Saturday, December 16, 2017

Telling Jokes is Sexual Harassment?



An MSNBC spokesman confirmed Saturday the company made a separation-related payment to one of Chris Matthews' employees after the woman complained about sexual harassment by Matthews, reports The Daily Caller.

Two sources familiar with the situation told The Daily Caller that Matthews paid $40,000 to settle with an assistant producer on his show, “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” in 1999 after she accused him of harassment.

The nature of the sexual "harassment"? Get this.


The woman complained to CNBC executives about Matthews making inappropriate comments and jokes about her while in the company of others.

Say what?

Inappropriate comments and jokes are considered sexual harassment where damages are required to be paid?

Matthews has always struck me as a wannabe. Always attempting to be one of the guys and never quite sure he is being accepted, so "one of the guys" jokes from him does not surprise me.

It is certainly boorish behavior but why did the woman that was the target of the jokes get a cash settlement?

There is no problem with her complaining to MSNBC management to attempt to get the environment changed or she could simply leave her job if she didn't like the environment but it is marching down the road to speech control to think she is owed damages because of jokes and comments.

The fact of the matter is that it is a very slippery slope when we start considering verbal comments a violation that requires damages.

In fact, I have put the barrier to sexual harassment and compensation much higher. In my essay, Sexual Harassment, Libertarianism and the Civilized Man, I wrote:
[P]rancing around naked in front of women, masturbating in front of them, asking for sexual pleasure from them, may make a man a high-powered sexual primitive, but
it should not be considered a violation of the non-aggression principle, where punishment is required.

As long as a woman is not being held against her will, physically forced to perform a sexual act, or agressed upon in any physical way, there is no violation of the non-aggression principle....

That said, there is no reason to support or be around high-powered sexual primitives, whether they violated the NAP or not, any more than there is any reason to support the antics of white trash or urban primitives.
From what we know at this point, Matthews is probably a junior-level sexual primitive but I don't see how he violated the NAP.

I see some conservatives gleeful on Twitter about this Matthews revelation, but libertarians and conservatives need to be careful here. It is one thing for a Lefty to be exposed as a sexual primitive, junior or otherwise, which exposes his hypocrisy in adopting a posture of concern for women's intersectionality "oppression," but we must be careful that this is not used by the always power seeking Left to demand control over certain types of speech and to promote the idea that all men are sexual primitives. Just remember, it is the interventionists who desire to use clubs against those who do not adopt their views and yield to their desired power, that is real primitivism and real harassment.

  -RW

12 comments:

  1. I made up a joke the other day, and sent it to Tom Woods. I guess he didn't think it was funny 'cause he didn't reply with a courtesy snicker.
    So, Woods loses his exclusive, and I'll tell it here.
    Did you hear about the intersectional feminist who applied for a job as a crossing guard?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh please Bob. It's a war. When the left is destroying themselves, why wring your hands?

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.co.il/2017/12/im-not-seeing-problem-here.html

    "Most of the targets of the current "sexual harassment hysteria" are the enemies of Western Civilization, decency, Christianity and America. They fed the SJW beast and now it's eating them."

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Inappropriate comments and jokes are considered sexual harassment where damages are required to be paid? ... From what we know at this point, Matthews is probably a junior-level sexual primitive but I don't see how he violated the NAP."

    Libertarians ought to be careful about making a story like this into a libertarian issue. The NAP is only supposed to be a standard outlining when force is justifiable; it is not supposed to be an all-encompassing guide to personal interaction. If a private organization wishes to raise the standard for what it considers improper on its premises, it is obviously free to do so. Of course if the payment was made under threat of state enforcement, it would be legitimate to evaluate the actions by the standard of the NAP, but I didn't see any reference to any state involvement. If, instead, this was just corporate policy on private property (perhaps to try to prevent unwanted bad publicity), I don't see this as a libertarian issue, although it could still be a topic worthy of discussion from a cultural perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If a woman can get free cash and prizes just for being "offended", how many women can resist, and who can blame them? I'd just like to know how men can get in on the action too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So when can employers have the choice of not hiring women? My libtardians think it would be great for employers to import disease infected turd world people to work for $1 an hour at the expense of Americans, but would probably recoil in horror as to the choice whether women should be allowed in the workplace.

    I'm happy to see the SJW's eating their own, but it's sad that guys can't go to work and make penis insults to eachother while working without some stupid bi__ch becoming 'offended'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember the office environment in the 1980s. Lots of innocent baudy jokes and ribbing. And the women could give as well as they could get.

      Delete
    2. Re: The Lab Mismanager,

      --- My libtardians think it would be great for employers to import disease infected turd world people to work for $1 an hour at the expense of Americans[...] ---

      I have to wonder exactly what your beef is, if being paid $1 an hour (curious since it's none of your business) or that others who are NOT YOU are paid $1 which would suggest a slight SJW-busybody undertone, or that Americans supposedly pay for this which is a clumsy myth perpetuated by the economically incompetent.

      Delete
    3. Once again you show your incredible stupidity. Yes, if this importation negatively impacts my community or society, then yes, it could become my business.

      So when are you moving to Africa Torres? Maybe you could get some proof of concept of your ideas with those low IQ Africans that you think should be allowed in the US and elsewhere.

      Delete