This should rank quite high in the list of hyperbolic rhetoric by feminists – “sexual harassment is a terrorism”. To be sure, the Slate’s XX bloggers are not the first one to employ the term “terrorism” to describe sexual harassment - there are many precedents – after all, feminists are the ones who are particularly prone to this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric among other leftist activists (I think some in-depth study and comparison on this topic would be interesting- who is the most militant in their verbiage – black activists, environmentalists, gay activists, animal rights activists, etc.?).
I guess feminists equate Sexual Harassment (SH) with terrorism since;
1) the trauma inflicted by SH to the women are so horrific and is on par with horror of real terrorism (the kind you see in Iraq and Afghanistan)
2) or just want to grab media attention to promote their cause by using the “T” word
On 1), I wonder if feminists are actually perpetuating “fragile women myth” by saying that women are so fragile that they are just as frightened by a few unwanted sexual advances are as they are frightened by roadside IED, etc.
Or may be it is that the feminsits who heard the story of another women sexually harassed are so shocked and distressed by the story that they are in the same mental state of victims of real terrorism, - who had IED blown off 30 yard away and see torn heads and limb flying in their faces. In other words, they are in perpetual state of paranoia.
Intersting line from the blog post:
“They'(Sexual harassment)re designed to keep women in the lower-paying jobs on the ladder.”
It’s good that you have another excuses or someone else (i.e. men of course) to blame for your low performance and non-competence which is really holding you back. It is also clearly an expression of deranged feminists’ paranoia. Because I’m not sure if these men who made unwanted sexual advances are doing so with a clear intent of keeping those women on lower paying job. If they wish to do so, they are other ways to do that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"They [the acts of sexual harassment] are designed to keep women in the lower-paying jobs on the ladder."
Right. The acts of sexual harassment, to the extent they are not figments of the imagination or outright lies, are not the result of unchecked sexual desire on the part of the harassers. They are not instances of somebody trying to get their rocks off. Of course not. That would be too simple an explanation. And too easily confirmed by, and in line with, observable human nature.
No, the acts of sexual harassment are "designed" as part of a grand scheme to keep women in low paying jobs. How does that work, exactly? Do the head patriarchs, or their minions, "design" plans for sexual harassment, and then pass them down to the lower level managers? Do they include quotas for the number of women who must be harassed? Are particularly hard charging low level female employees, on the brink of promotion, specifically targetted for harassment?
This must be the case. Because, if it wasn't, sexual harassment would be illegal. It would cost companies in which it it practiced, or even alleged to be practiced, millions of dollars a year in settlement costs, and the persons who engaged in it, or were merely accused of engaging in it, their careers. To say nothing of the costs of training, prevention, investigation, enforcement, litigation and. . . Oh, wait a minute.
Let's examine the logic of the statement a little further. Sexual harassment is designed to keep women in lower status jobs, we're told. That seems counter-intuitive to me. Doesnt' sexual harassment, to the extent it actually exists, discourage women from taking low status jobs? If they wanted to avoid harassment, they would be training for higher level jobs, in which they were not so vulnerable, no?
Casual, part-time, low pay/low responsibility, low committment work is attractive to many people, including many women. Not everyone can be, needs to be, or even necessarilty wants to be a rocket scientist or executive. And, work at Burger King or Pizza Hut and such places suits the needs of high school and college students who would like to make some money, but who want their studies, not their job, to be their primary focus. If someone had as their "design" an outcome in which women sought and retained these types of jobs, that person would discourage, not encourage, sexual harassment.
But none of this can penetrate the feminist brain. If a woman is raped, it "must" be the deliberate work of the patriarchy. Same thing if a woman is assaulted or murdered. There is no such thing, in their smelly little orthodoxy, for "a crime against women" to be the result of pathology. Criminal behavior against women, even though it is, ya'know, criminal, and, therefore leads to its perpetrator being sent to prison, is still, through some slight of hand, seen to be the work of society as a whole, or, at least, the evil patriarchs who run it. Behavior that is punished in the most draconian way our society knows how is regarded as the conscious work of that society, it is "designed" by society for the nefarious purpose of keeping women down. Of course, no such elaborate explanations are found, or even sought, for crimes against men. And, here we the see the same process applied to sexual harassment.
Post a Comment