Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Smelly Media: A parliament full of creeps, or?

Sexual harassment ongoing at parliament

Sexual harassment is still a problem at Finland’s Parliament, according to a new work satisfaction survey of parliament staffers. Eight civil servants and ten MPs' aides say they have been the target of inappropriate emails and advances, lewd language and looks. 
Like many wise men mention, soon it will be illegal to look at a woman.

It will not matter if she is walking around half naked.

Sexual harrassment most of the time is about how she feels.

The same action done by some other dude will cause joyful phone calls to go off to girlfriends.

What is the percentage of women complaining that there has been looks, remarks, God forbid emails, oh God, oh God, someone proposing a coffee date. Oh my God... What? In a 1998 report this is mentioned as 17% .

Does it include the sexual harrassment cause by the desired man not making advance even though the ladies wanted so? I mean this makes her feel bad too, so is it not sexual harrassment?

What is the percentage of women who have welcomed some advances?

One thing you ladies need to understand is that in order to have the desired man to approach you, you got to accept the undesired men to approach you.

This is the price of having the luxury of not putting you in the line of fire of the Rejection SS.

Pertti Rauhio, Parliament's administration chief, responded to the results by saying, “each case is one too many.” 
 Each case of a false accusation is also too many.

Which unlike the 17% derived from women's feelings runs anywhere from 10% to over 40%, derived from little more reliable sources like police statistics.

A staffer not getting the attention she craves for and then gossipingis also one too many.

An uncomfortable email, is... uncomfortable.

A false accusation is... life destroying.

Totally wrong priorities.

A zero tolerance approach towards sexual harassment at the country’s supreme decision-making authority has failed toe wipe out inappropriate behavior—despite efforts such as sexual harassment training. In 2008, as many as on-third of women employed by parliament said they had experienced sexual harassment at their workplace. 
What about zero tolerance to falsely accusing a man of sexual harassment? An acusation with the potential of destroying an innocent man's life? What about that?

 Just like a friend of mine said, "If you ban alcohol, how will the ladies get laid?"

The same here. Yea, go on, ban approaching women, ban treating them as desirable women. See how long before they rise up to Take Back The "Naughty" Night...

The survey, carried out at the end of the previous electoral term, drew a response rate of 62 percent.
So 40% of the women did not even bother to answer?


Ain't it?

P.s.: For the logically challenged: Rape is a crime and should be punished. False accusation is a crime and should be punished to the exact same extent. Sexual harassment is a too important issue to be taken on women's words only. 


  1. "Sexual harassment is a too important issue to be taken on women's words only."

    The Ancient Greeks and the Ancient Hebrews used to consider four female witnesses to be equal to one male witness. Seems that they had a point don't they?

  2. Btw, this is slightly off-topic but relevant to feminist insanity:

    Read the comments. Especially by "Cameron". This little schweet-tart actually considers "bilineal" naming(I'll bet that you've never heard of that before. Niether did I) to actually be simpler(LOL) than the patrilineal lining than normal people use. Things like this help you understand the power(or lack thereof) of a woman's reasoning.

    It's ridiculous. No one I know uses "bilineal" naming, probably because they are not a bunch of whining, victimhood-pushing ideologues.

  3. The more you let go of conventional wisdom, and ideas you took for granted, the more one starts thinking "Why did they do that" instead of "Oppressive woman hating criminals", when considering stuff like your first comment.

    They must have had a reason, a reason coming from hundreds, if not thousands of years of experience.

    P.s: I am not saying that we should apply that now. I am saying, current technology gives us more proof nowadays that what the woman says. Not in all cases, but in most. (am no criminologist)

    Bilineal naming? what a crock of hamstercrap...