Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

...THEIR.

 Soladrin wrote:
Well, it's Australia, so I will assume no.

And I'll bet the same thing happens in a self regulated profession like the medical profession in the Netherlands too.

But they're probably too high to come forward?

 -Loki- wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Well, it's Australia, so I will assume no.

And I'll bet the same thing happens in a self regulated profession like the medical profession in the Netherlands too.

But they're probably too high to come forward?

Just a joke mate.

So was mine?

 KiloFiX wrote:
I know she won, but what I was getting at is that if sexual harassment were taken seriously, there would also be a component that protects against reprisal.

There is no functional system that can protect against reprisals. In certain professions, once your name circulates as a troublemaker, prospective employers will simply find reasons to employ somebody else instead. Trying to prove that you should have got the job instead is rarely succesful, and even if you do get a position, working in that sort of atmosphere of mistrust is unpleasant.

What needs to change isn't so much the rules around sexual harrassment as simply the culture that lets people believe that they can act in an inappropriate manner to begin with.

She is right... but don't you think in this day and age she shouldn't be?

 insaniak wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
I know she won, but what I was getting at is that if sexual harassment were taken seriously, there would also be a component that protects against reprisal.

There is no functional system that can protect against reprisals. In certain professions, once your name circulates as a troublemaker, prospective employers will simply find reasons to employ somebody else instead. Trying to prove that you should have got the job instead is rarely succesful, and even if you do get a position, working in that sort of atmosphere of mistrust is unpleasant.

What needs to change isn't so much the rules around sexual harrassment as simply the culture that lets people believe that they can act in an inappropriate manner to begin with.

I know that, in theory anyway, the US military has it in place that in most harassment cases the accuser's name is NEVER brought to "public" light. Both the accused and accuser are moved (as personnel space allows) to separate units or even new duty stations. And the only person in that case who *should* have a stain on their record is the accused if they are guilty.


In more normal terms, as another person posted, I personally believe that if person A "asks" for [sex, a date, drinks, etc] and person B declines, so long as that's the end of it, there should be no harm no foul... I don't know the people involved in the OP case, so I can only theorize that if that situation happened, the woman here is majorly overreacting.... However, I doubt that that was the case. I do suspect that there was more to it than "simply asking a question"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I know that, in theory anyway, the US military has it in place that in most harassment cases the accuser's name is NEVER brought to "public" light. Both the accused and accuser are moved (as personnel space allows) to separate units or even new duty stations. And the only person in that case who *should* have a stain on their record is the accused if they are guilty.

Which works so long as the accused doesn't know who accused him (which would make it difficult to go through with a prosecution) or is not allowed to talk to anyone else. Otherwise, someone with enough connections can still make life difficult for their accuser.

In more normal terms, as another person posted, I personally believe that if person A "asks" for [sex, a date, drinks, etc] and person B declines, so long as that's the end of it, there should be no harm no foul...

And ideally, it would be.

It gets complicated though when the propositioner is a superior in the workplace, as people (particularly younger or less secure people) can feel pressured into aquiescing for fear of a refusal having a negative effect on their job, even when that wasn't the original intention. Which is why it's better for everyone concerned if people all just learn to not try to get up close and personal with folk they work with.

 insaniak wrote:

In more normal terms, as another person posted, I personally believe that if person A "asks" for [sex, a date, drinks, etc] and person B declines, so long as that's the end of it, there should be no harm no foul...

And ideally, it would be.

It gets complicated though when the propositioner is a superior in the workplace, as people (particularly younger or less secure people) can feel pressured into aquiescing for fear of a refusal having a negative effect on their job, even when that wasn't the original intention. Which is why it's better for everyone concerned if people all just learn to not try to get up close and personal with folk they work with.

Ohh don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you that it shouldn't be done in the first place... But it does happen, and most studies show that the more "exposure" you have to a person, particularly of the gender you typically "go for" the more attractive they can/will become to you.

I think in a situation like surgery where you are around someone for extended periods of time, i mean, surgeries tend to go from what? under an hour to 18-20 hours? there's a broad scope for feelings to be formed

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Ohh don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you that it shouldn't be done in the first place... But it does happen, and most studies show that the more "exposure" you have to a person, particularly of the gender you typically "go for" the more attractive they can/will become to you.

I think in a situation like surgery where you are around someone for extended periods of time, i mean, surgeries tend to go from what? under an hour to 18-20 hours? there's a broad scope for feelings to be formed

If you have enough self-control to get through med school, everything after that, and then be trusted with a teaching position, you should have enough self-control to not ask your students if they're up for a feth.

A sad fact of life is that many men have the delusion they are a "gift from God to women". It's great for self-confidence, but also means they don't take rejection well. She's married, or a lesbian, or thirty years your junior? What kind of crappy reason is that to not bow before your animal magnetism?

I'm sure it happens here too, even if we're supposedly one of the best countries for women to live and work in.

 Stonebeard wrote:


If you have enough self-control to get through med school,

Who said they had much self-control during med school? Sure, they may have had just barely enough to pass their classes, but that doesnt mean much. Remember, we don't publish the GPA a person got on their degree... we just give them the degree.

And it was a long time ago, but I recall reading a short article on a study done that suggested that doctors who "barely passed" their schooling were rated as being better doctors than those who had much higher GPAs (the study probably did put more weight on things like "bedside manner" than on technical knowledge/details)

Also, having a sister-in-law who is a nurse, she's told me of her experiences around doctors and how they generally piss all over the nursing staff and generally act like Maverick/Goose/Iceaman from Top Gun (they think they're hot gak, and know everything, even though they sometimes rarely look at a patient's chart) She's bitched at me plenty of times after a shift where she literally had to override a doctor's orders for meds before they were given to the patient, because the doc didn't bother to see that the patient was already on something that would severely interact with what he (generally speaking) was trying to give them.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


And it was a long time ago, but I recall reading a short article on a study done that suggested that doctors who "barely passed" their schooling were rated as being better doctors than those who had much higher GPAs (the study probably did put more weight on things like "bedside manner" than on technical knowledge/details)

If it's the same article I read, it also mentioned that plagiarism/cheating is rampant in medical schools.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:


If you have enough self-control to get through med school,

Who said they had much self-control during med school? Sure, they may have had just barely enough to pass their classes, but that doesnt mean much. Remember, we don't publish the GPA a person got on their degree... we just give them the degree.

If med school is similar to any other graduate program, every doctor who graduates is likely going to have, at the absolute minimum, a 3.0. In every grad program I know of, getting C's will get you put on academic probation, and consistently getting B's is going to raise some eyebrows, in the "What the feth are you doing? You need to get your gak together right now" kind of way. If you're imagining that they don't put GPAs on degrees because there are doctors with MD's (or professors with PhDs, for that matter) graduating with D or C averages like someone in undergrad might be able to do, well....that's not what is going on. Someone with a D or C average is incredibly unlikely to get into med school in the first place, and if they continue to get grades like that they'll be dropped from the program posthaste.

I totally agree with you that final GPA isn't necessarily the best measure of who is the better doctor though.

 Hordini wrote:
If med school is similar to any other graduate program

Most I know of are like that, but I also wonder if that isn't the better (or at least decent) schools and not all Graduate programs, especially Med or Law.

Agreed that it's unfortunate that this power disparity remains a consideration.

If 'someone asked for a date' that's one thing, but if it becomes harassment (and a power differential in their position in their chosen career hierarchy plays into that heavily), the fact that they need to ponder "do I have sex even though I don't want to or risk career damage" reflects poorly on how far we've supposedly come.

And is, as far as I understand, a reason that it's consider unprofessional (and in some countries/companies have laws and rules against or restricting such relationships). I'm all for consenting adults doing whatever they so choose, but when one person is a boss, or supervisor, or even just higher up in the chain of command/ranking/whatever, time and again it's been shown that the line between "power is an aphrodisiac" and "people will abuse the feth out of the slightest bit of power they might have", I'm fine with doing what we can to minimize that imbalance.

Anyway, as to the OP, yes, even if she's correct or 'turning the subtext into text' or admitting an unfortunate reality, I see it as less an issue in and of itself (starry eyed idealist as I may be, I'm aware that the 'casting couch' isn't going away anytime soon), and more that we have a long way to go to reduce it as being an issue at all.

 Frazzled wrote:
Who guards the guards?

Other guards.

I wonder if Dr. McMuffin actually likes women hence the advice.