That is Criminal Harassment. Not at all the same thing as Sexual Harassment, which is Civil, not Criminal.
How does this not support the assertion that I made earlier about not having much legal protection against street harassment?
Strange, that tells me that it's not sexual harassment, and completely a phrase that's caught on among drunken fools taking part in the time-honoured tradition of fucking with on-site reporters. Do you think the minority of girls saying it, like this girl, who says it to a female reporter, are trying to sexually harass, or fuck with a reporter and mug for the camera? If the latter, isn't it possible that the drunken male idiots are doing the same thing? Sexual harassment is a long-overlooked problem, no doubt, but I feel like this is a weak example. If a girl is walking down the street and a guy aggressively yells this in her face, that's clear cut harassment. If a guy (or girl) says it to a reporter on location, in front of a group of people, specifically BECAUSE he or she knows they'll get on camera and fuck with the reporter's flow...eh. Regardless of sex, we're dealing with a group of idiots getting drunk and being more idiotic when there's a camera on them. Unsurprisingly, most are male, but holding this up as a prime example of sexual harassment takes away focus from real sexual harassment. Also, the host and reporter's reaction in the clip I linked made me remember how much more fucking chill Kiwis (and Aussies) are.
I feel like, for practical purposes, it absolutely does. It puts the burden of bringing a suit onto the person who was harassed.
I never said this was a prime example of sexual harassment, but it is, without a doubt in my mind, sexual harassment. I also don't understand why women are shut down so hard on this board in regards to things like sexual harassment, seeing as how we typically experience more of it than men do.
And yet it has a much lower burden of proof, making it much, much easier to win. Someone who feels they have been sexually harassed has a much, much better chance to get justice in a civil proceeding than a criminal proceeding. For instance, in a criminal proceeding, it's 100% up to the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the infraction occurred. In a civil case, it's "more likely than not", and the burden of proof, while initially up to the plaintiff, can transfer to the defendant. And in the end, where there isn't physical, measurable assault, as in the case of a verbal harassment, it becomes a matter of judgement, so how can the state reasonably determine/measure when the offence occurs? Everyone dies when their head gets cut off, but not everyone feels "sexually harassed" when told FHRITP.
It's because as soon as someone claims "victim", whether it's around race or sexuality, we're not AT ALL allowed to even question it... if we even think of doing so, we're shot down and berated.
I'd like to point out the original set of videos for FHRITP, which were linked in Juice's 2nd reply, were complete fakes, as in totally staged bits. They filmed the bits with the dudes saying the phrase and cut away and edited in actual broadcast that had the apologies for unrelated newsroom errors. I think the phrase used had a particular purpose outside of being vulgar as there are a lot of weird rules that the FCC lays out for radio, tv, and the MPAA has for movies. While saying "what the fuck" or "he's a fucking pussy" are seen as less vulgar than specifying a sexual action "fucking her right in the pussy." You can say "Im pissed off" but not "I just pissed on this ant hill (or right in her pussy)." I think the originator of this bit/meme had this in mind. Outside of that point I have been falling in the middle in this debate recently. Legislating morality is slippery fucking slope yet people will get away with what ever they think they can. The public shaming aspect again Im kind of in the middle on, it can be a good check for people to not act like assholes, on the other hand I think we've gotten way to comfortable in the outrage aspect of our society. At some point I have to think a limit will be reached and we'll settle back down to a healthy medium. You just had a top ranking democrat imply the president was being sexist because he used Elizabeth Warren's first name during an interview about the current trade deal debate. I read an ironic headline that state this might be the tipping point of this outrage media discussion as it is that whacky. Ironic that it is mainly the media that has pushed the outrage into high gear in the past few years.
Because in this scenario, the context is being removed. No one here is defending legitimate sexual harassment. But to misrepresent this situation intentionally by treating it like actual sexual harassment is disingenuous. The kind where the old guy massages chicks shoulders at work, or an example where the boss asks out a subordinate. Obviously not an exhaustive list, just examples. When you remove the context and hide behind buzzwords and label a certain behavior wrong, it takes away the credibility of the person making the complaint. I think most people agree that sexual harassment is wrong. But I think it's also wise to look at things on a case by case basis and classify them correctly.
I didn't mean you, sisterkathlouise, were holding it up to be the prime example, but it seems to be the example de jour in the more easily-outraged parts of the interweb. But doesn't the fact that women are saying it "to" women reporters, and men are saying it "to" male reporters (I'd argue they're directing it to the camera/audience/their friends and the reporter's sex is irrelevant), bring a little bit of doubt to your mind? Also, what xrayvision said.
I seriously don't even understand how some of you are arguing that this is not a form of sexual harassment. sex·u·al ha·rass·ment noun harassment (typically of a woman) in a workplace, or other professional or social situation, involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.
So, questions: 1. What counts as 'legitimate sexual harrassment'? 2. Who gets to make those definitions? And as far as "the old guy massages chicks shoulders", how about keep your fucking hands to yourself? I learned that when I was 4. And don't try to tell me it's all innocent:
I obviously did not ask her any questions, but I did question the validity of her calling it "sexual harassment" based on her reaction to it, her job, her experience with this stupid prank, and other factors, after which I made my opinion known (that I don't believe this is sexual harassment) to which the overwhelming response by the women on here was "how dare you, a man, question her".
Want to know what fucks it up for everyone else with legitimate issues? These types: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/tweet-dongle-leads-firings-death-threats/story?id=18794130
Adria Richards is a nut job social justice warrior. She calls herself a "developer evangelist," which probably means she doesn't know jack shit about software development. For levity sake, this is a pretty good guide as to what is considered "harassment:"
Interesting you say that. So basically what you're saying is that all women, as a gender, are held accountable to the actions of every other woman. So if one woman fucks up or does something shitty it's a black mark against every other woman; "That one woman in the one case lied, so therefore every other woman who makes a similar claim is suspect." You really think that's a reasonable standard to hold people to? Or to put it another way, the only reason other people 'fuck it up' for people with 'legitimate issues' is because the majority is already inclined to disbelieve women to begin with and will use every excuse and example as evidence why women shouldn't be believed.