Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Men, #Me Too, and Moral Panics
Based on a post I wrote here, I wrote a much longer piece about the Weinsteining phenomenon for The American Interest. (Warning: the language is not safe for work and not appropriate for Ricochet. That I used those words there doesn’t mean you can use them here. If you can figure out how to describe the Louis CK imbroglio in family-friendly language, more power to you.)
I was flabbergasted by the response. I had expected nothing but vituperation. I was fully braced for it, and had just decided, “Well, you’ll have an awful week, but it has to be said, so just stay off social media until it all blows over.” I pretty much figured I was Hal:
I was wrong. It seems to be the most widely-read and widely-appreciated article I’ve ever written, at least to judge from the site traffic and the mail I’ve received in response. Even the hate mail seemed a bit wan and pro-forma. The authors’ hearts clearly weren’t really into it.
I don’t know what this means. Vanity would prompt me to think, “I am the greatest writer in the world and I wrote the best article in history, that’s why everyone loved it.” But narcissism is never your friend when you’re trying to figure out why people are doing strange things that you did not expect them to do. That wasn’t the best or the most important thing I’ve ever written. I pretty much dashed it off. I didn’t do any research in the archives or sweat blood over the prose.
Still, I figure a quarter of a million people will have read it by the end of the week.
When last I checked the records at the Bodleian, I discovered that no one–literally not one single soul–had ever checked my doctoral thesis out of the library. I don’t think anyone has ever purchased it, either. I’m pretty sure this is not because my doctoral thesis wasn’t as good as that article. I’d like to think it was quite a bit better, actually. If not, I sure wasted a lot of time.
When something connects with readers this much, it says something about the audience, not the writer. So I’m wondering, hopefully: Perhaps this reaction means we’ve passed peak hysteria? Maybe it means people are truly longing to have a bit of common sense back?
I sure hope so. Because if you were to read all the mail I’ve received since I published that article, you’d weep. Hundreds of letters–most, but not all, from men–expressing sentiments no one in a free society should even have the vocabulary to express.
Some of the people who wrote were quite prominent, but most were, I think, just ordinary guys–guys who are now so scared of women, so broken-hearted, so baffled, that I wish I could just teleport them off our planet to a sane place where women are kind to them and the rules about sex are clear. That seems to be all they want, and it hardly seems an unreasonable demand. From one such letter:
Every rejection, every break-up, every dissolution of a union and you die a little more inside; less of a person, a broken wrecked empty shell of a man; weighed down by so many missed opportunities, so much baggage and misanthropic self-loathing. I had a fiancée once – then she cheated on me and I was never quite right after that. They say you grow with each relationship, but I’d argue the opposite; with each you lose a part of yourself, until nothing more than a torso with a head flopping around on the muddy ground.
Being accused of sexual harassment on the other hand for starting a conversation – or even the paranoid fear of this happening – would be life destroying. I respect women (the best relationships I’ve had have all been FLR); I love women, I hold all of them in such high regard; as an atheist, to be seen positively by a woman is to glimpse the face of God – and it is precisely for that reason that rejection or a negative reaction is so debilitating. It tells the person being rejected they are worthless garbage. Now, however, it also comes with a (possible) side order of accusations of being a harasser.
The price and danger of speaking with a woman has changed from being humiliated in public and having one’s self-esteem wiped out (which as much as I hate it, I have always begrudgingly accepted as the price men must pay in order to date – you want to have a relationship, fine, then be prepared to suffer excruciatingly for it or accept soul crushing loneliness), to now facing vitriolic accusations, extreme pillorying, and possible arrest.
Try to empathise with this fact – the current climate takes a pre-existing instinctive horror, found in nice but shy men, and multiplies it by 10,000 burning suns. It’s days like these I honestly wish I were a gay man. So much easier (based on observing the lives of gay friends). Heterosexual men have the hardest time. Of all the options available to us in life, none are without some kind of judgement by others and a prolonged feeling of agony. It’s honestly no wonder I drink so much.
What can I say? Yes, I did write back to tell him to take women off that pedestal–we’re no substitute for God.
The piece received very little of the criticism I expected. Only a couple of death threats, and these were from readers who were furious at my suggestion that the Trump presidency might be a source of general social anxiety. (I think they might be missing the point, or a bit too deep in their bubble — whether or not you think his presidency should be a source of anxiety, it’s incontrovertible that for many Americans, it is a source of anxiety. Receiving their messages sure didn’t reduce mine.)
One criticism I saw repeatedly is that I failed to appreciate what this was really about: equal opportunity in the workplace. I was referred, for example, to this article by Rebecca Traister, called “This Moment Isn’t (Just) About Sex.”
I read it closely. I genuinely, deeply disagree with her. For example, she writes,
What makes women vulnerable is not their carnal violability, but rather the way that their worth has been understood as fundamentally erotic, ornamental; that they have not been taken seriously as equals; that they have been treated as some ancillary reward that comes with the kinds of power men are taught to reach for and are valued for achieving. How to make clear that the trauma of the smaller trespasses — the boob grabs and unwanted kisses or come-ons from bosses — is not necessarily even about the sexualized act in question; so many of us learned to maneuver around hands-y men without sustaining lasting emotional damage when we were 14.
Rather, it’s about the cruel reminder that these are still the terms on which we are valued, by our colleagues, our bosses, sometimes our competitors, the men we tricked ourselves into thinking might see us as smart, formidable colleagues or rivals, not as the kinds of objects they can just grab and grope and degrade without consequence. It’s not that we’re horrified like some Victorian damsel; it’s that we’re horrified like a woman in 2017 who briefly believed she was equal to her male peers but has just been reminded that she is not, who has suddenly had her comparative powerlessness revealed to her. “I was hunting for a job,” said one of the women who accused Charlie Rose of assault. “And he was hunting for me.”
My response is that there is no contradiction between seeing oneself as smart and formidable and seeing oneself as an object of male attraction. They are not mutually exclusive. It is not a “cruel” thing to be reminded that one is a woman. Depending on the circumstances, it may certainly be awkward. It may require telling someone, “No.” If that doesn’t work, we are then in clear criminal territory, and of course I support laws against rape, or any similar bodily violation, and the enforcement of those laws.
But there is nothing about learning one’s colleagues find you attractive that should negate a woman’s self-esteem. It is entirely possible for a man to see a woman as smart and formidable and therefore desirable. Inherent to Ms. Traister’s argument is something like a Madonna-whore dichotomy–the very form of thought that feminists have long noted and deplored. If your male peers see you sexual, in her view, then they must not respect you.
But this is not so.
Of course it depends what kind of grabbing and groping we’re talking about — in her article she mentions accounts of rape in the workplace, which obviously is not in any kind of ambiguous grey zone, no less the zone I describe in my article. But an unwanted kiss? A hint that an employee may also have “erotic” or “ornamental” attributes in addition to her professional skills? There is no reason for any woman to feel degraded by this, unless she herself is insecure about her value as an employee.
By such logic, I would observe that even though I’ve spent my life thinking and writing about foreign policy, nothing I’ve written about foreign policy has ever made as much of a splash as an article I wrote about sex: I would thus be horrified. But I’m not. I get it. Sex sells. It will always sell. I chose to write about this, and now I’m going to go back to writing about foreign policy, because that’s a more important use of my time.
I do not feel horrified at the discovery that I can become very popular, very quickly, by writing about sex. I don’t think this entails I am only valuable to my readers when I write about sex. I think it entails that as always, sex is on everyone’s mind. And if I can use this fact to direct people’s attention to more important concerns — like Europe and the future of NATO — that’s a bonus, not an insult.
It’s not just men who are afraid. I’ve received many letters from women, too, who are deeply worried about what this will mean for us. They agree with me. The backlash will be terrible for women as a professional class. Any woman with an ounce of sense can see where this inevitably leads: strict sexual segregation. The number of men who have written to me that they now refuse to be alone with a woman unless there are witnesses is chilling. This is a Puritan, reactionary movement, dressed up as feminism.
To be clear, I was unnerved by all the attention that article received, even though it was overwhelmingly positive. But I was unnerved because of what it says about America right now, not because of what it says about me. It doesn’t seem healthy that Americans are thinking so much about this. I’m still at the top of The American Interest’s “trending” list. My article is sitting next to Adam Garfinkle’s reflections on the significance of the US recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. He is a wonderful, deeply learned writer. Anything he has to say about Jerusalem is by definition more important than anything I have to say about sexual hysteria and moral panics. But readers are clicking on my article instead of his.
I appreciate that sex sells, but since when does Jerusalem fail to sell? What does this mean about the degree to which we’ve become insular and inward-dwelling?
I’d usually complain that far too much media attention was going toward Jerusalem–as opposed to all the other parts of the world that require attention. Yet it seems to me aberrant that Americans who read The American Interest, which is, after all, a foreign policy journal, would not first click on Adam’s article. His is a lot more important, in the big scheme of things.
Or maybe, as I wrote to Adam, “it’s for the better that the world is so busy being obsessed with sex that it forgets to be obsessed with Jews.”
Anyway, that’s all I want to say about this subject. I’m now going to go back to thinking about Europe and the future of liberal democracy.
Finis.
Published in Culture, Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, General
Exactly!
If we lived in a culture where sex outside of marriage was publicly condemned–especially between people of differing social status–than this wouldn’t apply, right?
I think it’s pretty obvious what is going on here. Prosecuting sexual assault is just not possible when one side has higher socioeconomic status than the other, so in the past, people were convicted (either in the court of public opinion or in actual courts) on the more easily proven question of whether sexual conduct occurred at all.
But too many people in the upper echelons of American society have PTSD from old people scolding them to never, ever have sex when they were teenagers. And since pretty much all American elites are nihilistic narcissists, they don’t care how many women are abused in the present system, so they shut down any and all discussion of alternatives. Prudishness is just too triggering. And being elites who don’t have to deal with the consequences of sexual experimentation anyway they have no incentive to do anything else.
Claire – Glenn Beck is talking about your story as well – you hit the right buttons with many men – and women.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2017/12/12/journalist-highlights-not-so-obvious-threat-the-metoo-movement-poses-to-women/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20171211GBDAILY&utm_content=Final&utm_term=Glenn%20Beck
If the bazooka doesn’t work, sometimes calling in the A-10’s is the most effective strategy .
OMG, hard to say that? I love you RA, but imagine how hard it is to hear it!
Dear lord, men have to do all the work in the approach, face all the risk. The least women can do is tell them it is not going to happen. Instead, many women encourage it, with a cloud of beta orbiters in the friendzone, who treat her like a princess, while she sleeps with some guy who does not give her the time of day (not saying that is or was ever any woman on Ricochet – y’all all have too much class).
Please, please, please, understand, the howling depths in most men’s soul and have some pity.
Thanks for writing the article. I believe the reason it resonated so highly with so many people is that foreign policy, as important as it is, only really affects our daily lives when involvement in war is imminent. Relationships, on the other hand, affect us, our family, our friends, and our coworkers. This issue is deeply personal, and your article touched nerves that people have been silently strumming themselves, afraid of the consequences of speaking up. Some who should be interested in foreign policy may be too embroiled in this issue to give it the attention it deserves.
As for the men who responded that are putting women on pedestals, a lot of them have been shamed into hiding themselves and their flaws. They responded to that conditioning by denigrating themselves and deifying others, particularly women. The shame and victim-hood is so ingrained that, at least in personal relationships, they don’t know how to be assertive, and any sign of an aggressive approach is seen as evil. Robert Glover’s “No More Mr. Nice Guy!” is probably the most succinct at both explaining the mindset and breaking men free from the prisons of their own minds.
The whole situation’s heartbreaking because, at the end of the day, any accusation of sexual impropriety means that both parties are strung through the mud. Without concrete evidence, it always turns into a “he said, she said” debacle where the alleged aggressor really doesn’t have much of a defense against the “credible testimony” of the accuser who will be psycho-analyzed. How many people accused committed suicide or were jailed, beaten or killed where the accused knowingly lied? How many accusers were talked down by society only to commit suicide or for the aggressor to further molest, beat, rape, or kill them? No one really knows, and I find it harrowing to consider. I don’t even want to think about those who are pushing for things like hugs, handshakes, and winks to be grounds for sexual assault.
I hope this panic ends soon, for everyone’s sake, but I’m more afraid of the extremism that will end it.
This was the basis of the drug-use prevention program at my kids’ middle school. Give the kids a ready-made answer, a way to get rid of the person at the party or elsewhere who was trying to get them to take drugs. It was a fantastic strategy, and largely successful based on our own town-wide surveys.
I think this is a good answer for this sexual harassment problem.
Number 1 is good. 2 is soul crushing and cruel in a way that will likely end the friendship.
Don’t worry, it was just a joke line! I didn’t tell that one to my daughter.
Tucker Carlson also read from Claire’s “brilliant new piece” (as he put it) on his show last night. Video is here: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/tucker-carlson-tonight/index.html#/v/5678469286001.
I didn’t express this in my other comments, but I just want to add that this article by Claire is just excellent and needed saying. I’m glad it’s getting so much exposure.
In high school I was, unbeknownst at the time–but I found out shortly thereafter–not just shot down, but mocked by a large number of girls at my high school (they even had buttons made and wore them to school) for having had the temerity to ask a bunch of them (serially) to prom (being a short and fat nerd, I had to play the averages.) And in my late teens and early twenties was coldly and repeatedly shot down, when not ignored entirely. So Bryan I hear you, believe you me. I lived in the howling depths of my soul there for a while.
But ultimately it’s something that a lot of men, if not every man, have to go through, and them’s the breaks. I’d still (theoretically, having been married for a while) prefer the direct and frank response from a woman, because the defect of a lot of men, including myself until I learned better, is that it takes us a long while to learn to differentiate friendliness from romantic interest from a girl/woman. And when she does tell us it’s the former, we still don’t quite believe her. Tact is great, when it works, but sometimes she’s gotta swing the hammer, and we gotta pick up the pieces.
To make this worse, I can look back on friendships I had with guys and think, well, maybe in hindsight there was something romantic about the friendship, although I would have thought it extremely vain of myself to suspect so at the time. And because, at the time, I was (often with very good reason) unprepared to think of the friendship as romantic, if the guy had plowed ahead as if it were, and damn the torpedoes, it would have been a massive breach of trust.
God willing, I will have only one husband. I have had and still have many male friends. To maintain that ratio faithfully, I should be quite reserved about “putting on airs” about myself – that is, presuming that my male acquaintances ought to be sexually attracted to me. Which isn’t to say that my male friends and I should be incautious, just that it seems to me that whatever moments I’ve spent frustrating my male friends, I suspect ultimately it has been worth it to them, too, to have me as a friend rather than a (current or former) paramour.
(I cannot stress enough, incidentally, how unrelated my reticence to treat my friendships with men as sexual was to my considering my male friends as “unworthy” to have me as a mate. If the question of relative “worthiness” toward a close friend entered my head, it was that I inferred I was in some way unworthy of him – or if not unworthy, unsuitable in a way that seemed likely to lead to his unhappiness, too, if the issue were pursued.)
“@ryanfalcone If the bazooka doesn’t work, sometimes calling in the A-10’s is the most effective strategy.”
If any socially baffled male is even more confused upon watching that: That’s a depiction of sexual tension masked as rejection. She’s also giving him “I’m attracted to you” signals. That’s why this is a “romantic comedy.”
If a woman needs to reject a man in a way that doesn’t confuse him — and I agree with everyone who has said, “It is cruel, hurtful, and harmful to lead a man on, it is *much* kinder to let a man know where he really stands” (and vice-versa), then she needs to use the right body language.
Cher’s body language, there, was flirtatious even as the words were a rejection. If you need to say what she said, and you *mean* it, you need a cold tone of voice and closed body language. If you do that, it will work. (If it doesn’t, you’re dealing with a psychopath and a rapist.)
If you do what Cher did there, however, you may well get the response she got. That would not mean Jack Nicholson is a sexual harasser. It would mean he read the signals *correctly* and saw that despite what she said, Cher was hot for him.
This is exactly what I mean when I say, “This is all very confusing. This is about the most confusing aspect of the human behavioral repertoire. We can’t be sending men to the gallows for misreading the signals.”
That video makes my point perfectly.
@arightangles “I didn’t express this in my other comments, but I just want to add that this article by Claire is just excellent and needed saying. I’m glad it’s getting so much exposure.”
Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I’m glad this article seems to have been useful. It seems, in many cases, to have started a conversation that people really wanted to have, but were too afraid to say so. That’s got to be a good thing. I worried a bit about coming across as a rape apologist, but I think I made my feelings about that clear enough.
We agree. My point was be direct and let the man go. Don’t let him think there is chance. I did not word it well.
Why Bryan, I never realized you were such a tender soul!
As a sensitive gentleman, I trust you would understand and behave as such in circumstances where you were attracted to a lady whom you do NOT supervise, and making the first advance, as in this scenario:
You: “You know, Millie, I really like you. Would you let me take you out to dinner on Friday?”
Millie: (Looks away nervously, has a distressed expression on her face, and, after a pause, says:) “No, thank you.”
You: “Well, I’m sorry about that. I guess we’d better get back to work.” You smile ruefully, and go back to work.
You have just behaved as a perfect gentleman, and even if Millie doesn’t wish to go out with you, you are now 10 feet tall in her eyes. If she does gossip to her female friends about your asking for a date, she will say that you were so nice about it, and they will have a better impression of you. If Millie does anything less, she is NOT deserving of your company.
To be continued.
Attraction and sexuality that are mutual are not harrassment. Behaving in a gentlemanly manner, taking “no” for an answer, are not harrassment.
If the men in the news now had acted like gentlemen, they would not be news. You wouldn’t grab a woman that you weren’t already having sex with by her erogenous zones, and certainly not at her workplace. You wouldn’t imprison her in your office, or extort sex from her by making it a condition of employment, would you? Of course not, because you are a gentleman. You wouldn’t require a potential hire to meet you in a hotel room for an “interview”, then answer the door naked, or in a similarly flagrant condition? And you certainly wouldn’t pursue a relationship with someone who wasn’t old enough to vote, would you?
Perhaps there are tricky spots that I don’t understand here, that you will do me the favor of explaining. Being the Southern Gentleman that you are, however, I just can’t see how you would ever need to worry about being accused of sexual harrassment.
Unfortunately some men are boors, not gentlemen, and most ladies encounter them at some point or another. Boorish acts should not be mystified, but recognized for the obvious blunders that they are. I was very pleased to read of Brad Pitt’s visit to Harvey Weinstein and promise to give Weinstein a “Missouri whuppin'” if he bothered a certain woman again.
If you have time to reply, could you also explain the details of a “Missouri whuppin'” for those of us who have not visited your state?
Having read @claire‘s article, it is obvious that some of the accused harassers did not deserve the punishment that they received. It’s notable that many, if not most, of the excessive punishments were carried out by progressive organizations that we often ridicule on these pages. Thus one of progressivism’s most articulate critics, Claire Berlinski, is ironically pleading with its forces to show temperance and mercy to its villains du jour, as its various factions tear each other apart.
Yeah, #metoo, years ago, and many of the ladies that I worked with at the time, but our harrassers are dead and gone from the office, and what use could it possibly serve to complain of them now? Anita Hill’s case was a watershed and things changed for us after that.
Perhaps I’m too much of a lawyer but the definition of sexual harassment does not seem ambiguous to me. ” Persistent and unwanted sexual attention” requires both a voiced objection and a refusal to desist. It doesn’t sound like Claire objected to the grope from her don.
But we also recognize statutes of limitation, and going back multiple decades is a slippery slope. There’s a bit of cosmic justice in it for Weinstein as he continued his predations, though I’m troubled by some of it, too, wondering if any of the actresses involved chose to prostitute themselves to get their shot at one of Weinstein’s movies. The casting couch is not new and I’d be surprised if there weren’t a grapevine about him at SAG. Still, it seems the man has gotten what’s coming to him at last.
As for Louis CK, he reaped his own whirlwind.
To Claire and all,
I have little complaint with Claire’s article. However, it is past the time that we can afford to just assume good faith and even-handedness. We must have a test.
THE TEST
Background: Charlie Rose’s accuser described her encounter with him at Charlie’s house. She was about 30 years old and “had a boyfriend”. She had “financial problems”. Rose said he would pay her in addition to her salary if she spent a week at his house cleaning up his files and book collection. While she was working Rose came out of the shower half naked and stood close to her. She said she didn’t tell him she wasn’t interested in a relationship because she was afraid of losing her job although he never said anything like that. He got the idea that she didn’t want it to happen and stopped. That was all. Twenty years later she is interviewed and tells of her harrowing experience.
Let us reverse the roles: It is Ariana Huffington. Her male assistant of about 30 years old has a girlfriend. He has money problems. Ariana suggests he come to her home for the weekend to help her organize her files & emails and she will give him a bonus. He is at the computer when Ariana comes out of the shower in a negligee. She leans over him rubbing against him slightly. He doesn’t respond and doesn’t say anything to her because he was afraid of losing his job. She gets the idea that he didn’t want it to happen and stopped. That was all. Twenty years later he is interviewed and tells of his harrowing experience.
Both Ariana & Charlie were single at the time of the original encounter. Both of the assistants were in a “relationship” but neither was married.
The Questions: How do you feel about the two victims (assuming that you see them as victims)? How do you feel about the two perpetrators (assuming that you see them as perpetrators)?
The rules are that you may write any length response to the questions. Grammer and Spelling do not count and Fred Cole may not ask you for additional sources.
I will not be judging the responses. In this regard, I hope you will accept the old Hebrew Bracha. Baruch dayan emet. Gd is the true judge.
Regards,
Jim
@jamesgawron – neither is sexual harassment, as both passers desisted when the receivers demurred. It might have been boorish to make the pass in the first place, but taking “no for an answer” is the most curative thing the passers could have done afterward.
Mole-eye,
Let me rephrase your comment. So in harassment, we aren’t judging how attractive the passers are but whether they accepted the outcome of the failed pass. The other aspect you didn’t mention is the “setup”. In both cases the passers setup the receivers in suggestive isolated situations. However, we are talking about 30-year-old, we presume, non-virgins. They knew that they were walking into a situation that invited seduction. Both receivers refuse and suffer no consequences. On the other hand, if either had accepted they would have gained a great deal. I’m not suggesting that either would do this. Unfortunately, delaying marriage and participating in serial sexual “relationships” may be your right but it does not convey the message, “I’m already spoken for, don’t be a cad (or a homewrecker)”. Remember both Charlie and Ariana are single. They aren’t doing anything wrong in trying to start a relationship. A May-December couple may not be very inspiring. She may be seen as a gold digger and he may be seen as a letch but this isn’t anything that is actionable.
Do you agree with my assessment?
Regards,
Jim
Speaking of misreading signals, what it’s like to have folks reading your signals before you know what signals you are sending.
@jamesgawron – I use the legal definition of sexual harassment, which is persistent unwanted sexual attention in the work environment, making sexual compliance a condition of employment, or retaliating in the work sphere against someone who rejects the overtures or complains of them. The attractiveness of the passer is irrelevant – it doesn’t matter if he’s George Clooney or Elmer Fudd. His marital status is also of little relevance. What is highly relevant is the power differential between the passer and the “passee”, and the passee’s freedom to decline the passer’s overture. I think that in both the situations that you describe the passer is using a ruse of employment to try to get sex from the employee, because the pass comes so soon after the “employment” begins. In each situation the passer is vastly more powerful than the passee. I don’t know anything about the male in the situation, but I do know of Arianna Huffington and I think she would have a very long reach if you displeased her. The passee presumably needs the job for her/his living, and it has to go through her/his mind what the consequences of refusal might be.
The setup is dishonest, manipulative and disrespectful toward the employee. The only positive in all of it is that the passer does not push the issue after the passee demurs. If the passer only or primarily wanted to have sex with the passee, he or she should have asked for a date instead of offering a job. If the passer had any respect for the employee, he or she would have been honest with the employee from the start. The passer’s unmarried status may mean that he or she is not attempting to commit adultery with the passee, but that changes nothing about the manipulative nature of the setup. It’s pretty sleazy behavior, don’t you think? Could you convince yourself that weren’t being a heel if you did it?
My husband adds that, if the employer wants the employee to provide sexual services along with other duties, the employer should make that clear in the job description up front.
What would change the situation in my view would be if the employee had made it clear from the beginning, through ostentatious flirting or some other means, that the desire for sex was mutual. Then the sexual attention would not be “unwanted”. It’s not a situation that I’d recommend to the employer, though, as there’s so much possibility for things to go wrong and end badly.
You mean like turning your back on your boss, pulling up your top in back, and snapping the waistband of your thong? That sort of thing?
How could that ever end badly?
Pretty much anything involving a thong can end badly, not only because of the suggestive nature of the garment, but because it’s also structurally ridiculous – like, if you tried that in front of your boss, the thong might break and slingshot into your boss’s face, injuring his cornea or something.
Sometimes women wear thongs to avoid embarrassing “panty lines”, but any embarrassment you avoid by avoiding panty lines has to compete with the embarrassment of knowing you’ve donned a garment specifically designed to give you a wedgie. Femininity: it’s not so much about avoiding embarrassment as minimizing it.
Yea, I really hate wearing thongs. And then when it breaks and goes slingshotting across the room…taking out several of one’s fellow employees in its flight…talk about embarrassing. I’d rather be harassed. I’ve had to deal with having my butt pinched by female co workers on numerous occassions. I’ve just learned to live with it.
Mole-eye,
So let me sum up your comment. The setup does matter a great deal especially if the employer has a great deal of power and might fire and even hurt the employee’s chances for future employment. Directly asking for a date, as long as the refusal is accepted, is OK.
I would say that the question about marriage does matter. Flirting or not you do not make a date with someone who is married. I think that behavior is a complete moral failure and whether it is unlawful or not isn’t the point. To ignore the institution of marriage is to fail to see how it is we got into this social situation to begin with. If we don’t return to respect for marriage then we will never get out of the sexual swamp we are in.
Interesting that you bring up the point about flirting. Just to ask your reaction, I watched the 30-year-old assistant that Charlie Rose hit on, being interviewed. There is something that women do that I call a hair flip. They tilt their head forward slightly and running their fingers through their long hair they flip it back over there head. Usually, if they are making eye contact with someone while doing it they appear to be very flirtatious. As the 30-year-old assistant is being interviewed about this supposed nerve-racking experience of having Charlie hit on her, she looks directly at the interviewer smiling and does the hair flip. Like she is recounting something which wasn’t nerve-racking but titillating.
Your thoughts.
Regards,
Jim
Of course I don’t mean to ignore the institution of marriage, but adultery is largely a separate moral crime here, as opposed to a transgression of employment law. Treating an employee so shabbily is a moral crime, too, in my book. To split hairs about the example you gave, the passer wasn’t married and the passee’s status wasn’t specified, if I remember correctly, so adultery didn’t factor in. Legal, moral, many dimensions can be involved in these situations.
On the subject of the meaning of hair-flipping: I agree it sounds like she was flirting with the camera, but speaking as a woman who has flipped her hair when it was long, for me it was generally a nervous gesture, or an unconscious act of self-soothing. Not necessarily definable as the equal of a sultry gaze and saying, “Come and get me, Big Boy!” It’s a great subject for a Talmudic sort of discussion, though, given both the ambiguous nature of flirting generally, and all the cultural and scriptural associations with a woman’s hair. Think I’ll post something on it.
My husband just added that he thinks that the flirtatious nature of hair flipping has to do with the concealing and unveiling of the eyes. Look for my next post on the member site.
Mole-eye,
I look forward to it with bated breath…uh…rephrasing, I look forward to your next post with keen anticipation.
Regards,
Jim