Ryder Spearmann
Jul 10, 2017 · 2 min read

Make no mistake, SOME of what falls under the expansive umbrella of “sexual harassment” (why not simply “harassment” BTW???) is actionable on basic merits like the extortion example I mentioned.

HOWEVER, her first story was how it was her impression that someone was interested in sexual relations with her. She went immediately to HR.

The problem with that is, everyone has a basic human right to seek sex. Period. End of story.

Women may think “I don’t want that at work”, to which I say… too bad.

There are no cases where someone’s mere “comfort” overrides the basic human rights of others. It’s the human species, deal with it. No you are not excused from it.

The very notion that feminists would run to the patriarchy to erect special protections for women (knowing that they would because the patriarchy sees women as weaker and in need of protection), is particularly two-faced. “We’re capable and we hate the patriarchy, but while you think we are fragile, would you mind passing laws that curtail men’s basic human rights so as to protect our fragile sensibilities?”

Either you can handle being part of the human species, or you can’t, and if you can’t you shouldn’t be out in public or the workplace.

Like Camille says… that person doesn’t even qualify as an adult woman. More like a child in a woman’s body.

It’s down to, quite literally, if a man looks at a woman for too long, law compels companies to fire that man… specifically based on “the reasonable woman standard”… which starts to appear like an oxymoron especially when the woman has chosen to sex up her appearance before coming to work. There is nothing reasonable about it.

It’s just another case where feminists don’t want anything to do with equality. They want absolute advantage, from the bedroom to the boardroom.

    Ryder Spearmann

    Written by