Gender neutrality and political correctness discussion

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by polak

Read that article. The end bit caught my attention...



Ummmm.... Wait. What?

So if a girl sends me an uninitiated, uninvited pic of her tits that's all well and good, but if I decide to reply with a glorious pic of my junk, I'm some sort of e-rapist?

#### that. I don't buy it for a second. If she sends me a naked picture or sexts me first, that is full on the A-OK, "Go Ahead" to reply in the same way.

This is getting absolutely out of hand. Sounds like they're trying to sympathize with the "opps, I regret doing that after the fact" crowd.

Uhhh...that's not the argument, dude. She's saying if she sends you a naked picture of herself, that in itself is not an open invitation for sex.

[polak]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Uhhh...that's not the argument, dude. She's saying if she sends you a naked picture of herself, that in itself is not an open invitation for sex.

I'd like to see how they worded that question in the survey.

To me "sexual activity" would include replying with dick pics.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This pretty much sums up my thoughts:

Jeremy Baker @Jeremy_Baker · 3h 3 hours ago
I have never once seen a "FHRITP" clip and thought; "wow that guy is really funny, I wish I could be his friend." Not even one time.

One of the commenters points out that this is actually a criminal offense, which is accurate... I imagine that charges being brought against people who do this would probably nip 'er right in the bud, so to speak.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by polak

I'd like to see how they worded that question in the survey.

To me "sexual activity" would include replying with dick pics.

I can see what you're saying, but the intent of the statement is basically that even if someone sends you naked pics of themselves, you don't just get to proceed with physical intimacy without first gaining consent. That said, there's nothing wrong with putting a "Do you wanna see mine?" out first before you decide to send pictures of your junk.

This conversation is weird.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

One of the commenters points out that this is actually a criminal offense, which is accurate... I imagine that charges being brought against people who do this would probably nip 'er right in the bud, so to speak.

I hadn't thought of that. Good call.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Seriously, it couldn't be hard. These guys are caught on camera in every instance. In this particular case it's after a major sporting event so there are, I assume, police officers around.

EDIT: Although the other comments trying to somehow import workplace sexual harrassment into the equation are completely off base and extremely frustrating. The fact that it's the premier who is propogating misinformation about legal issues is even worse.

[polak]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I can see what you're saying, but the intent of the statement is basically that even if someone sends you naked pics of themselves, you don't just get to proceed with physical intimacy without first gaining consent. That said, there's nothing wrong with putting a "Do you wanna see mine?" out first before you decide to send pictures of your junk.

This conversation is weird.

I don't have time for that. Dick pics en masse.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Seriously, it couldn't be hard. These guys are caught on camera in every instance. In this particular case it's after a major sporting event so there are, I assume, police officers around.

EDIT: Although the other comments trying to somehow import workplace sexual harrassment into the equation are completely off base and extremely frustrating. The fact that it's the premier who is propogating misinformation about legal issues is even worse.

If she is harrassed at work isn't it workplace sexual harrassement or do both individuals need to be employed at the same company?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by polak

I don't have time for that. Dick pics en masse.

Uh, groupsend SnapChat bruh.

Send a pic of a dick-shaped message saying "Wanna see my wang?" that is shaped in a coquettish question mark first tho.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

If she is harrassed at work isn't it workplace sexual harrassement or do both individuals need to be employed at the same company?

Both individuals need to be employed at the same company and there usually needs to be a situation whereby the harassed employee is put in a position where some sort of job consequences are at stake. There's a generally present element of power imbalance that creates the circumstances where the harassment can take place.

The best analogy would be if the CityNews reporter's boss yelled FHRITP into her mic - in that case, it would be reasonable to assume that she might not want to confront her boss, as it could have negative consequences for her in terms of her employment.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Both individuals need to be employed at the same company and there usually needs to be a situation whereby the harassed employee is put in a position where some sort of job consequences are at stake. There's a generally present element of power imbalance that creates the circumstances where the harassment can take place.

The best analogy would be if the CityNews reporter's boss yelled FHRITP into her mic - in that case, it would be reasonable to assume that she might not want to confront her boss, as it could have negative consequences for her in terms of her employment.

So if I am on a job, as a plumber and I see a hot electrician, I am ok, to make sexual comments to her?

This seems wrong to me.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So if I am on a job, as a plumber and I see a hot electrician, I am ok, to make sexual comments to her?

This seems wrong to me.

You are not "okay" at all to make sexual comments to her. You are being an a$$hole. However, it may or may not be "sexual harassment", depending on whether it ties in with her employment. This is a contextual issue.

If you are, for example, a plumber that frequently does business with the company that employs her as an electrician, creating a similar context to the one I described above (say, for example, one might think "I should just smile, I don't want to cause us to lose a job opportunity down the road"), that would be workplace sexual harassment.

If you are a bike courier riding by a job site and see a hot electrician, and whistle and yell "nice tits" at her, you are being an a-hole. However, that is not "sexual harassment" any more than it is "attempted murder". It's still unacceptable behaviour but it's a misuse of the term "sexual harassment".

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You are not "okay" at all to make sexual comments to her. You are being an a$$hole.

Agreed

However, it may or may not be "sexual harassment", depending on whether it ties in with her employment. This is a contextual issue.

If you are, for example, a plumber that frequently does business with the company that employs her as an electrician, creating a similar context to the one I described above (say, for example, one might think "I should just smile, I don't want to cause us to lose a job opportunity down the road"), that would be workplace sexual harassment.

If you are a bike courier riding by a job site and see a hot electrician, and whistle and yell "nice tits" at her, you are being an a-hole. However, that is not "sexual harassment" any more than it is "attempted murder". It's still unacceptable behaviour but it's a misuse of the term "sexual harassment".

I was speaking to the first of you two paragraphs. So then it isn't a requirement that we both be employed to create a situation of possible sexual harrassment.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Right, sure, strictly speaking - what's important isn't the legal relationship between the individuals involved and the employer. You could be two employees of separate independent contractors working on the same site, you could be two partners in a business, you could be an employee of a proprietorship being harassed by the owner. It also does apply outside the workplace in other areas particularly where a power imbalance can arise - for example, a student and a teacher, or a landlord and a tenant.

This is an instructive link: http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/...harassment.asp

Sexual harassment is any unwelcome sexual behaviour that adversely affects, or threatens to affect, directly or indirectly, a person's job security, working conditions or prospects for promotion or earnings; or prevents a person from getting a job, living accommodations or any kind of public service.

Sexual harassment is usually an attempt by one person to exert power over another person. It can be perpetrated by a supervisor, a co-worker, a landlord or a service provider.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Right, sure, strictly speaking - what's important isn't the legal relationship between the individuals involved and the employer. You could be two employees of separate independent contractors working on the same site, you could be two partners in a business, you could be an employee of a proprietorship being harassed by the owner. It also does apply outside the workplace in other areas particularly where a power imbalance can arise - for example, a student and a teacher, or a landlord and a tenant.

This is an instructive link: http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/...harassment.asp

Cheers, it was your post below, perhaps I was being too pedantic.

I am gonna poke around that link.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Both individuals need to be employed at the same company and there usually needs to be a situation whereby the harassed employee is put in a position where some sort of job consequences are at stake. There's a generally present element of power imbalance that creates the circumstances where the harassment can take place.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

interesting to see that the guy is getting fired from his day job (@ hydro one) over this incident.

Is there any question about the legality of firing someone over incidents outside the workplace? I don't believe the incident is "illegal activity", and if it is not, on what premise can an employer take such an action?

I believe an employer could lay one off for almost any reason - save those protected by the Charter. The question would be whether the terms of his employment covered this in some fashion. If so, I would imagine he could be laid off with cause. If not, then I guess they would/could have packaged him out. Which, if he got a new job quickly would ironically be to his benefit.

Of course, since his name is now out there and forever tied to this stupidity, he's probably going to be facing some awkward questions in future job interviews.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I believe an employer could lay one off for almost any reason - save those protected by the Charter.

Yeah you can literally fire anyone for anything. If you don't have cause, the terminated party has the right to severance in lieu of notice and possibly other rights.

As for the Charter, I'm not even sure how that works. Obviously someone would have a human rights complaint if they were fired for being gay, but I'm not sure what the remedy is there.

[rubecube]

More info on the hydro worker:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle24390881/

A Hydro One employee will be fired following an incident on Sunday when a female television reporter was harassed by Toronto FC fans hurling obscenities while she was doing a live hit.

“Hydro One is taking steps to terminate the employee for violating our Code of Conduct,” Hydro One spokesman Daffyd Roderick said in a statement.

“Respect for all people is ingrained in the code and our values. We are committed to a work environment where discrimination or harassment of any type is met with zero tolerance.”

The statement did not name the employee, but The Globe and Mail has confirmed that he is Shawn Simoes, an engineer who, according to the most recent Sunshine List, earned more than $107,000 a year in wages and benefits.

Ouch.

[jayswin]

I had to laugh at Cjay92 bringing this story up and laughing at the guy getting fired, and calling him a dooshbag and all that, when this is the exact type of incident they love and usually laugh about on their station.

[Johnny199r]

I don't like what those "fhritp" guys said. It's disrespectful and harrassment.

However, I also think public shaming and internet moral outrage (not so much necessarily in this instance) is becoming too much. People just love to get whipped up into a frenzy on the internet and dwel on the targets of their rage now.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/16/living...haming-ronson/