A review of some articles discussing sexual harassment training, and how the narratives contained within stand in diametric opposition to Christian values and the Tingly Respect courtship model.
This post reviews the following articles.
- BBC Capital (feat. Claire Lampen): Why Sexual Harassment Training Doesn’t Work (November 22, 2017)
- (feat. Marcel Schwantes): Yes, We Can Defeat Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Here Are 6 Powerful Ways to Do It (December 11, 2017)
- Biblical Gender Roles: Do Christian Values Cause Sexual Harassment? (December 16, 2017)
- Sigma Frame: Meretricious Power and the Tingle (October 9, 2018)
The first post laments the lack of effectiveness shown by training sessions designed to end sexual harassment in the workplace. The article cites studies, one by Lipnic, reporting the carelessness of the employees, and the awkwardness of the legal mumbo jumbo as supporting reasons.
“People are kind of cynical about it,” Lipnic says, comparing such training to an episode of TV show The Office. “People are kind of rolling their eyes… they’re watching the clock and trying to get through it because they’ve got to get back to work.”
Also in this article, Eden King, an associate professor of psychology at Texas’ Rice University, lists the following four values, labels them as false, and claims that they actually lead to the sexual harassment of women.
- “A belief that women are inferior to men”
- “the belief that men should have power over women”
- “men should be aggressors”
- “women should be gatekeepers”
King labels the first value with the adjective “inferior” to describe women, and the label “aggressor” to describe men. That’s quite a twist of “toxic masculinity” spin on these values.
King and Lipnic suggest that sexual harassment training is more effective “in person”. [Eds. note: Sounds exciting!]
“Perspective exercises, like imagining oneself or a loved one on the receiving end of an unwanted touch, for example, encourage empathy…”
Yes, make it an emotional experience, and make it thoroughly embarrassing so that no one will forget it. That will teach those conservative Christians falsely presumed to be perverted, ham fisted thugs to detest the training even more, while reminding them to keep their Gamma hands to themselves!
These professionals actually suggest that the executive and middle managers should start playing the Name and Shame Game.
“If the leaders themselves act as allies, if they engage in behaviours that call attention to inappropriate behaviour… that can create a norm that that’s what we do in our organisation,” King says, adding that the presence of senior managers – whom we know to be just as likely to be perpetrators or as capable of offense as anyone else – might also win respect from the more likely culprits, who wouldn’t take much away from a video presentation but might be more inclined to listen to an authority figure.”
That line in boldface says, “We SJW’s value conservative hypocritical bigots, as long as they’re supporting our narrative and sealing our grip on power. We Feminists value upper level managers even more, simply because they’re jacked and loaded.”
“With those offenders in mind, among the most important things training can communicate, Lipnic says, is: “This is not trying to change your mind, this is telling you how to keep your job.”
The message is clear: Don the psychological strait jacket. Conform or die!
In the second article on Inc. listed above, the author takes King’s assessment a step further by calling these four values “toxic” ways of thinking, and concluded that the fight against sexual harassment is “about deconstructing false values embedded in toxic systemic thinking”.
“Toxic thinking” – That’s exactly what they are doing by labeling traditional values as “false”. They are projecting their own spiel onto others.
The methods suggested include these six, followed by a RP interpretation.
- Promote more women into leadership positions. [Just because they’re women? Isn’t that sexual discrimination?]
- Make sexual harassment training mandatory for every leader. [We can’t leave them out, because they’re the hawties with the cash to fork over after being accused of anything inappropriate.]
- Create a culture of intervention. [#metoo wants to get our hands on you! Not the other way around.]
- Return to values. [But not those values!]
- Creating a culture of openness. [Like post-#metoo open.]
- Fight against gender bias on all fronts. [Wasn’t the gender wage gap refuted years ago?]
The reader will note that all of these approaches will have the opposite effect as what women truly desire. Just give it some time there.
In the third post, Biblical Gender Roles did a take-down of the aforementioned claims that these four values are false and toxic, by showing that they are actually rooted in Christian values! If you are a Christian who is being forced to take a course in sexual harassment training, then this is worth reading.
Finally, one of the conclusions of my last post (number 4 above) was this…
“…much of the success of a Tingly Respect courtship, in terms of it leading towards a satisfying marriage, is largely dependent on practicing self-control (especially for the female), and self-development (especially for the male).”
On reviewing the article from BGR, it occurred to me that men pursuing self-development requires self-determination and initiative, which falls right in line with value 2 concerning power, and value 3 about men being “aggressors”. Also, women practicing self-control is exactly what “gatekeeping is all about”.
That’s 3 out of 4. I’m waking up now, but I’m still not Woke!
In conclusion, these training philosophies not only contradict Christian precepts, as BGR elucidated, but they also undermine the requirements for preserving the more successful and relatively God-honoring Tingly Respect model of courtship, especially during its fragile formative stages.
In other words, the attack on traditional values posed by sexual harassment training is not only anti-Christian, but it is also anti-Tingle (so to speak), and (ultimately) anti-family-formation.
Is anyone surprised?
Feminists might believe this poses no trouble for them, because they can claim sexual harassment against any typical Joe who looks at them longer than 20 milliseconds, but they can still accept improper advances from hawt upper management chads for a few weeks or months before blowing the whistle on them. But in the wake of #metoo, anything on the topic of sexual harassment only adds fuel to the flame of male burnout.
- Sigma Frame: Political Correctness is Personality Castigation! (January 5, 2007)