- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jordan Peterson thinks women who wear makeup at work deserve to be harassed
Posted on 2/12/18 at 9:07 am to OMLandshark
Posted on 2/12/18 at 9:07 am to OMLandshark
How they do those experiments where they send actors into social situations
I would love to see somebody hire some absurdly good-looking guys who are smooth as frick into work places and have them test the sexual-harassment waters.
Then I'd love to show the video to the women afterwards.
That shite would be highly telling
I would love to see somebody hire some absurdly good-looking guys who are smooth as frick into work places and have them test the sexual-harassment waters.
Then I'd love to show the video to the women afterwards.
That shite would be highly telling
0
Posted on 2/12/18 at 9:11 am to CommoDawg
quote:
CommieDawg
Just stop. Take a break. Read a book. Learn something. Then come back and you might be able to understand what Jordan's talking about.
This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 9:55 am
Posted on 2/12/18 at 9:29 am to mindbreaker
quote:
the majority of people aren't putting on makeup thinking "This is sure going to make me look more sexual today" it just isn't thought of as that anymore.
Maybe not consciously, but that's the root of everything - it didn't take the 1960s for advertisers to have the idea to sell things using a pretty girl, but they've certainly gone overboard over the past 50+ years. So, women in advertising imagery is largely a sexual issue. The fact we don't think about this consciously doesn't change the fact or intent.
Same for women's fashion and makeup, particularly in the workplace. Hell, when women went to work in large numbers in this country after WWII, it was largely to find a husband, at least until the mid/late 60s. That's not misogyny, that's just a fact. Prior to that, women worked in largely same sex occupations, garment factories, teaching school, nursing, but most either worked for family owned businesses or were stay at home moms - even in rural areas. That was only beginning to change in the 1930s due to the necessity of the Great Depression.
This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 9:30 am
Posted on 2/12/18 at 9:31 am to CommoDawg
Well, now we know who the OP is...
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:04 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Maybe not consciously, but that's the root of everything - it didn't take the 1960s for advertisers to have the idea to sell things using a pretty girl, but they've certainly gone overboard over the past 50+ years. So, women in advertising imagery is largely a sexual issue. The fact we don't think about this consciously doesn't change the fact or intent.
Same for women's fashion and makeup, particularly in the workplace. Hell, when women went to work in large numbers in this country after WWII, it was largely to find a husband, at least until the mid/late 60s. That's not misogyny, that's just a fact. Prior to that, women worked in largely same sex occupations, garment factories, teaching school, nursing, but most either worked for family owned businesses or were stay at home moms - even in rural areas. That was only beginning to change in the 1930s due to the necessity of the Great Depression.
Not arguing this point. You are 100% correct but what happened 50 years ago is not what is going on today. We can look at the history and past meanings of it all day long and it doesn't change where we are right now. The is a is whole lot of things that were socially acceptable and implied 50 years ago that don't fly today. Not just in the harassment category either.
Simply rehashing meanings and the past never helped anyone move forward.
This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 11:05 am
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:08 am to mindbreaker
quote:
The is a is whole lot of things that were socially acceptable and implied 50 years ago that don't fly today. Not just in the harassment category either.
I'm against women being harassed in the workplace, as well, but the gymnastics to equate boorish behavior, rudeness and the like with actual quid pro quo harassment and outright assault are absurd.
Women (much more than men, although some men fit this category, as well), go to work, made up and wearing flattering, attractive clothing - as a general rule, not an exception. If men, due to nothing more than the laws of genetics, notice this in any observable way, they're opened up to charges of harassment, assault, abuse, and it is utter nonsense.
This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 11:08 am
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:21 am to CommoDawg
quote:
CommoDawg
Wow, you do realize what you just did with this post, is a Meme, right? You pretty much created a thread stating "i'm an idiot, and i'm going to prove it".
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:22 am to L.A.
quote:
You didn't actually watch the video, did you?
Comprehension isn't allowed in a communist society.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:27 am to ShortyRob
quote:They Do not want a conversation
This is one of those times when you have to realize that "having a conversation" with a liberal probably requires using crayons
Jordan Peterson Knows they do not actually want a conversation. He says To have a conversation they must first recognize you are reasonable, but to recognize you are reasonable means to recognize that someone with an opposing view to yours is reasonable. They do not want to recognize that reasonable people could hold a view opposite theirs. It is a total clash with identity polictics. That is is why if you have an opposing view they immediately degrade you to this identity of bigot, transphobe, racist..because how could one of those be reasonable? Thus if you oppose them, you are one of these and they have the right to meet your opposition with force and aggression not conversation
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:28 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Women (much more than men, although some men fit this category, as well), go to work, made up and wearing flattering, attractive clothing - as a general rule, not an exception. If men, due to nothing more than the laws of genetics, notice this in any observable way, they're opened up to charges of harassment, assault, abuse, and it is utter nonsense.
fair and I don't know where the line is either. I don't think nice office guy being friendly should get accused of harassment.
At the same time creepy fricker that constantly drops hints and comments on purpose shouldn't be able to use the "well she shouldn't have dressed that way" line either. There in lies my point, if you bring up the dress/makeup issue it worries me that you are giving creepy fricker an out.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:32 am to mindbreaker
quote:No one does
fair and I don't know where the line is either
this is why the #metoo movement is going to actually hurt women in the workplace. Men will be terrified to hire women because they don't know where that line is
Is it a rub on the leg? A hug? did he stare at her too long?
This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 11:33 am
Posted on 2/12/18 at 12:28 pm to CommoDawg
quote:
Jordan Peterson thinks women who wear makeup at work deserve to be harassed
Jesus H. Christ. It's pathetic that I have to spell out an argument for you.
His initial argument is we as a species are still figuring out how men and women should work together and where the line is at sexual harassment. If you ask fifteen people what the line for sexual harassment is, you will currently get 15 answers.
He then furthered the argument by this stream of logical points. Makeup is a device used to increase beauty, lipstick in particular is mostly use to redden the lips, which simulates lips during sex (his argument, not mine, I have not done the research). If women and/or men choose to wear makeup, they are asking for their bodies to be seen in a more positive light, ergo they want people to observe their beauty.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 12:33 pm to mindbreaker
quote:
I don't know where the line is either.
I appreciate the candor.
quote:
At the same time creepy fricker that constantly drops hints and comments on purpose shouldn't be able to use the "well she shouldn't have dressed that way" line either.
This is where management can have an impact - assuming the female complains, specifically, then creepy fricker should be told, in no uncertain terms, to knock it off. That would solve about 98% of such situations. It's only when cats are empowered or immune that this continues at this point.
quote:
if you bring up the dress/makeup issue it worries me that you are giving creepy fricker an out.
No, what I'm saying that if women get made up and dressed up for work (implicitly TO BE NOTICED) and they get noticed by dudes they are not attracted to, THAT IS NOT HARASSMENT on the part of ugly dudes. It's nature.
Period.
This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 2/12/18 at 12:38 pm to ShortyRob
I don't think the word "discussion" means what some people think it means.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 12:59 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
and they get noticed by dudes they are not attracted to, THAT IS NOT HARASSMENT on the part of ugly dudes. It's nature
I can agree with this. I guess where the issue you is isn't noticing so much as how far you take it.
A) "Hey you look nice, would you like to go out for a drink" that's fair and should be okay.
B)"Hey look nice" then a pat on her butt or mention of bedroom play. That might be a little far.
And there I see your point. We are toeing the line of A) being considered harassment so B) will have no chance of happening.
either way good discussion. I was starting to worry people of different opinions couldn't have a civil one of those on here. This was refreshing.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 1:18 pm to mindbreaker
quote:
B)"Hey look nice" then a pat on her butt or mention of bedroom play. That might be a little far.
Right - any company or organization that doesn't crack down on this and I mean with the quickness (I don't mean the guy gets fired the first time, but gets dressed down - in front of many, many witnesses so the point is made), deserves to get, pardon the pun, it's arse sued off down the line.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 1:39 pm to CommoDawg
quote:
women who wear makeup at work deserve to be harassed
Well, yeah. You think I get all dolled up to get ignored?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 1:45 pm to L.A.
quote:
What the hell is the point of makeup at work?
Because I'm scary without it. I want people to talk to me not run screaming in terror.
quote:
If I tell a female in the work space I like her outfit, is that harassment?
No. One of my co-workers told me I look pretty today. I smiled and said thank you.
This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:17 pm to upgrayedd
Serious question, has Cathy Newman responded at all to being owned?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 2:17 pm to mindbreaker
quote:that is sexual battery.
Yeah OP was and idiot with his title. I'm big on freedom though if someone wants to wear makeup, low cut shirt, hell walk around naked I don't care it's their right. Doesn't give anyone the right to smack them on the arse.
We are talking about treating someone on a socially sexual way, in the workplace. Nobody agrees with the "asking for it" defense of rape, assault, or battery.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News