Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should Clinton resign? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mrknowitall who wrote (354)	9/15/1998 12:07:00 PM
From: Who, me?	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 567

More and more think he should resign...even Microsoft Word! Go to Microsoft Word. Type "I'd like Bill Clinton to resign." without the quotes. Highlight the sentence. Click on Tools. Click on Thesaurus. There's the answer most Americans are saying!!!

To: mrknowitall who wrote (354)	9/15/1998 1:46:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 567

I think sexual harassment law, while most definitely necessary, does go too far in some circumstances. And the efforts by some to take it even further definitely bothers me. Obviously we cannot tolerate any supervisor exerting any sort of pressure on female subordinates to obtain any sort of sex. We cannot tolerate repeated objectionable crude remarks. We cannot tolerate repeated objectionable and unwanted advances. I think prohibitions on relationships between a man who is at a higher place in a work organization with a woman who is at a lower place is unreasonable. Also, the notion that harassment is anything any woman says it is, strikes me as simply wrong. It's hard to think of any other area of our law were we apply similar standards. I think that is unreasonable, and can lead to most unreasonable results. I also don't think any Supreme Court decision requires or encourages that application. With respect to hostile work environment cases, I certainly agree with most of the applications of it that I have been aware. Repeated belittling female co-workers is utterly unacceptable, as are crude pornographic pictures in the work place. And more broadly, I certainly think men should be sensitive to women's sensibilities. But I think that perhaps there should be a little adjustment in both directions. I think the Miller Brewing exec. who successfully sued after being dismissed for repeating a Sinefeld episode is a good example. I think the complaining woman in that case should have just grown up a bit. What I mean is, a little adjustment by especially easily offended women towards the sensibilities of men in the workplace should also be expected. I do not think the purpose or effect of sexual harrassment rules should be to turn every workplace into a Ladies Tea. There should be some give and take in both directions. And so, I think a pretty good test is if something can fly on broadcast national TV, it certainly ought not to give rise to any claim of harrassment. If its part of mainstream culture, it's broadly acceptable, whether some hypersensive women would wish otherwise or not. Again, I don't think the standard should be what any woman, no matter how hypersensitive, finds offensive. That is simply unfair to reasonably acting men. Really the standard should be pervasively offensive conduct that would make a "reasonable woman" feel belated and discriminated against. It's a fluid area that needs some tightening up. And no, I do not currently practice law, although I have in the past. Doug