rodvanmechelen

First, my tribe's one-year-old reservation is tiny. Second, tribes in the US are subject to the plenary power of Congress, which is to say, subject to all federal laws. President Reagan found it most useful to think of tribes as "being like states." So, on our reservation--and only on our reservation--my tribe is exempt from state law, but not from federal law.

That said, most of our offices and facilities are on "fee patent" land, which is to say it's not reservation land, and those facilities are all subject to federal, state, county and municipal laws.

Oh, and the SH training I have to take is through my employer, which is not my tribe.

Paragraph 42: "We note that the reasonable victim standard we adopt today classifies conduct as unlawful sexual harassment even when harassers do not realize that their conduct creates a hostile working environment. Well-intentioned compliments by co-workers or supervisors can form the basis of a sexual harassment cause of action if a reasonable victim of the same sex as the plaintiff would consider the comments sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter a condition of employment and create an abusive working environment." https://openjurist.org/924/f2d/872/ellison-v-f-brady

In this paragraph, they refer specifically to compliments, but in paragraph 24 they cite Jordan v. Hodel to explain that "a hostile environment exists when an employee can show (1) that he or she was subjected to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature,5 (2) that this conduct was unwelcome, and (3) that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment."

Hence, this does not apply only to compliments, and as Rita Risser noted in Managing Within The Law, it also created the specifically male "reasonable man standard": "In sexual harassment cases, the behavior must be considered explicitly sexual by a reasonable victim. If the victim is a woman, it's a reasonable woman standard. If the victim is a man, it's a reasonable man standard." http://www.backlash.com/book/sexharman.html

https://medium.com/@jimpreston_36730/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace-8b1b7625604d and http://www.backlash.com/book/sexharman.html

For years I've been saying that MRAs shouldn't get upset over the fact more women than men were going to college, because more women than men were going into debt to earn useless degrees. Now, here we are.

Ellison vs. Brady. At some point, this is going to catch on and upset the apple cart.

Ellison vs. Brady established the "Reasonable Woman Standard" in sexual harassment. It also established a uniquely male "Reasonable Man Standard." Some day, there will be a sex harass case litigated on this basis.

From the male perspective, what constitutes female "conduct of a sexual nature"? The answer is, everything that triggers the male libido to view "women as "sexual objects": short skits, halter tops, low cut tops that expose cleavage, low riders that expose butt crack, tight clothing, etc.

Yesterday my tribe's health board chair sponsored a workshop put on by Paul Spindel, who in passing mentioned that he does workshops on sexual harassment prevention. During a break I approached him to note the legal aspect of this that everybody ignores: the pervasive harassment of men by women as defined by the case of Ellison v. Brady. He kept arguing with me over a point of fact: the precedent set by the case was the establishment of specifically female and male reasonable person standards: the reasonable woman standard, and the reasonable man standard. This is a legal precedent. You can't argue against its existence. But he kept arguing with me over this to say there is only a reasonable person standard, which, of course, is from the female perspective that male sexuality is bad. He was such a white knight. And also a progressive neolib.

MGTOW.

Here's my response: http://www.backlash.com/images/NYTBigotry.jpg

Google Zapped 1982. In the original, Scott Baio can't control girls, but he has telekinesis and flashes a lot of boobs. But the two versions show the difference in male and female fantasies: the guys want to see the gals naked, and the gals want to control the guys.

foot_kisser pointed out that we have gynocentrism to contend with. That's a huge problem: no matter what we do, the perception is that MRAs are attacking women and that makes us bad people. In 1991 the MRA group called Gang of Six joined me to talk about the inevitable backlash against feminism. This is a cyclic thing. Martin Armstrong's blog is all about cycles. A big one concerns the collapse of socialism, and feminism is a part of that. It's not going to be pretty. It includes the grand solar minimum, which is causing global cooling, global crop failures and worse. The best we, as individuals, can do is to learn how to be what John Brunner called a Shockwave Rider, and I think MGTOW is an effective part of that strategy. It's what I'm doing.

Feminists learned a long time ago that they lose public debates, so they come up with excuses like this.

I've made several arguments along the same lines but from the libertarian/classical liberal capitalist perspective. I do see feminism and other aspects of cultural Marxism as a divide and conquer strategy by the plutocracy.

Paywall.

Heroes, both of them!

The Mini Ice Age, MGTOW, Milo and Paul Joseph Watson are going to play a prominent role in the backlash.

Proponents of equal rights, like the author, echo First Wave Feminism. Second Wave Feminism has always been toxic, it has always intended to destroy western civilization by destroying men to destroy marriage, and it has always been psychopathic and narcissistic. MGTOW is the only rational response left to men.