HorrorMovieFans.com

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It’s good to see more people speaking out against abuse. Hopefully it’ll make things generally better.

Gonna be worse for women in the end. While they certainly were treated as objects before, expect less opportunity now. Why risk even meeting with someone who is gonna fling accusations on social media when they lose or do not get a job?

In what universe do you live? It’s a freaky place.

I guess i live in the real universe. One where people in real positions of power are making decisions that are likely to have fewer consequences. Right this minute, do you not think there are people doing hiring who immediately exclude women with names like "Mercedes", "Lexus", "Shaniqua", and "LaShonda", because they would rather not give them the opportunity than deal with the bullshit that would come about if they had to fire them later? Or have to deal with social media calling them names because it was simply a poor fit?

It happens. It is the flip side that people are afraid to discuss.

But there are literal laws against this sort of thing, and there’s a lot more focus on diversity and equality in most of the Western world. These kind of made up horror scenarios are not the norm and they can’t be. Because it would be instantly obvious to HR and leadership teams across the board who discuss such things.

I’m not saying it can’t happen, but it isn’t the norm and even in the instances you’re discussing the problem isn’t that women and men are increasingly able to speak out against rape and sexual assault. It’s that employers are being dickheads. We shouldn’t normalize assault ship that employers will gamble on more women being employable. That’s sick and twisted.

Laws! Literal laws! Like the laws that say don't cornhole kids, sexually assault people, etc.? Clearly that works...

Why do you think employers look at social media? They want to see if you are going to be a problem. Would you rather just keep looking or deal with someone who has a history of public discord?

Looking on social media to see if you're a problem is not the same as refusing to hire any women. This really isn't that complicated.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:It’s good to see more people speaking out against abuse. Hopefully it’ll make things generally better.

Gonna be worse for women in the end. While they certainly were treated as objects before, expect less opportunity now. Why risk even meeting with someone who is gonna fling accusations on social media when they lose or do not get a job?

In what universe do you live? It’s a freaky place.

I guess i live in the real universe. One where people in real positions of power are making decisions that are likely to have fewer consequences. Right this minute, do you not think there are people doing hiring who immediately exclude women with names like "Mercedes", "Lexus", "Shaniqua", and "LaShonda", because they would rather not give them the opportunity than deal with the bullshit that would come about if they had to fire them later? Or have to deal with social media calling them names because it was simply a poor fit?

It happens. It is the flip side that people are afraid to discuss.

But there are literal laws against this sort of thing, and there’s a lot more focus on diversity and equality in most of the Western world. These kind of made up horror scenarios are not the norm and they can’t be. Because it would be instantly obvious to HR and leadership teams across the board who discuss such things.

I’m not saying it can’t happen, but it isn’t the norm and even in the instances you’re discussing the problem isn’t that women and men are increasingly able to speak out against rape and sexual assault. It’s that employers are being dickheads. We shouldn’t normalize assault ship that employers will gamble on more women being employable. That’s sick and twisted.

Laws! Literal laws! Like the laws that say don't cornhole kids, sexually assault people, etc.? Clearly that works...

Why do you think employers look at social media? They want to see if you are going to be a problem. Would you rather just keep looking or deal with someone who has a history of public discord?

Looking on social media to see if you're a problem is not the same as refusing to hire any women. This really isn't that complicated.

It is not refusing. It is moving them to the bottom of the pile. They will stiull get jobs, just not as many. Nobody wants the drama.

Foo wrote:To give a flip side on how to handle things, one of my best employees was mistreated at her previous job. She started working there, got lots of hours and was really friendly with the manager. Then he found out she had a boyfriend. Everything changed and she was no longer getting hours. She left that job without making a huge ordeal over it because it was impossible to prove and not really worth it. She understood that she needed to find a job that valued her work enough to want her working there, rather than to be a party friend or sitting on the sideline.

Reign in Blood wrote:

Foo wrote:To give a flip side on how to handle things, one of my best employees was mistreated at her previous job. She started working there, got lots of hours and was really friendly with the manager. Then he found out she had a boyfriend. Everything changed and she was no longer getting hours. She left that job without making a huge ordeal over it because it was impossible to prove and not really worth it. She understood that she needed to find a job that valued her work enough to want her working there, rather than to be a party friend or sitting on the sideline.

Ms. Poland?

Foo wrote:Sure, whenever possible you try to cut down on drama. If someone is dramatic, litigious, political, etc., it is marks against them. If they had a bunch of jobs in the past, big chunks of time not working, no car, smokers, etc.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:Sure, whenever possible you try to cut down on drama. If someone is dramatic, litigious, political, etc., it is marks against them. If they had a bunch of jobs in the past, big chunks of time not working, no car, smokers, etc.

But that wasn't your point at all. There's still a fine line there for me, but definitely very different to the idea that a woman, just for being a woman, will be removed from opportunities.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:Sure, whenever possible you try to cut down on drama. If someone is dramatic, litigious, political, etc., it is marks against them. If they had a bunch of jobs in the past, big chunks of time not working, no car, smokers, etc.

But that wasn't your point at all. There's still a fine line there for me, but definitely very different to the idea that a woman, just for being a woman, will be removed from opportunities.

These things cut both ways. When they want special treatment, opportunity, and to play the victim card at every turn because they are women, don't expect there not to be an equal and opposite reaction the other way.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:Sure, whenever possible you try to cut down on drama. If someone is dramatic, litigious, political, etc., it is marks against them. If they had a bunch of jobs in the past, big chunks of time not working, no car, smokers, etc.

But that wasn't your point at all. There's still a fine line there for me, but definitely very different to the idea that a woman, just for being a woman, will be removed from opportunities.

These things cut both ways. When they want special treatment, opportunity, and to play the victim card at every turn because they are women, don't expect there not to be an equal and opposite reaction the other way.

Those are t women you’re thinking of. Not sure what it is frankly.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:Sure, whenever possible you try to cut down on drama. If someone is dramatic, litigious, political, etc., it is marks against them. If they had a bunch of jobs in the past, big chunks of time not working, no car, smokers, etc.

But that wasn't your point at all. There's still a fine line there for me, but definitely very different to the idea that a woman, just for being a woman, will be removed from opportunities.

These things cut both ways. When they want special treatment, opportunity, and to play the victim card at every turn because they are women, don't expect there not to be an equal and opposite reaction the other way.

Those are t women you’re thinking of. Not sure what it is frankly.

When your societal group gets associated with drama and bullshit, that is the result. No one is doing them favors by telling them how brave they are and making victims of the accused by punishing them without evidence. The further the pendulum swings, the further it swings back.

showa58taro wrote:And the solution is for men to stop being cunts. Not for women to let them grab their butts.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:And the solution is for men to stop being cunts. Not for women to let them grab their butts.

Yeah, no woman ever has touched a guy's ass..,

What other fantasy solutions would you like to submit?

- "people should just stop shooting each other!"
- "people should just stop stealing!"

Foo wrote:Maybe women should carry more guns. Then they can have a fighting chance against a rapist. That is a real, tangible action that produces results.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:Maybe women should carry more guns. Then they can have a fighting chance against a rapist. That is a real, tangible action that produces results.

So your solution to sexual harassment is murder. But I’m the unreasonable one.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:Maybe women should carry more guns. Then they can have a fighting chance against a rapist. That is a real, tangible action that produces results.

So your solution to sexual harassment is murder. But I’m the unreasonable one.

It is a solution against rape, the worst type of sexual assault. Gun control is misogynistic.