JOEBIALEK Posted August 1, 2004 Posted August 1, 2004 Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html For the first time in his 25 years of employment, a female employee has made a verbal allegation of sexual harassment against a male friend of mine. "John" was notified of this by his immediate supervisor via an email. The email did not indicate an incident or complaint but rather was framed in the context of "feedback" advising John to be carefull when it comes to dealing with female employees. It went on to say that comments, compliments, innuendos, flirting, wandering eyes, etc. can be misperceived and possibly jeapordize his job. Needless to say, John was absolutely astounded. He immediately approached his supervisor and demanded clarification. The supervisor indicated that a female employee had verbalized the allegation. He then clarified his position on the matter by stating that he has never witnessed any such behavior by John nor believes any incident occurred. What bothers John however, is why was the email sent in the first place? Does it constitute some form of written warning? The employee handbook states that standard operating procedure requires a verbal warning first and then written warning followed by a final written warning and then termination. Were John's civil rights violated? The work environment today in the United States is becoming more and more polarized. Women are flagrantly disregarding company dress codes in order to flaunt there sexuality. It was interesting to discover how narrowly defined sexual harassment has become. A clause in the code mentions "visual harassment"; defined as any display that promotes the sexuality of what is depicted, or draws attention to the private parts of the body, even if there is partial clothing. Consequently, men are flagrantly disregarding verbal and visual inhibitions as they react to the sexual stimulus. The question that remains however, is which side constitutes criminality? Is it the sexual provocation or is it the sexual reaction? Do wandering male eyes encourage women to dress more provocatively or does female attire encourage wandering male eyes? Does a loose verbal atmosphere in the work place exacerbate the problem? Would clamping down constitute a violation of freedom of speech? What about the constant bombardment of sexual messages facilitated through various media? The 1960's ushered in the sexual revolution. Perhaps it is time for the counter revolution. Quote
klenke Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 It's in spray. It's important. I say leave it. Quote
Bug Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 Yeah. Let's delete anything JoshK doesn't like in spray. Quote
cj001f Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 That's funny - once, every month, like clockwork, Joe Bialek drops a coil and runs. Quote
JoshK Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 It's pointless crap dropped by somebody who doesn't even participate on the board. Just some random dude that spams random webboards. Quote
klenke Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 Quit being so elitist, Josh. Sure he trolls and runs. Don't a lot of us. Take a look at his six trolls. Every one of them sets forth an important social issue for us to discuss. Whether he participates thereafter has been up to him. Maybe he lurks afterward to read our commentary, maybe he doesn't. Every one of his six trolls is more important than 80% of the inane topics found in Spray. How can you call for the deletion of this thread and not those inane topics? What then is the point of Spray? In short, it's not pointless crap. You and I are pointless crap. Quote
ashw_justin Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 Yeah but the difference is that we at least pretend to be climbers! pshhhhhh! Quote
Bug Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 I am not pointless crap. I am a dignified dung beetle. Quote
minx Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 Josh, sorry, but i can't figure out any reason this shouldn't exist in spray. it's an interesting topic. i work with a couple of women who might do well do appreciate that their "style" is a bit over the top for the work place. there is one gal here who was actually taken aside by her supervisor and asked to dress more conservatively b/c she making people uncomfortable. Quote
ashw_justin Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 I'm gonna have to side with Josh on this one, unless JOEBIALEK is is just one of someone's many avatars. It's not the topic that doesn't belong. The topic is fine. But who the hell JOEBIALEK? Quote
selkirk Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 Ok, then who the hell am I? or Gotterdamerung, or a pretty good number of people who post on here. I find it hard to believe that everyone who posts on here in Spray is a climber. Granted, nobody sprays quite like a climber but... I don't think we quite have a monopoly on it. Quote
ashw_justin Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 Dude, do I have to spell it out? Sexual Harassment Spray JOEBIALEK 08/01/04 03:26 PM Poverty Spray JOEBIALEK 06/30/04 05:30 PM Terrorism Spray JOEBIALEK 05/29/04 06:05 PM Social Security Spray JOEBIALEK 04/29/04 05:21 PM Political Primaries Spray JOEBIALEK 03/30/04 05:14 PM PROSTITUTION Spray JOEBIALEK 03/02/04 05:27 AM http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/threadz/dosearch.php?Cat=0&Forum=All_Forums&Name=5025&Searchpage=0&Limit=25& Apparently Josh and I are the only ones who find this odd? Is this just one of our own posting anonymously, or some wierdo spammer? Quote
Greg_W Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 Why do you fucking care? Don't like it? Don't read it, move on. You and JoshK sound like whiny little bitches. Quote
willstrickland Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 (edited) No, google "joebialek" and it will kick back links to profiles for this usename on literally dozens of message boards. Primarily newspapers and the like. It appears to be some politco org's newest media tactic. Edit: But by and large, it's fairly ripe material for discussion, posted in spray, and it's not rampant..about a post per month. Edited August 2, 2004 by willstrickland Quote
ashw_justin Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 I wouldn't care except you fuckwads are ganging up on poor defenseless JoshK. Quote
JoshK Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 I wouldn't care except you fuckwads are ganging up on poor defenseless JoshK. Ahh, I have thick skin. I was just stating what Will did. I see no reason why we need to support bandwidth and storage for random internet dwellers and spambots. If they need a totally random spray board, go to the somethingawful.com forums. I also thought this was a spray section for spray between us cc.com board members. Anyway, you're right...easy enuf to ignore. P.S. Greg, seriously man, seek some anger management help. I know it's tough living an angry and lonely life, but there are help for these problems. Quote
gapertimmy Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 Joe is the king of crost posting: http://www.google.com/search?q=JOEBIALEK+Sexual+Harassment&sourceid=firefox&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Quote
Bug Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 OK. But if you do a search on me you will find all sorts of embarassing personal adds all over the web. That doesn't mean I'm not abnormal. So I can still post here right? Quote
Ducknut Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 Joe is the king of crost posting: http://www.google.com/search?q=JOEBIALEK+Sexual+Harassment&sourceid=firefox&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 If this guy is posting to 250 sites with the same troll, why would cc.com agree to let him troll here? Quote
Double_E Posted August 2, 2004 Posted August 2, 2004 y'know JoshK, for a liberal you seem to have a strangely acute appetite for censorship. Didn't you also once ask the mods to ban Martlet, fairly early on in his brief CC.com posting career? As it happened, he eventually did get banned, and I didn't miss his dipshit ass one bit. I think few people missed him. But at the time, I didn't think he was saying anything worth banning him for. I'm with Greg, Josh. you DO seem like a whiny little bitch when you say shit like this. Quote
fenderfour Posted August 3, 2004 Posted August 3, 2004 Looking past the random-assed spray nature of Joe's posts, they are almost identical. "The definition of pverty is..." "Sexual harassment is..." It reads like a shitty editorial in the PI. Methinks this guy just wants get his editorials out to the world, and spamming web boards is the easiest way. Quote
olyclimber Posted August 3, 2004 Posted August 3, 2004 I talked to your friend "John", and he said you were full of shit. He said that you always go around saying "The 1960's ushered in the sexual revolution"......and then something like "Perhaps it is time for the counter revolution"....all because you're repressed and you think everyone else should be too. It is "John's" opinion that you just need to get laid. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.