So much I love about this story.
-
Probably some dude in HR that got this ad killed. Or some dude who likes to harass women
@chu @KerryMitchell @CStamp Social media is cancer.
-
@chu To "tone it down"... what part of the ad is supposed to be offensive to anyone?! Like wtf. That's just peak "shut your mouth, woman" mentality by the airport.
So glad the court ruled in her favor.@celeste_42bit What's important is that if there is no gender war, we invent one.
-
@squared99 @chu Article mentions a work trip. Those are the ones I was abused on.
Sorry to hear.
-
Probably some dude in HR that got this ad killed. Or some dude who likes to harass women
@chu @CStamp I suspect that whoever reviews ads for the authority tried to apply “within the organization” standards to material for the general public.
It’s ingrained in organizations that HR will deal objectively with complaints, and even people who know it’s a fiction see it as a necessary one to protect the organization from legal actions.
Maybe a really sexist person would misinterpret the ad and feel called out for “harmless flirting” but it depends on a misreading.
-
Sorry to hear.
@chu @squared99 No, it's okay - it's allowed.
-
@chu I thought it was an interesting ad. I would guess it was perceived as too aggressive, not because it equates flirting with harassment, but because it calls out HR for protecting harassers. It does disparage a profession, although the Authority was apparently reluctant to state this in their argument. Maybe they felt HR was indefensible - Thomas would only have to show examples where HR failed to protect victims.
@KerryMitchell @chu It doesn't disparage "HR" either. The ad uses a verb tense that appears to refer to a single real case.
It isn't: When HR calls it .... we call it
It is: When HR called it ... we called it
-
@KerryMitchell @chu It doesn't disparage "HR" either. The ad uses a verb tense that appears to refer to a single real case.
It isn't: When HR calls it .... we call it
It is: When HR called it ... we called it
-
E em0nm4stodon@infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
@chu @CStamp I suspect that whoever reviews ads for the authority tried to apply “within the organization” standards to material for the general public.
It’s ingrained in organizations that HR will deal objectively with complaints, and even people who know it’s a fiction see it as a necessary one to protect the organization from legal actions.
Maybe a really sexist person would misinterpret the ad and feel called out for “harmless flirting” but it depends on a misreading.
@KerryMitchell @chu It is quite simple: Women are people. Treat women co-workers and employees as people, not possible conquests.
-
@jenzi @chu @KerryMitchell Social media has connected and given a voice to communities that in the past have been silenced. It has given some an opportunity to learn about the world from different points of view.
The cancer is in those using it for harm and self-aggrandizing.
-
@CStamp @chu Yes, I agree. The ad copy doesn’t expressly say “flirting = harassment” it says that if HR is dismissive of your harassment complaint you should call Thomas, a lawyer.
Somebody at the authority took exception to the message, but their choice was to make the argument that the ad goes too far in equating flirting with harassment, and to suggest that the message was disparaging without specifically identifying the disparaged party.
@KerryMitchell @chu A big problem is that when one goes to HR to complain about sexual harassment, that person gets labeled as “difficult.”
-
@chu I thought it was an interesting ad. I would guess it was perceived as too aggressive, not because it equates flirting with harassment, but because it calls out HR for protecting harassers. It does disparage a profession, although the Authority was apparently reluctant to state this in their argument. Maybe they felt HR was indefensible - Thomas would only have to show examples where HR failed to protect victims.
@KerryMitchell @chu HR exists to protect the company, unions exist to protect the workers.
If an abuser is on a higher place than the abused, HR will move heaven and earth to either bury the issue or gaslight the abused.
Only the laws will force them to behave.I love both the ad and the judge.
-
So much I love about this story.
Dudes crying about their rights to harass women....
When an airport rejected this sexual harassment lawyer's small ad, she sued. Now she has a giant billboard | CBC Radio
A New York airport authority rejected sexual harassment lawyer Megan Thomas's ad copy and asked her to tone it down, so she filed a free speech lawsuit. The judge took her side, and now she has two massive ads on full display.
CBC (www.cbc.ca)
@chu Between the two employers mentioned in the article (airport, lawfirm), I can tell you which one I'd rather work for.
-
So much I love about this story.
Dudes crying about their rights to harass women....
When an airport rejected this sexual harassment lawyer's small ad, she sued. Now she has a giant billboard | CBC Radio
A New York airport authority rejected sexual harassment lawyer Megan Thomas's ad copy and asked her to tone it down, so she filed a free speech lawsuit. The judge took her side, and now she has two massive ads on full display.
CBC (www.cbc.ca)
@chu There's something I find fascinating in reading the comments. I had to go back and reread the article to make sure I didn't miss a signal.
In no way did the advertisement imply that they're representing women who were harassed by men. Nor did the CBC article.
Yet a significant percentage of the comments assumed it.
I know that it is more common for women to be the victims here than men. And women should absolutely be treated with respect in the workplace that is generally afforded to men. I've seen plenty.
But men are still often the victims of harassment, either by women or by other men. And those who are deserve acknowledgement and support, too.
Reread the article like I did. The only genders mentioned in it are the owner of the business who was putting up the ad, and the judge who issued the ruling. And even then they were mentioned only in the sense of casual pronoun use.
Chu, I am not pointing at you here. You responded appropriately to @JoeHenzi and so I don't want to discount that.
-
@jenzi @chu @KerryMitchell You have obviously not worked a day as a woman.
-
@chu There's something I find fascinating in reading the comments. I had to go back and reread the article to make sure I didn't miss a signal.
In no way did the advertisement imply that they're representing women who were harassed by men. Nor did the CBC article.
Yet a significant percentage of the comments assumed it.
I know that it is more common for women to be the victims here than men. And women should absolutely be treated with respect in the workplace that is generally afforded to men. I've seen plenty.
But men are still often the victims of harassment, either by women or by other men. And those who are deserve acknowledgement and support, too.
Reread the article like I did. The only genders mentioned in it are the owner of the business who was putting up the ad, and the judge who issued the ruling. And even then they were mentioned only in the sense of casual pronoun use.
Chu, I am not pointing at you here. You responded appropriately to @JoeHenzi and so I don't want to discount that.
@mweiss @chu I had to get a protection order. In two Atlanta hotels she's not allowed to be a guest any longer because she came to my room too often (and I had hotel security remove her). The boss was a woman, the HR rep who fired me was a woman. Both of their bosses and the CEO were women. The harassment got so bad that it put my marriage at risk and I attempted suicide - forever changing my life and maybe making me lose my ability to work. I was the one arrested for DV in stopping her from coming into my room in one town (if you tell the cops someone is trying to sleep with you - it's domestic violence to defend yourself if you're a man). The ironic thing is that my boss told me to "step aside" for the women in my firm who were making moves. They kept putting me on trips with this person, even reassigned my employees to them at one point in a power struggle. We worked together well, we were partners. But the culture of drinking often put her on a path of excess and it became an obsession to "be with me". At one point, she was obsessed with making a child!
I'm 100% certain - for gender reasons - this is going to be my fault somehow. I'm pointing out their genders, but not blaming them for it or anything. But because men typically are a problem, I'm not to be believed. I pushed the EEOC, who did nothing in the end.
-
@jenzi @CStamp @chu @KerryMitchell oh do shut the fuck up.
It's not 'sexist against men', I'd ask you to explain how you arrive at that but I could not give less of a shit.You do not care about protecting anyone from harassment, especially not those who suffer it most frequently. You're protecting abusers with this equivocating nonsense. You're unsafe to work with and a waste of screen time. Get in the bin.
-
@jenzi @CStamp @chu @KerryMitchell dude, stop talking: if you weren't part of the problem you would already know how frequently women are harassed – your women friends would tell you.
-
@chu There's something I find fascinating in reading the comments. I had to go back and reread the article to make sure I didn't miss a signal.
In no way did the advertisement imply that they're representing women who were harassed by men. Nor did the CBC article.
Yet a significant percentage of the comments assumed it.
I know that it is more common for women to be the victims here than men. And women should absolutely be treated with respect in the workplace that is generally afforded to men. I've seen plenty.
But men are still often the victims of harassment, either by women or by other men. And those who are deserve acknowledgement and support, too.
Reread the article like I did. The only genders mentioned in it are the owner of the business who was putting up the ad, and the judge who issued the ruling. And even then they were mentioned only in the sense of casual pronoun use.
Chu, I am not pointing at you here. You responded appropriately to @JoeHenzi and so I don't want to discount that.
-
-
@jenzi @chu @KerryMitchell You are talking like there isn’t ALREADY division, built in. And those who speak up are penalized in the workplace, so need lawyers to speak on their behalf. Being against that ad is supporting that system.
