Even if the case never gets to trial or even if it does and it can be proved the woman was simply lying, your life is already over. Just see what happened to Strauss Khan from IMF (not that I actually liked that guy TBH).
See your way of reasoning in which you automatically assume that whenever a woman accuses a men in power than the men is guilty, is exactly the problem here.
Where can you tell Strauss Khan "literally got a blowjob from a hotel maid" in a case that didn't even go to trial because the accuser was found guilty of "repeatedly lying" in several of her statements by no less than a grand jury?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn#New_Yor...
Claiming with a straight face that men are the ones who have it hard here is just prima facie laughable.
Well, that is assuming you're innocent of anything that could be classed as improper, which is an ever growing class of activities.
I think that in this case, the accused is guilty of something, but it's not yet clear whether it was quite illegal. Hence a trial probably. His personal statements corroborate this.
I tend to record most conversations I have in a professional setting these days. I would record everything if I were managing people. It also helps as a general memory aid, and if anyone ever gets upset with me and decides to sling some mud, I'll have it all on file.
The article clearly links to the original report, which outlines the accusations in great detail.
The bar for calling something sexual harassment is NOT constantly lowered but incidents are thankfully being highlighted more and more, which should make more would be perps think twice. The rules of engagement in professional settings are clear, especially in regards to a person in position of power vs subordinate and sexual attention has no place there. A meeting about fundraising for a company should center discussions on just that. The suggestion that anyone's discomfort at such harassment should be deprioritized to allow for "playful transgression between genders" is asinine.
As it damn well should be.
To be clear: if you're making unwanted 'transgressions' against women in your workplace then you are in the wrong. Women are not your playthings.
I met my current girlfriend, I saw her on the street coming out of the metro, we exchanged eye contact and I walked over, talked, flirted and asked for the number...
We met the same night and she thanked me for coming over to talk to her. She's from France, I'm from Eastern Europe... we'd never meet otherwise and over the last year we experienced the most beautiful thing, that people call love.
In some places, like Manchester, this is now sexual harassment... I feel sorry for the world you live in...
There is nothing wrong with that.
But I can't think of a single reason to do that in a workplace (correctly), let alone with people you are directly working/involved with. It seems to be careful not to date them. There are tons of people outside (or maybe inside the same company but in different departments you don't deal with).
... there's recent legislation in Manchester, where if you talk to a woman on the street she can just accuse you of sexual harassment ... I guess we're running out of places to meet women we actually want to get to know and heading towards a world where your only 'safe' options are a lifetime porn (or sexbot) or waiting for some woman to choose you whether you like it or not ... not a nice place to be in my opinion but good luck to those aiming for it
Link to the legislation in question? (or maybe news link about it?)
"A police force has become the first in Britain to recognise misogyny as a hate crime ... It also includes ... uninvited verbal contact"
That's now classified as hate crime... while I agree with all other stuff, that little insert there makes a world of difference... it's Nottingham not Manchester, there are undergoing efforts to implement this elsewhere too
* Don't be unattractive
If sex was better accepted across the culture, there wouldn't be a need for these ambiguous games perpetuated by both sides.
More to the point, this kind of "no sex with coworkers" mentality has many of us Europeans rolling our eyes at the New World. It's absolutely possible to both respect women and have sexual encounters with people we meet at the workplace and do so in a professional manner.
There's a huge difference between playful, consensual flirting and fucking on the photocopier. My experience is that the people who fail to make these distinction constitute -- in fact -- a highly ideological minority.
Why do you think you have the right to decide whether someone else should find a comment inappropriate or not?
I understand a common idea nowadays is the subjective standard of any group member (victim) is considered paramount in assessing conduct. But this descends into meaninglessness because all people tolerate others' conduct at differing levels.
This is why the common law has long assessed standards of behaviour using the "reasonable person" as a hypothetical objective measure of appropriate conduct in the given circumstances.[1]
The commenter may not have the right to decide appropriate behaviour, but at some point we must ask "would the reasonable person in X situation presented with Y conduct be harmed?".