Is it fair for men to be afraid of mentoring women?

No, in that case it's primarily because it was an issue of illegal immigration. People are naturally going to be unsympathetic to that.

That's not the same as incidents which did allegedly involve US citizens.

 

A little girl being brutally gang-raped at the border is just as tragic as an American girl being brutally gang raped.

 

More reason to "social distance".

 

I had always assumed you were a female.

 

That's what I'm talking about. Trump was sued and in cases where he was found in the wrong, he was required to pay $X to the people harmed by whatever he did (ie charity scam, fake school scam, etc.).

The process is different for seated presidents. That goes through an impeachment process in the HoR.

 

Thank you, Luther.

That target audience doesn't need an explanation. They are content with the way things are (because they have the privilege of it) so it's easier for them to deny it's happening). So that overall is futile.

My recommendation to the people who aren't diehard bigots but may want to understand the real story is to move outside their comfort zone, talk to the people you think are <I'm not bigoted so I don't know what inner thoughts they have> somehow inferior to you and get to know them. People have to be willing to remove their blinders and pre-conceived ideas of <whatever their bias it toward> is and open their eyes to what is actually happening around them.[/QUOTE]

 

There is a reason why in most traditional societies workplaces were almost always gender segregated, or took precautions to make sure two individuals of different genders were never left alone. The only exception might be if the woman was an old hag and no one would think she would attract sexual attentions.

Also consider that in traditional muslim society women require multiple male witnesses to be able to put forward accusations of sexual misconduct. This was to ensure that no man would be falsely accused by a woman.

 

The assumption that racism is is primarily a 'white' problem, or that white or black or brown or yellow can't be bigotted about people of their own race - leaves a very narrow channel in your statement.

ANYone who treats a physical characteristic as less or more than someone else, has a problem only they can come to terms with. It's not my or your place to claim a virtue over them.

 

I'm not making that claim. Bigotry exists in countless ways. It's not all one-sided. The primary reason that white racism toward non-whites is more of a problem is white people have the advantage.

For example, I worked for a company that hired an African American woman as a District Manager covering six states. She was qualified and did an excellent job. All of her staff members liked her until one day when she had to fly out-of-state. One of her team members was scheduled to pick her up. They day before her flight, he called her to ask for a description so he would be able to find her at the airport. She described herself to him including mentioning that she was black.

The employee demanded that she repeat that. She did (not immediately catching the issue) and he said "I ain't picking up no n!gger!" and hung up on her. She called the owner of the company (her direct supervisor) to notify him that she had made alternate plans for the trip and the reason why. The owner grew silent and hung up on her. He called her back a few hours later and told her that employee was removed from her district and would report to another District Manager on the other side of the country.

The owner was not aware she was black because he interviewed her over the phone so their only communication was verbal and via email. After that time, he went from constantly praising her in management meetings, sending praising emails to finding fault with everything she did. He would call to yell and swear at her almost daily. He eventually moved all her employees to other districts in a "restructuring" and she was laid off.

I have been in several companies in which these kinds of things happen and in all of them the bias was skewed toward the white person. I have witnessed it with my own eyes (and have been on the hot seat for not discriminating). I have no doubts that if the races of the people were reversed, that employee would have been written up, possibly even fired for talking to a supervisor that way.

------------------------
As a police officer, I responded to a call from a convenience store owner who reported that a black man had come into the store to buy liquor and showed a fake id. He reported the photo on the license was of a white person. He gave me the plate #, car description and description of the man. I did my part in making the report and then it goes to someone for follow-up.

Fast forward approximately 4-5 months. I had gone to the store for an elderly neighbor who is black earlier in the day. I had to get her Rxs so she gave me her state ID with a note for the pharmacist so that I could pick up her medications. On the way home, I stopped at that same convenience store to buy her cigarettes. The same man carded me (I look younger than I am) and I reached in and pulled out her ID instead of mine. He said "That's not you." I showed him my ID and he rang up my purchase.

Again, none of this about denying that bigots come in all races, genders, sexualities, etc.. That's not in dispute. My point is because the benefit of the doubt is automatically skewed toward a white person (in any kind of disagreement at work, with the police, car accidents, etc.) the other side is automatically being discriminated against. This is what is meant by "white privilege". There were a ton of memes after the Capitol riot in January with photos of the shaman in the Senate chambers. The statement was it was a perfect photo of white privilege because he most likely would have never made it that far if he was not white.

If you look at some of the thread about that riot, it's clear that many people are minimizing the crimes by basically shrugging it off as trespassing. Senator Johnson even said that he was not scared, but he would have been if the rioters were BLM or Antifa. The message is clear. White people get the benefit of the doubt. Others usually don't. And. because it's something that we have always had, most of us aren't able to see the difference.

Another example of this is how we vilify a particular group when someone in that group (however you want to define it) commits a crime. Anybody can look up the stats on hate crimes and connect the dots to major shooting spree suspects. There was an increase in crimes against Muslims soon after 9/11. There is usually some uptick against all ethnic groups when a person with that ethnicity commits a crime. This is not the case when the criminal is white. We say the *person* is bad. The *person* broke the law. Some say that *person* is trash. We don't lump ALL white people when this happens.

I'm not sure if you're including me in this comment so disregard if you're not.

Racism (actually, all forms of discrimination) is a personal problem but it's also a societal problem. We see the effects of what it does in our communities. We miss out on the opportunity to grow by ignoring the problem as the bigot's responsibility to fix within himself/herself.

So, I wasn't trying to virtue signal. I was using my own experiences in which I've witnessed these things happen many, many times because I strongly believe the only way for us to learn and grow (in any area/subject of life) is to be able to communicate and share ideas with one another to address the issues that impact us as a community. And, now, it's even more important because these issues are effecting us as a country.

 

I don't discount personal anecdotes entirely, but I have also witnessed the entire opposite. I've seen people who are not pleasant to be around in general (work and otherwise) claim discrimination and or racism because they weren't included in an after work social evening. It had nothing to do with their skin color, it was that they had an unpleasant personality.

I've seen Blacks treat Whites badly, I've seen Whites treat Blacks badly, it's on the individual. I'm very much over being told I am innately racist because I was born with lighter skin, by people who don't even know me. I personally don't care what color/gender/age someone is, who are you as a person? Thinking a problem can be addressed by 'confronting' someone is likely to cause more problems then it cures.

No one can force a change of mind. You lay out information, you appeal to reason. The minute someone starts telling another person 'you are wrong' they've lost them. And unfortunately, some groups seem to like 'screaming' it at other people to make themselves feel virtuous.

 

I agree.

A couple years ago I was invited to a church. I no longer believe in god so I and asked a friend to go with me. The church was huge and they did a ton of singing and testimonials. As it went on, my friend became angrier and angrier. I kind of gave him a look to tell him he was being run to our inviter. He didn't care. He eventually sat down and folded his arms with a scowl for the last hour. Finally, when we left, I asked him what that was all about and he said (and this is an exact quote) "That wasn't preaching! That was the devil's workshop with all that singing and swaying and testifying! REAL church is about fire and brimstone and punishment."

I've thought about that many, many times since then. Who in the hell wants to be told they are a worthless POS and deserve to die in a lake of fire!?!?

I honestly don't believe some Christians even know their approach is so off-putting that they are pushing people away from the very thing they are trying to convince them of. It's like some of the people here screaming about the vaccinations being a bioweapon and everybody that got it will be dead in three years. Why say that? If a person is not vaccinated, they won't care. And, if they are vaccinated, it's just terrorizing them. That whole approach is just counterproductive.

 

No, that’s not how it works. That’s how you think it works.

 

No, we men just have to keep our pants on.

 

I had always assumed you were trans.

 

I am non-religious (not anti religious). If it fills something in you and harms none, enjoy yourself. I expect the same respect, but rarely find it.

That same thinking applies across the board for me, and unfortunately politics and all that goes with it is being flung around like battery acid with little consideration for who it spatters or the harm done.

It's not just the anti-vaxxers (those who feel no one should be receiving it) but the militant pro-vaxxers who feel that people should not have a right to say what does or does not go into their body. Unless it's something coming out of their body, then it's all about bodily autonomy. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Back on topic, people will find reasons to find fault with others - especially in a business environment. Job protections, the need to project as flawless?

 

Stop flirting with me.... I'm just not into your type okay?

 

I've always had a problem with this because we all know that nobody is perfect. Yet, we have these impossible expectations of others. We say that we believe in a certain moral code (as a country, I mean) but we somehow overlook it in real life application.

For example, using @CCitizen's OP, he contends that men are being treated unfairly because of potential allegations of sexual harassment to the point some of them are *afraid* to mentor women at work. He didn't include any back-up to that statement so let's just assume that's a big enough issue for it to be discussed (to him, it obviously is).

Yet, look at all the negativity dished out because Mike Pence refuses to be alone with any of his female staff. He is living by his own ethics and got creamed for it.

Clinton, Trump, Cosby, etc. all denied any wrongdoing relative to the allegations of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault. Lewinsky took a beating but Clinton really didn't. Trump is clearly untouchable and Cosby was given leniency. Gaetz has yet to be indicted for what many believe is his connection to underage human trafficking.

On the other hand, Louis C.K. faced allegations of sexual harassment. He not only admitted that his accusers were telling the truth, he volunteered the information for the express purpose of NOT putting those women through the public beating they would have received had he chosen to lie and deny it. His behavior wasn't appropriate, but his response was VERY HONORABLE and he got blasted!! A person taking responsibility for their own bad behavior is exactly how it should be.

Our priorities are really messed up and these types of responses easily prove that we are not who we say we are (collectively).

 

If Louis C.K. (I actually have no idea who that is) was truly honorable, he wouldn't have harassed to begin with.

I've worked through the time when a compliment to a co-worker (male or female) was taken as a compliment, not harassment. When a Manager could take a few extra minutes and explain a particular process or problem to an underling, regardless of gender, and it was accepted as instruction, not demeaning harassment or discrimination. When a co-worker could ask if you wanted to go out after work for a social thing, and a decline was done politely but firmly, without the involvement of HR and and the corporate lawyers.

So many people looking for a reason to be offended or a 'victim' especially if there is a payoff in the end, it saddens me to see that people actually have to walk on eggshells around them.

 

He's a stand-up comedian. A bit edgy but funny. I like comedians that don't put down groups of people (ie. race, religion, sexuality, etc.).

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41950043

I didn't say he was honorable. I said his taking responsibility for his wrong behavior was honorable.

MY COMMENT: "His behavior wasn't appropriate, but his response was VERY HONORABLE and he got blasted!!"​

All those still exist today. Nobody has ever said that ALL male/female, manager/subordinate interactions fall under some kind of harassment or discrimination violations.

However, as we recently saw with Andrew Cuomo, there still exists an environment in which women are afraid to come forward about inappropriate and unwanted behavior from a supervisor, especially a very powerful one.

I hope this doesn't come out harsh (it's not intended to be). That statement assigns blame to the victim and rates their reaction as "wrong". Therein lies the crux of this issue. Just because you (or I or whomever) do not view something as offensive does not mean it's not offensive to the person on the receiving end.

You made the comment earlier #60 saying "The minute someone starts telling another person 'you are wrong' they've lost them. And unfortunately, some groups seem to like 'screaming' it at other people to make themselves feel virtuous."

Using your statement, can you see how you're assigning blame and *ranking* what another person should feel about their level of offense?

In real life, we are always going to meet people who think about things from their own belief system, what they were taught, life experiences and observations. We all do that and there is NOBODY on the planet that will ever agree with you (or me or whomever) 100% straight down the line. If we remain mindful of this, we can begin to recognize that we don't have to understand or even agree with a person's reason(s) for feeling offended but simply recognize that they do feel offended.

For example, I am absolutely DISGUSTED when people spit on the street or sidewalk. I hate it to nth degree. I have yet to meet anybody that understands why it bothers me so much. Does that mean it's not disgusting? No. It's just not disgusting to (whomever MJ told about how gross it is) but it is to me. See the difference? [/QUOTE]

 

I think "innocent until proven guilty" is a nearly empty phrase as well because of how trials work. There's this competition between lawyers who are often not of the same skill level to manipulate this group of frankly impressionable people. Sure, the jury is instructed to only convict if proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. But the fairness stops there. Juries don't know basic things like that confessions are unreliable, that eyewitness accounts are unreliable, and they don't know how to interpret forensic tests and so it again comes down to the skill of the lawyers and their witnesses. I have minimal faith in the criminal justice system and I hope I can just avoid it.

But sexual harassment does have a lower burden of proof and there is this societal pressure to just believe the accuser. Being completely professional and never trying to be social with people at work will keep you safe most of the time (be nice but not too nice, never touch people even on the shoulder), but misunderstandings can still occur. Have anti-sexual harassment measures gone too far? I hesitate to commit because I don't have a ready solution. Doubtless it's a difficult issue because women need to feel safe at work to be productive too.

 

They laughed at Mike Pence when he said that he refused to be put into the position of being alone with a female colleague.

He looked like a prudish old fuddy duddy when he said it, but, a few years and many #MeToos later, he looks like one smart cookie.

 

Can't blame men for feeling this way. It's a shame for women in the business world, because they will miss a lot of knowledge, and will be excluded often.

 

My very 1st post said, there's always an over reaction to everything when a tide changes.

 

Now that's how it works, the problem is that many ill-informed people don't think so. But ultimately, who cares?

 

Take the high profile case of Chauvin.
Videos of him kneeling on a man's neck until he died.
Was out of jail and not sentenced until a trial and conviction happened.

That's innocent until proven guilty.