My point is something like this: the mere fact that we are “judging” such behavior shows just how repressed we really are–and how much time we are wasting on such nonsense. I could care less about if someone wanted to walk around campus in a thong or sunbathe in the buff on the university green. But I could also care less if a Playboy centerfold were displayed at a work cubicle.

We waste our time on idiocy like this. Yet real workplace safety goes by the boards. You know how many workers die every year on the job? And how little OSHA does to prevent this? And are you aware of how much management violates union laws? Or of the abysmal treatment that whistleblowers get? But all this gets only a fraction of the debate and enforcement that “sexual harassment” does.

I’ve always contended that the “sexual harassment” laws were put into place as a means to keep the workers divided among themselves. They used to show PSAs on TV (back when I had a TV) how women could bring “sexual harassment” suits for co-workers daring to tell a female worker that she looked good. Wow, I really feel safe!

In this respect, feminism is simply another tool used by the elites to keep us all in our places.

History calls communists to account
From Charles Bremmer in Paris

FIFTEEN years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Council of Europe last night became the first international body to condemn crimes against humanity committed by the communist regimes of the Soviet Union and other states.

However, in a vote that was bitterly contested by Russia and Western Europe’s left-wing parties, the 46-nation council failed to raise the two-thirds majority needed to approve a tougher resolution by a Swedish MP that called on former communist states to teach the truth about their former regimes and create days of remembrance.

The council assembly, which includes MPs from all former European communist states except Belarus, voted by simple majority for a motion deploring that there had never been an international inquiry on the “crimes committed in these states”.

“These have never been condemned by the international community as have been the horrible crimes committed in the name of (German) National Socialism”, said Göran Lindblad, a Swedish conservative MP. The failure to win the broader motion underlined the misgivings among parliamentarians over the wisdom of revisiting painful history and issuing blanket condemnations. The council was founded after the Second World War to protect human rights and the rule of law. The case made by conservatives for putting Stalin on a par with Hitler has fuelled a furious dispute in recent years in France, Greece and other Western European states where Marxist doctrines and communist parties enjoy strong sympathies. A Russian opinion poll last month suggested that 42 per cent of Russians believed that Stalin had played a positive role in their country.

MPs from Hungary, Estonia, Bulgaria and other former Soviet satellite states gave emotional backing to the vote. Russian MPs relayed the anger in Moscow over what is seen as a hostile act aimed at isolating their country and opening the way to lawsuits.

Natalia Narochnitskaya, deputy chief of the Duma’s foreign affairs committee, said that Europe should be denouncing the terror of the French Revolution. She added: “Oliver Cromwell has never been denounced.”

REGIMES OF DEATH

# Conservative estimate of deaths attributed to Soviet and other Communist regimes in the European Council document presented yesterday (1917-present day): 94.5 million

# Soviet Union (1917-89): 20 million victims (includes party purges, mass murder, deportations, starvation policy in 1930s Ukraine, wartime reprisals)

# China: 65 million (under Mao Zedong and successors)

# Vietnam: 1 million

# North Korea: 2 million

# Cambodia: 2 million

# Eastern Europe: 1 million

# Latin America: 150,000

# Africa: 1.7 million

# Afghanistan: 1.5 million

Please cite a criminal statute prohibiting possession of a copy of Playboy at private workplaces.

A man wearing tight pants or no shirt might parallel a woman wearing revealing clothes, but obviously the “harassment” potential would have to be judged according to the clothing expectations of the specific context and their actual behavior, not just their clothes or lack therof.

You can’t charge obnoxious people you meet on the street with sexual harrassment - it’s an employment issue.

No doubt many women can see a Playboy centerfold over a man’s desk as harmless. Yet this is criminalized under “sexual harassment” laws.

Hmm.. I used to do it for the money..

Now THAT is a new one to me.