New Allegations against Kent Hehr

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Did he suggest he thought it was "appropriate", as you say he did? Because it looks to me like he just said that it wasn't "sexual misconduct" of a sort that Hehr should be fired for. Maybe less of the words in other peoples' mouths on this topic would be nice.

He literally called it the third reich of language police in defense of it.

If you're saying something to a female coworker due to her appearance that you would never say to a male coworker, yeah that's sexual misconduct dude. I mean, unless you're stupid enough to believe Kent's a cannibal.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

sounds like the "yummy" thing is just an example when they're talking about warnings like

Stay away from him at receptions." "Don't let his hands get close to you." "Don't get close to him when he drinks."

I read that. But as an able-bodied woman around Hehr? Frankly, I think I have the upper hand here. I'm not the shy, retiring type. If he came after me, we would have words, job security be damned. If he came after me more than once, the words would be loud enough for everyone to hear and it wouldn't be me embarrassed.

But, this is a fairly uncommon situation too, and again, I know how I would react and what I would do, and I realize not everyone would respond in the same manner. But heck, I waited tables at a truck stop in Northern Alberta at one point in my life so "You're yummy" is the least of what I've dealt with and I learned to use words as my weapon of choice. Cuz you know, a well placed threat whilst wielding a very hot pot of coffee was quite effective. But again, different situations and different personalities and responses.

It's sounding like where there is smoke, there's a lot of fire, in this particular instance, so I would hope it's being looked after appropriately and dealt with properly.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Do you believe "you're yummy" is something a straight male would say to another random man in the elevator? If not, then why do you think that's at all appropriate to say to a woman?

In a business context I tend to agree with what you're getting at. However, that shouldn't be our criteria generally speaking. I mean, most straight men don't ask out other straight men on dates under any circumstances. There is still an element of sex/dating/romance/coupling involved between hetero men and hetero women. There's even quite a bit of it in the workplace that leads to long term relationships.

Don't get me wrong, I get what your saying but I don't think that your example should be the standard that we use as to whether it's appropriate to say something to a woman.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, definitely, "unsafe". Makes sense. Sure.

This misapplication of the language of personal safety to comments people make is so, so obnoxious.

How 'unsafe' would an able bodied person be in an elevator with someone who is wheelchair bound?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Sure I can agree, there's different standards than a bar than there would be at a workplace. This happened at a workplace. So, let's use that as our standard.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

If you're saying something to a female coworker due to her appearance that you would never say to a male coworker, yeah that's sexual misconduct dude.

Okay, if you say so. I don't know what the definition of "sexual misconduct" is, how much of a creep you have to be in order to meet it, or what the consequences should be. Maybe Hehr should even get the boot for this, particularly if it's part of a pattern of behaviour, as it seems some people are suggesting.

But none of that is relevant to you trying to put words in someone's mouth. He didn't suggest for a moment that he thought it was "appropriate", and you said he did. That's really quite annoying, especially on a topic as charged as this one.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I was specifically talking about using the language of personal safety to deal with people saying things you don't like (even if, as in this case, you're quite right to object to what was said).

Which is why a lot of older women are concerned about what they call an emerging 'fainting-couch' feminism. They're old enough to remember when women were kept out all sorts of fields of work and social situations because it was believed they were more fragile than men, and couldn't handle uncomfortable or rough language. To these women, feminism meant showing they could be exposed to crass or unpleasant speech without fainting in distress.

The problem is that one of the ways activists tend to fight against injustices is to expand the definition of those injustices. So women aren't only being encouraged not to tolerate harassment and threats (which is good), they're being encouraged to interpret any unpleasantness or discomfort as a threat. Which a) undermines more serious allegations by failing to make distinctions, and b) turns back the clock to when women were regarded as more fragile than men.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

How 'unsafe' would an able bodied person be in an elevator with someone who is wheelchair bound?

The physical ability of an individual to access you shouldn't be the threshold of determination of inappropriate behavior or harassment.

This person is in a position of power in the workplace interacting in an objectionable manner with coworkers and likely subordinates. People shouldn't get a pass to act however they want just because they're in a wheelchair, have crutches or a twisted ankle.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

How 'unsafe' would an able bodied person be in an elevator with someone who is wheelchair bound?

Is that someone Professor X?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If Kent Hehr tweets at you, even something awful that he absolutely should not say that makes you feel bad or uncomfortable, what are the odds he's going to do anything to you directly? It's the internet. Turn off your phone. Not to mention, to put it bluntly, it's Kent Hehr. He's in a freaking wheelchair.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't these women his staffers? You can't empathize with why a woman might feel unsafe coming to work if her boss is calling her yummy on social media?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But none of that is relevant to you trying to put words in someone's mouth. He didn't suggest for a moment that he thought it was "appropriate", and you said he did. That's really quite annoying, especially on a topic as charged as this one.

Read the context. He said we are entering into the third reich of language police because someone is getting in trouble for saying "you're yummy" to a coworker. Of course he was defending the comments, at very least took issue with those complaining about it.

If he has no issue, than why is he bringing up the Nazis here? Ha.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^ I did read the context. The context appears to be that he didn't think Hehr should be fired just for that. That does not imply, by any stretch, that he thinks it was an appropriate thing to do. Take a second, recgonize that you've misstated someone's view, and stop digging.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't these women his staffers? You can't empathize with why a woman might feel unsafe coming to work if her boss is calling her yummy on social media?

Yes, I am saying that. I can understand why they'd feel uncomfortable, emotionally distressed, creeped out, angry or upset by it. Justifiably so. But unsafe? No.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Do you believe "you're yummy" is something a straight male would say to another random man in the elevator? If not, then why do you think that's at all appropriate to say to a woman?

Where did I say it was appropriate? I said calling it sexual misconduct is a huge reach.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I have no idea what happened here, but there seems to be a disturbing trend where any comment men have made towards women that was "unwanted" is being considered as sexual misconduct or harassment now? I just think that when I read the headline about sexual misconduct I picture something very different than a comment in an elevator.

What would you call that kind of behavior from a person in a position of power in the workplace treating their coworkers (systemic behavior reported from multiple sources)? That other women in the workplace need to warn each other to avoid situations of possible harassment?

I get that you know/have met/are friends(?) with Kent Hehr and that you dismissed the avrious group of women that stepped up to object to his behavior. Is this the behavior that we tolerate from our paid representatives in government; how they treat their constituents and their own coworkers in our government?

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but would you tolerate this kind of behavior in your work environment?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Where did I say it was appropriate? I said calling it sexual misconduct is a huge reach.

No, it's not. Which is funny coming from someone with corporate in their name. Clearly your HR has failed you on this one.

Unwanted comments, such as "you're yummy" clearly in reference to the physical and sex of the person, is very clear sexual misconduct. It's a very broad term, but also very clear one.

But sure, we're Nazis because we don't think women should be called babe, yummy, or honey in the workplace.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

But sure, we're Nazis because we don't think women should be called babe, yummy, or honey in the workplace.

Good lord, you're like a straw man artisan.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Good lord, you're like a straw man artisan.

Where is this a strawman? I mean, he's the one who needed to draw the comparison and now I'm just showing how absurd it was.

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Haha, what? If those are allegations of "sexual misconduct" I hope there is more than that otherwise we have entered the third reich of language police.

Do you know what the third reich is Corsi? I feel like a lot of this is just because you don't know your history here ha.

He came out and say those that believe that calling someone yummy is sexual misconduct is evidence of entering into Nazi language police...Of course an exaggeration, but he made his point very clear. He compared those who believe this was sexual misconduct to Nazis. Ha.

He still says calling this sexual misconduct a huge reach. So what is it?....

If you think calling coworkers, babe, honey, hun, sugartits, yummy, hunk, stud, etc. is not sexual misconduct in the workplace, I implore you to talk to your HR representatives.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yes, Oling, I know what the Third Reich is. I went to high school. I don't care if he used a hyperbole elsewhere in his post. He didn't say what you accused him of saying. You are arguing against a position he did not take, while attributing it to him. That is what a straw man is. One would think this would be obvious, but apparently recognizing the obvious is expecting too much of some people.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Okay, so his actual position is that it is not sexual misconduct and that those who believe it is are idiots/out-of-touch/snowflakes/whatever you think he meant by Third Reich Language Police.

But that's still wrong. Which is my point. It's incredibly wrong.

https://www.doi.gov/pmb/eeo/Sexual-Harassment

Examples of Sexual Harassment
Any of these elements may constitute sexual harassment or discrimination. These examples are not meant to be all inclusive.

Physical contact
Squeezing a worker's shoulders or putting a hand around his or her waist
...
Terms of endearment, such as calling a co-worker “honey,” “dear,” “sweetheart,” or some similar expression. (The effect is the primary issue rather than intent. Even if the person “means nothing to you” or you have “used the term for years” you should be aware that such expressions are inappropriate.)

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/whatissh.pdf

Sexual harassment includes many things...
· Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault.
· Unwanted pressure for sexual favors.
...
· Referring to an adult as a girl, hunk, doll, babe, or honey.

It's not the 1950's anymore guys, you can't get away calling coworkers (especially as someone in authority) pet names like that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Great. That's a totally fair rebuttal. Now that you've engaged with his actual position rather than an imaginary view held by no one at all, you can have a real, honest discussion with each other. That wasn't so hard, was it?

I feel as though something has actually been accomplished on the internet. I'm shocked. This may be a first.