Digital employee who indulged in
    what he thought was playful and clever motivational behaviour, that
    female subordinates found intimidating and downright physically
    dangerous. A misjudgement on his part caused physical injury to one of
    his female subordinates. We certainly don't want anyone to do what
    he did ever again.
    
    
    	Ummm, what did he do?  Or should I not ask?
    

    he took his whip to work.

    8^o

  did he form stiff peaks?

Sometimes putting things in vague terms leaves the door wide open for...

ahem... creative imagination

    
    	A whip??
    
    	That probably hurts more than a monkey bite, eh?
    

    Okay, so, this begs the question. Which of us is willing to take this
    discussion to it's obvious next level? eh? anybody?

    
    	Glenn, we must remain onthis level until we answer to that EAA.
    

    .115
    
    Since you have asked, I will try to state, as clearly as I can, what my
    objection, or concern actually is.  A long string of notes here
    discussed "sex toys" in a rather off-hand fashion.  the tone of the
    entries treated the issue as, basically, no big deal.
    
    Well, it really is a big deal.  If you look at the result.  A
    discussion, even in arather open forum like Soapbox, gives a legitimacy
    to improper behavior that should never be accepted.  the notes
    subsequent to mine seem to indicate that this type of discussion is
    fine.  Well, at what point do you want to set limits?  If it's Ok to
    discuss in mixed company, then why get upset when it gets a bit more
    direct, such as a picture, etc, etc.
    
    My personal opinion is that discussions and talk like that is
    inappropriate and accepting it leads, inexoribly, to more and more
    graphic situations.  The end result is that people find it funny and
    not harassing.  Well, it's wrong and harrassment be damned, it should
    not be acceptable discussion.
    
    Just my 2 cents.
    

    Re.  -1 (Rocush)
    
    This discussion was beginning to get quite graphic. For example, a few
    notes back where someone was trying to prove a point. I believe I
    commented asking the author if they couldn't be more descriptive (My
    way, I guess, for saying that things were getting a bit much).
    
    That said,...
    
    And this being Soapbox...
    
    And these being responsible adults writing herein...
    
    I would have to assume that the content of this particular string is
    breaching some of your boundaries, and that's why you are bringing this
    up?  Or are you trying to protect people from a lawsuit?

    Because we were joking about it legitimized it? You're a loonie!

    The limits are set just fine. If you put a dildo in someone's chili and
    somebody takes offense, you could be in trouble.

    I've seen a theatre full of people cheer and laugh when somebody got
    his head blown off in a movie. Does this mean if these people saw this
    in a real life situation they would react the same way? Of course not!
    It's out of context.

    Here, you can next unseen. On TV, you can turn it off. In real life,
    you don't have these options.  The deed was done and someone was the
    direct recipient, not just an observer.

    The limits are set just fine.

    If you were to take your point of view to the next obvious level, you
    would find yourself sitting at a table by yourself or with other
    people equally as grim. Have fun.
    

    A big problem is the over-usage of the term "sexual harassment".
    
    Of course, sexual harassment goes on. When it first came to light, it
    was helpful that certain behavior was deemed "unacceptable", harassment
    was defined, etc.
    
    As with civil lawsuits, however, it soon got blown out of proportion.
    
    I do not believe that a person asking a co-worker on a date is sexual
    harassment. If the co-worker makes it clear that he/she isn't
    interested, and the persuing employee respects that, no harm, correct?
    But there are oversensitive types who brand the first employee's
    conduct as sexual harassment. A female professor at a college whose
    name escapes me sued the university for sexual harassment because there
    was a painting of a nude woman in a lecture hall. The picture wasn't
    graphic, but the lack of clothing made it harassment somehow.  The
    word gets thrown around and used improperly and when an actual instance
    of sexual harassment occurs, some folks don't take it seriously because
    they've been numbed by years of hearing frivilous lawsuits.  It's
    actually dangerous, when you think about it. I've seen the term "police
    state" thrown around in SOAPBOX by people who clearly don't understand
    the weight of the situation they are trying to describe. It's been used
    so much in here that people generally don't jump when it shows up. When
    you hear somebody say "oh, my God" or "I swear to God" you don't even
    consider the magnitude of the statement, simply because you've heard it
    so much you don't even really hear it anymore. The same goes for
    certain swears. "F**k" meant something, once upon a time. My whole
    generation and a good portion of the generation before ours goes around
    using it like it was their last name because they take a verb and use
    it as a noun, adjective, interjection, they really place it anywhere.
    It's funny to look at a sentence that includes the above swear, and
    think about what the sentence really says, it usually ends up having
    some inanimate object participating in an act impossible for it.  Such
    overuse contributes to a lack of sympathy for actual victims.
    
    
    lunchbox

    It's not a question of being overly sensitive.  I believe .128
    explained it fairly well.  We have accepted a declining level of
    behavior, particularly in terms of language, and then wonder why poor
    attitudes and behaviors result.
    
    I was using the discussion here as an example.  I t wasn't all that
    long ago that the majority of people would have been offended by the
    discussion.  Now it's just the opposite, because I raised a question
    about it, I have seen numerous notes complaining about my questions. 
    If you are going to accept coarse language and behavior then why
    complain when someone goes the next step.  Just as here, I am sure
    there were discussions about "sex toys" in the factory and no one
    objected.  Well, then why get bent out of shape when someone provides
    the article.
    
    If you're going to condone coarseness and castigate those who question
    it, then why complain.  Is it because it goes further than you think
    appropriate?  All things are relative and if you attack those who
    question appropriateness, then you should be very understanding of
    those who think there actions are just fun.
    
    You get what you condone, and when you condone declining behavior,
    don't expect it to stop declining.
    

    i made an honest inquiry about the chile/dildo thing.  i
    wanted to know if this "joke" was real because i'd never
    heard of it before.  it's not only not funny, it's stupid
    and adolescent.
    
    but talking about this "joke" in a notesfile is a long way from
    actually _doing_ it.  

  .130  oh c'mon, Oph.  tell us you don't have a crock pot and various
	other appliances in your bottom drawer there.  you can't fool us.

    i shall not reveal my various appliances.  well,
    maybe just one.  my ronco olive pitter.

    I take umbrage.

    I'll take Umbria.

    "Chili Dildos! Line 'em up!"

    oh no, he's at it again.  

-1 the dildo or the chile?

    I here Santiago is nice this time of year.

Benito?

DON'T DEVELOP HEALTHY ATTITUDES!

REPRESS! REPRESS!

| <<< Note 719.140 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>

| DON'T DEVELOP HEALTHY ATTITUDES!

| REPRESS! REPRESS!


	Been talking to OJ Martin again I see. :-)

re:.-1

"Was that over the top? I can never tell..."

    I've been behind in my Dilbert reading, but I loved the strip where
    Wally was talking with Alice about having gone to the Sexual
    Harassment Seminar!
    
    Bob
    

    
    	"Maybe I shouldn't have fast-forwarded through the boring parts."
    

    
    
    	Just looked that one up on the web...... too funny.  =)
    

Over the weekend...heard Mitsubishi admitted sexual harassment charges were true
and fired the accused. Asked court to drop the lawsuits.

    Selective reporting again...from Wall Street Journal 6/24/96 page B4
    
    Mitsubishi claimed that there have been complaints of sexual harrasment
    and that they took reasonable and prompt steps to deal with the
    harrasment claims.  In its formal response to the EEOC the company
    asked the suit be dismissed because the women alleging the harrasment
    failed to use all internal remedies available to them.
    
    John Rowe director of EEOC's Chicago Bureau dismissed Mitsubishi's
    arguments are frivilous.
    
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    
    My take this is only the initial positioning.  Mitsubishi had sexual
    harrasment guidelines and policies in place.  The question was whether
    they were followed and how well.  Filing out to a lawsuit while not
    availing onself of existing administrative procedures will tend to get
    one a dismissal unles it can be proved that the environment was such
    that there was no reasonable expectation of relief throug the
    adminstrative process.
    
    Now this is being confused with the Astra AB case where the Swedish
    home office folks have fired the president of Astra US, and he is
    refusing to turn over records to the parent company.  
    
    /jim
    
    

re: Selective reporting again

Well ya gotta admit...the criticism is moving up from that leveled in .9 and
.2 f'r instance...