Culture Warriors category archive

When I was a corporate trainer, one of the courses we offered was EEO training, which included topics related to sex discrimination (of which sexual harassment is a subset). The course was not intended to change attitudes–that is generally a fruitless effort unless persons already want to change their attitudes. Furthermore, attitudes are neither quantifiable nor observable; behavior is.

Rather, the course was designed to teach supervisors how not to get themselves or the company in trouble, to put it bluntly. That is, it was directed at how persons behaved in the workplace, not at what they believed or at what they did or said off-duty or off the property.

I found that the persons who most often questioned whether they could continue doing this or that reprehensible behavior generally already knew that the behavior was reprehensible. (If, for example, I take my clothes off before others in my workplace, I can make no argument that doing so is businesslike behavior or an honest misunderstanding. Zilch, nada, none.)

Those questioners wanted to keep on doing whatever they were doing because they liked doing it.

Image via The Bob Cesca Show Blog.

The short answer, natch, is when the target feels harassed.

I expressed my opinion of the relationship between political leanings and sexual harassment a while ago: there is no relationship; the impulse to harass is independent of the voting booth (though there may be a relationship in how persons react to allegations of sexual harassment–I’ve not explored that, but it could be fruitful ground for a future post).

Now comes Gina Barreca with eight things to know about sexual harassment. I commend her article to your attention.

Afterthought:

Of course, the stink is stronger when the perpetrator has made a career of crowing about how virtuous and “Christian” he or she is; a healthy dollop of hypocrisy makes the goulash spicier.

Nonetheless, the perpetration, as distinct from the perpetrator, is no more reprehensible for that.

. . . and be macho, macho men.

David Von Drehle does not mince words about Roy Moore. Here are a few of his words:

But religious freedom does not require thoughtful Christians of goodwill to sit silently while charlatans, hustlers and theological bumpkins try to press the imprimatur of our faith on the sacrilege of accused child molester Roy Moore.

This self-righteous popinjay, running as a Republican for the U.S. Senate, has inspired mostly silence from the respectable pulpits of Alabama. It seems we Christians are well practiced at averting our eyes from the lurid sideshows beneath our big tent: the willfully ignorant Young Earth creationists, the cartoonish faith healers, the tearful televangelists caught with a hand in the till or a prostitute on the side.

Aside:

It’s been a long time since I saw “popinjay” in a sentence.

Tony Norman tries to figure out Judge Roy Moore’s* religious creed.

Read it; I tried to pick a snippet, but it defied snippage.

_________________

*It seems “Judge” is his adopted first name.

If you want to understand how Roy Moore and others of his ilk are able to hold on to power and status, there may be no better place to start than chapter 19 of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, in which “the Duke and the Dauphin” are introduced to the narrative.

Image via Job’s Anger.

Aside:

If you have not read Mark Twain’s masterpiece, do so.

Many Southerners haven’t changed much since it was written.

Jessica Valenti suggests that predatory behavior, far from being penalized, is too often rewarded. A snippet:

Perhaps it’s time to consider that abusive men aren’t rising to the top in spite of their disdain for women, but because of it. In a country where domineering bravado and casual misogyny can land a man in the White House, it’s not unreasonable to believe that this kind of behavior in men not only goes unpunished – but that it’s actively rewarded.

For too long, we’ve lauded men’s domination and aggressiveness as a sign of leadership rather than possible red flags. When men talk over everyone else in a room, we call it confidence rather than entitlement. If they berate others in meetings, we call them powerful and passionate, not bullying. And when they treat women at work differently than they do men, we’re told that they’re not sexist – they’re just “old-school.”

Elie Mystal suggests–well, to be precise, states outright–that Attorney-General Jeff Sessions is a “zealous theocrat.”

Methinks he has a point.