- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Who should decide what standards for things like harassment, etc.?
At one extreme, some say it should be solely up to the person being harassed. At the other extreme, some feel it shouldn't even exist as a concept. People should toughen up. Others feel it should be in the middle.
Generic question, not specifically about any current situation or situation from the past.
harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker.
I wasn't searching for the legal definition. I was searching for each person's individual opinion.That's a pretty good legal definition. Seems like two things must be present: unwanted and persistent contact. The "unwanted" is up to the individual and "persistent" speaks for itself. Pretty clear.
I wasn't searching for the legal definition. I was searching for each person's individual opinion.
That's a pretty good legal definition. Seems like two things must be present: unwanted and persistent contact. The "unwanted" is up to the individual and "persistent" speaks for itself. Pretty clear.
I wasn't searching for the legal definition. I was searching for each person's individual opinion.
I have scenario for you if you really want to test your theories. What if a woman accuses a man of harassment but blackmails for money if they don't play along, would you pay them, or are they right? I am saying this because because women these days tend to accuses innocent men of rape when they had consensual sex, and juries buy it. Everyone these days are looking for ways of making a quick buck by doing absolutely nothing!
Let me see if I've got this straight:
#1 Woman accuses a man of harrassment.
#2 Blackmails for money (if they don't play along with what?)
#3 Somehow leads to this woman accusing him (an innocent man) of rape
#4 Man is convicted
You're questions are: "Would you pay them?" and "Are they right?"
Never pay a blackmailer. The blackmail will never stop, and, by paying, you've made yourself look guilty. Go to the authorities, tell them the whole story, and ask them to help you set up a sting. Anyone who threatens blackmail is wrong.
If you're right that "women these days tend to accuse innocent men of rape," then I'd say that a lot of men are hanging around with the wrong crowd.
Remember, rape is a criminal offense. The DA isn't going to charge someone with rape when: there's no proof beyond "she says"...woman didn't go to the hospital for a rape kit...didn't immediately tell her friends...has no evidence of physical harm (i.e., photos)...and later, demands money not to bring the charge...combine that with a guy who goes straight to the authorities as soon as the words pass her lips and the one in trouble is her. IMO.
Then so be it. Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes a legal definition mirrors my opinion, also. Just say so, so that you don't appear to be one of those people who blindly thinks that the law is always right.What if your personal opinion coincides with the legal defination? The definition that MaggieD gave nails my opinion of it on the head.
You make a good point. Upon further thought I am glad that she provided the legal definition as it adds to discussion, but still would like to hear people's individual opinions as to what they think the standard should be.I think MaggieD reduced the lengthy definition down to something I agree with, too. Unwanted and persistent contact. Once it's been made reasonably clear (by a specific voice or by general social will) that a particular form of contact with an individual is unwanted and it persists, it's harassment. I can come into contact with 2 different people in the very same way. If one of those people asks me to stop, and I repeat the action to both. I've harassed the one who asked me to stop. If it's in the workplace, I may have harassed others as well because it may affect those around me who can't avoid seeing/hearing the behavior.
The question is generic in nature. It can be ANY kind of harassment, i.e. sexual, racial, whatever.I'd take it further and say that if my name's Abraham, and you consistently call me Abe even after I've asked you to stop - it's harassment. Intimidation doesn't just have to be sexual.
The way that I read his post wasn't that he said harassment leads to bogus rape charges if no money is forthcoming, but rather that rape is sometimes a false claim at other times so you cannot always simply rely on the accuser to be honest. More of an analogy.Let me see if I've got this straight:
#1 Woman accuses a man of harrassment.
#2 Blackmails for money (if they don't play along with what?)
#3 Somehow leads to this woman accusing him (an innocent man) of rape
#4 Man is convicted
You're questions are: "Would you pay them?" and "Are they right?"
Never pay a blackmailer. The blackmail will never stop, and, by paying, you've made yourself look guilty. Go to the authorities, tell them the whole story, and ask them to help you set up a sting. Anyone who threatens blackmail is wrong.
If you're right that "women these days tend to accuse innocent men of rape," then I'd say that a lot of men are hanging around with the wrong crowd.
Remember, rape is a criminal offense. The DA isn't going to charge someone with rape when: there's no proof beyond "she says"...woman didn't go to the hospital for a rape kit...didn't immediately tell her friends...has no evidence of physical harm (i.e., photos)...and later, demands money not to bring the charge...combine that with a guy who goes straight to the authorities as soon as the words pass her lips and the one in trouble is her. IMO.
Edit: Not sure where harrassment comes in, though.
Who should decide what standards for things like harassment, etc.?
At one extreme, some say it should be solely up to the person being harassed. At the other extreme, some feel it shouldn't even exist as a concept. People should toughen up. Others feel it should be in the middle.
Generic question, not specifically about any current situation or situation from the past.
Loose guidelines should be set by the legislature. It should then be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a judge and/or a jury, based on whether the plaintiff could have reasonably felt that the actions were causing a hostile work environment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?