Maualaga 'apologizes' to Erin Andrews

That's because she would have rather had Erin Andrews do it.

 

It doesn't but I was asking a specific poster a specific question. That's all.

I don't think she is all that hot and I can't quite understand what all the fuss is on all these blogs and all these internet sites -- and I was asking a male who commmented on her looks if he shared the same opinion.

 

I think she is quite attractive, very pleasant and not at all stuck up from the times I have spoken to her.

 

Can you provide evidence to back your claim that sexual harassment cases are more difficult to win now based on rules implemented as a result of the actions of Bill Clinton's dick? I had not heard this.

 

Thank you for answering the question.

 

Perhaps, but this is a pretty played out argument, are attractive women treated differently because of their looks?
And the answer is, yes.
Then the question becomes, are those attractive women fast tracked in their careers because of their looks?
And then that's when then answer becomes harder.
And those questions are never asked of attractive men.

 

I'm pretty sure studies have been done that indicate that attractiveness is an advantage for men and women in the workplace.

 

Sexual Harassment. Origin? Can you use it in a sentence?

Sexual Harassment.

S-E-X-U-A-L H-A-R-A-S-S-M-E-N-T

Sexual Harassment.

 

I don't know, let's ask Gloria Steinem what she thinks....

"In her now-notorious op-ed, Gloria Steinem argued that Clinton should not be penalized for his "boorish" come-ons. Sexual harassment, she claims, was born out of the feminist proposition that with sexual advances, "no means no; yes means yes." And when Jones and Willey said "no," Clinton backed off. Steinem and others in her camp, such as Backlash author Susan Faludi, argue there is no inconsistency between their support of Clinton and condemnations of Packwood and Thomas: Unlike Clinton, they argue, Packwood and Thomas interpreted "no" as "yes" and repeated their unwelcome advances (although most of Packwood's alleged passes were single tries). Steinem's distinction is one side of a longstanding legal debate over whether a one-time unwelcome advance is enough to create a hostile working environment. The courts divide on whether a one-time deed is sufficient, but many feminist legal thinkers take Steinem's side."[/i]


In other words, Maualaga did nothing wrong according to the rules of feminists and he would have been OK to continue to do what he did until Erin Andrews turned around and said "please stop"...

 

But is it pronounced her-ass-ment or hair-as-ment?

 

Nobody is calling for the guy to go to jail for what he did. We are debating the right and wrong on it. But you are using the legal angle to try to draw this into a political debate. That is changing the field of play, which is exactly the thing you were complaining about earlier.

 

So, again, can you provide evidence to back your claim that sexual harassment cases are more difficult to win now based on rules implemented as a result of the actions of Bill Clinton's dick?