I was raised to be a gentleman, and to treat a lady like a lady. That meant opening doors for them, pulling out chairs for them, insuring their safety, and complementing their looks on dates, special occasions, and in general if they had taken pains to make themselves look attractive. I am now seventy years old, and if I treat a woman like that today, especially if the lady was a co-worker or business associate, I could be accused of sexual harassment. To me, that is disgusting and very disturbing.
First, let me say that I am NOT a chauvinist. I believe that if a woman can do a specific job as well as a man, then both should be paid at the same scale, and a person's sex must not have any bearing on whether or not the person gets a job or not. In other words, a person's sex should have absolutely nothing to do with how much they are paid, whether they get a job or not, or what benefits they are provided. HOWEVER, there is one situation where that situation SHOULD be modified. In the military, physical strength often can and must be a factor in determining whether or not someone should be deemed qualified to do a job. As an example, if a soldier in an infantry squad/platoon/special ops team is wounded in combat, frequently it is necessary for that wounded soldier's teammates to drag or carry the wounded soldier quickly out of harm's way and to medical care. Facing facts, there are some situations where a woman simply could not drag or lift and carry a wounded male soldier to safety. But in the same light, if a female proves she can meet the same rigorous physical requirements of the job that the males must meet, then she should not be discriminated in hiring or filling a position-PERIOD!
Second, let me say that sexual harassment as was originally described in the law should not be tolerated. Sexual harassment was originally defined in rather tight terms; it was described as any situation where a person holding a position of either supervision or influence over another person's job uses that position to pressure someone for sexual favors. The vast majority of incidents report of males being the harassers. The following link gives a rather comprehensive discussion of what is "sexual harassment": Wikipedia Definition of Sexual Harassment This is plainly an evil and sick act and deserves both condemnation and punishment. Likewise, the same condemnation should apply to any female that would harass a male employee as described above. But over the years, that definition has been expanded and broadened in the court of public opinion and political correctness to the point that now, simply complimenting a woman's appearance might lead to a man being accused of sexual harassment, and that is wrong! Now, political correctness demands that if a man is accused of sexual harassment, then that man is crucified in the liberal press whether or not there is any proof or not. We have seen several instances recently where prominent conservative FOX News male news persons were forced to resign because of unsubstantiated accusations, some of them going back decades. Now, Alabama senatorial candidate Roy Moore from Alabama is now being persecuted by BOTH the liberal news media and the establishment Republicans in Congress because of accusations against him by five women who made their accusations after Judge Moore defeated another Republican and made his way into the state-wide contest to fill the seat that now U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions vacated after his appointment.
Are these accusations true or not; frankly no-one really knows now. However, many questions arise to any person with an objective mind. Why did the women wait until this time to make the accusations when the time frame of some of these accusations go back over forty years? Why did they not make the accusations at the time of the offense? Is/are the accusation(s) provable, will the accuser(s) be willing to take a polygraph before the stories are published? Did the accuser(s) know one another? Had the accusers ever told anyone else prior to this time of the attacks? Are the accusers from the opposing political party or vocal opposition persons of Judge Moore's religious and political beliefs? Have the accusers been motivated by Judge Moore's opposition to make these accusations? Were the women physically assaulted or are the allegations about verbal harassment? I have read in Judge Moore's case that in at least one instance, the accuser told her mother of the incident after several years. If so, that lends more credibility to the story, but, in fact the accusation is still just that; an accusation with no ability to be proven. And, when one considers Judge Moore's forty-plus year history of fighting for the restoration of America's original belief structure and conservative foundations, then some might find it hard to believe such accusations because they are so contrary to what Judge Moore has said and done over the past forty or so years.
All I am saying here is that it seems awfully unfair for this man to be convicted and banished to the point of being forced to withdraw from the Alabama race, or face expulsion from the full Senate if he stays in and gets elected, which seems highly improbable now. The principle of innocent until proven guilty is absolutely shot to hell by the liberal press and the politically correct liberals on the left. Especially when with some of the accusations could not possibly be proven in a court of law.
It is probably a very unpopular position to put forth, but it seems to me that the "system" is stacked against men in a very unhealthy and dangerous way. A woman today can make charges against any man, destroying his career, his reputation, and his future, with absolutely no proof presented, and facing no legal punishment when/if the charges are found false. In a day where women are demanding equality of treatment, then there needs to some quid-pro-quo in the legal and court-of-public opinion worlds for the protection of men from women who have ulterior motives and make damaging, unsubstantiated accusations of sexual harassment against a man.
I also have heard cases where women verbally attack a perfect stranger for simply complimenting the woman's appearance. Guys like me brought their male children up to treat every female like a lady. If in passing I were to tell a lady I was introduced to that she looked lovely or pretty or very nice, I would be behaving like most men born in the forty's through the early sixties were taught how to treat a lady, especially someone raised in the South and West. It would both insult me and anger me if a woman reacted like Ashley Judd did to being paid a compliment recently by taking offense and chastising me for trying to do so, and I would probably reply that I was sorry, I mistook her for a lady instead of a liberal nut-case, and politely then excuse myself.
I miss that age where women were proud to be known as a lady and complimented on their appearance and did not feel offended or threatened. I miss the days when women were ladies, where there was a standard of behavior and appearance where women exercised some modicum of propriety with their behavior and appearance. I miss the days when ladies were treated with appropriate respect and admiration for who they were rather than how they insisted others treat them because they feel like they would get the respect and recognition they deserve because of their sex.
Again, in MY opinion, over the last thirty to forty years, the women's liberation movement has intentionally done all it could to make women feel like they are wasting their lives if they choose to follow the traditional path of becoming wives and mothers and not do everything they can to prove that they are as capable as a man in every situation. What the women's liberation movement has failed to do is understand the damage that its platform has done to literally destroy the value placed on being a good mother and wife. Can anyone really say that in today's world, a woman that chooses to be a wife and mother is recognized as being as valuable as a woman who pursues a career to be a CEO or political leader? I think not, and that is a shame and an injustice. Every woman has value if she chooses to do and be what God intended for her to be, just as every man has the same value. A mother that raises a child to be a person of faith, integrity, dedication, and honesty has as much value as a woman that pursues her dream to be a CEO or President of The United States of America, and, as such, should be treated with respect, love, and value. In fact, that same analogy applies to every person, male or female. Sexual harassment of any person is an act of disrespect, conducted by a person with low self-esteem, the value system of a demon from hell, and one unworthy of the respect and admiration of anyone, and is an act symptomatic of the lack of a Godly moral compass having been ingrained into the person's up bringing.
Again, in MY opinion, over the last thirty to forty years, the women's liberation movement has intentionally done all it could to make women feel like they are wasting their lives if they choose to follow the traditional path of becoming wives and mothers and not do everything they can to prove that they are as capable as a man in every situation. What the women's liberation movement has failed to do is understand the damage that its platform has done to literally destroy the value placed on being a good mother and wife. Can anyone really say that in today's world, a woman that chooses to be a wife and mother is recognized as being as valuable as a woman who pursues a career to be a CEO or political leader? I think not, and that is a shame and an injustice. Every woman has value if she chooses to do and be what God intended for her to be, just as every man has the same value. A mother that raises a child to be a person of faith, integrity, dedication, and honesty has as much value as a woman that pursues her dream to be a CEO or President of The United States of America, and, as such, should be treated with respect, love, and value. In fact, that same analogy applies to every person, male or female. Sexual harassment of any person is an act of disrespect, conducted by a person with low self-esteem, the value system of a demon from hell, and one unworthy of the respect and admiration of anyone, and is an act symptomatic of the lack of a Godly moral compass having been ingrained into the person's up bringing.
It is a shame and disgrace that in a civilized, educated world like we live in today that women must fight for equal treatment on the job and in the workforce. Obviously, there are situations where a woman must work, rather than just deciding to work for their own satisfaction. But in either case, if a woman is in the workplace, she deserves the same treatment, respect, benefits, wages, and evaluation as a man would holding the same job. The ONLY situations where a woman MIGHT not be qualified to hold the same job as a man, as I described earlier, is where her physical strength capabilities might endanger a fellow worker's safety should an occasion arise where she must physically rescue a fellow male worker from danger and possible endanger his survival because she cannot assist the injured party because of her strength limitations. And, to be totally honest, there many be other situations where there might be justification to put a male requirement on a position that I am overlooking simply because of my background and frame of reference, and if so, excuse my not mentioning them. But other than that, I think it is absolutely the right thing to do to hire, pay, promote, and if required, fire an individual STRICTLY on their job performance and capabilities. To NOT do so is wrong, and to inflict the indignation of sexual harassment on an individual is a dastardly act and must face condemnation and rejection by any person with a Godly moral compass and sense of right and wrong.
