As sad and as wrong as this story is, I think it needs to be viewed through the prism of a country that's rapidly depopulating. In Russia, births are down & deaths are up. It's very quickly becoming a major problem.

Estimates in 2006 implied that the total population of Russia would drop to 2/3 of current levels by 2050. Of course, this is no excuse for the rapes and sexual harrasment that go on in Russian workplaces, but it's not too much of a stretch for me to see Judges dropping intrinsic civil liberties in order to stop the country devolving into utter chaos.

I really hope you all don't shout at me here. I do think this story is highly distressing. Sexual Harrasment is wrong & will always be wrong.

But - I have to ask myself what human rights violations American Judges and politicians (for example) would be willing to throw out of the window in order to stop the population dropping by 100,000,000.

America is on its way to becoming a bona-fide dictatorship since the moron in the White House started World War 3. Human rights were thrown out the window long ago.

We are about to have an Olympics which should have been boycotted, but everyone is pandering to China because of money.

Also, I've read for years about concerns all over Europe about depopulation, not just in Russia.

This is utterly appalling.

But - I have to ask myself what human rights violations American Judges and politicians (for example) would be willing to throw out of the window in order to stop the population dropping by 100,000,000.

Well, apparently rape is very close to being/is one.

I see your point, seanyboy, but I don't think there should be allowances for a "prism" when women are expected to whore themselves out for jobs and grades.

Surely there are other ways to encourage people to reproduce.

What the fuck. That must be one of the most ridiculous judgements I've ever read. This is total BS. "If we had no sexual harassment we would have no children." Why does there have to be a "harassment" clause in front of that??? I thought sex was enough to repopulate the earth!

She alleged she had been locked out of her office after she refused to have intimate relations with her 47-year-old boss.

Man, and they call India a backward country.

Surely there are other ways to encourage people to reproduce.
Agreed. Absolutely Agreed. This is reprehensible, and whatever the understandability of this, the judges response shows a level of deeply ingrained and socially acceptable sexism that I find almost unrecognisible.

Putin himself can ask me what I think about the judges response, and I'll tell him I think that it's wrong. Prism or no prism.

However, I still think this story needs to be contextualised. This is a verdict which comes not from hatred of women, but from ignorance of women and a fear of extinction. I think it should be treated as such.

I really hope this doesn't devolve into a pissing match over which country is the most sexist.
*baggsy Afghanistan*

But seanyboy, the judge made no reference to that--"a fear of extinction".

He believed that "sexual-harassment" would lead to no children--which is entirely ludicrous.

And besides--his idea of Gallantry is a guy who wants to screw anything that isn't tied down!

Russia's a different world.

I really hope this doesn't devolve into a pissing match over which country is the most sexist.

Whoops, didn't mean to imply that we were going to go down that road, we all have our problems--but I'm just tired of hearing how "backward" India is all the time.

It's good to know we're in such fine company!

He believed that "sexual-harassment"

Or a lack of Sexual Harassment rather.

"I really hope this thread doesn't..." statements are often self-fulfilling prophecies. MY COUNTRYS MORE SEXXIST THAN yoURS~!~ I CAN PISS A MILE/ DON'T START NO SHITTING CONTEST WITH ME MAN, I HAD MY COFFEE LIGHT AND SWEET TODAY!

He believed that "sexual-harassment" would lead to no children

Now that makes much more sense, doesn't it?

Hmm. I think one can easily see how "no children" would lead to "a fear of extinction".

Ug, I'm totally disgusted. I would have hoped that by now myself and my sisters were seen as alot more than breasts and baby incubators.

Oh yeah, lock me in a room because I won't sleep with you... that is SO totally going to work and make me fell all sexy like.

Why did no one help this woman?

Wow.
I wonder if someday Russia will have a sexual revolution that causes men to respect women and women to want to have sex for fun instead of obligation.

Hey Specklet, how're you doing?:)

I don't know, I'd assume someone who has a fear of extinction to be more concerned about the human race than that judge seems to be.

I mean, survival of the species is one thing, but forcing women to prostitute themselves seems to be another.

Don't you agree?

This is a verdict which comes not from hatred of women, but from ignorance of women and a fear of extinction. I think it should be treated as such.

Russia's a different world.

Sorry, but this is total BS.

And Russia did not use to be like this. This is what comes of glorifying thuggism and the mafia and Dog-Eat-Dog, by-any-means-necessary "capitalism." Does anyone remember those videos popular in Russia in the 1990s that had tough looking men strolling moodily through the rain in trenchcoats lamenting the violence thrust upon them by the world? Anyone remember the movies Brother? Brother 2? Poor, misunderstood men standing up for the True Russia (now with guns!) Yuck! That culture's new (relatively) and at least half contrived.

Though men have been spoiled rotten in Russia at least since WWII made them such a scarce commodity. Women were so worried they wouldn't get one of the few remaining guys that they started this odious culture of doing whatever it took to make the guys happy. Guys ended up infantilized- they had not useful role in the family. Most of them, from my limited experience, ended up dead fairly early (50s), or drunk and alone. Women held the families together- men were accessories that everyone wanted. I haven't been back in 10 years, but I'd be surprised if that's changed much. I've known far more apartments that held 3 or even 4 generations of women and no men than apartments that held any sort of nuclear family, though they exist.

Being a woman in the Soviet Union was rough- no doubt. Being "equal" meant holding down a regular, full time job
(often for less pay, though not like now) AND doing all the home-making, up to and including coming home at lunch to cook for your spoiled rotten sons.

Women excuse terrible behavior from men on the grounds that they're just men. (cue up Tammy Wynette!) Oh- let him have his higher salary- it means so much to men. They don't know any better.

However, during the Soviet era there was at least a pretense of equality. Pretenses don't bring home the bacon, but they DO show what the ideal is.

Now there's a new ideal: women only get the job if they're "without complexes," attractive, and under 27. Yes, "without complexes" is in the job ad. Oh, and they'll get shit pay, too, and fired as soon as some other hottie comes along, hopefully with even fewer "complexes" about fucking the boss or his best clients.

This isn't about population growth- this is about what the unfettered capitalist market will bear.

Also- Russia/Soviet Union has had population growth problems in the past, usually due to war. It has been pretty straight forward about making abortion illegal when it decides more kids are in order.

There is also that pesky problem of making sure it's the right people who breed (meaning white people). I don't know what the ethnic breakdown of Russia is, but just because the rich cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg are all white doesn't mean the whole country looks like that.

And that doesn't make it a different world?

Facile, maybe; off-the-cuff, yes.

Total BS? Total BS.

Sorry- I was really thinking seanyboy's "fear of extinction" rationale was BS.

I'll grant you it's a different world but no more than say, Mississippi is a different world from Oregon.

Official approval of sexual harassment is not excusable, nor does it have any great historical precedent in the last 100 years.

I'm with you, s_r.

I don't know, I'd assume someone who has a fear of extinction to be more concerned about the human race than that judge seems to be.

I think you're making a pretty broad assumption, there, hadjiboy. Since when does fear result doing the "right" thing? seanyboy's contention seems to be that he can see "Judges dropping intrinsic civil liberties in order to stop the country devolving into utter chaos" i.e. having the population drop dangerously low. Understood. Appalling, but understandable. (Not sure I agree with the premise, but that's another issue.)

It seems that you're saying that if the judge were concerned about extinction, he wouldn't have made the ruling he did. Which makes no sense. You said the judge made no reference to that--"a fear of extinction". Of course he did: no children = extinction.

And I think we can take as a given that it is absurd to think that no sexual harrassment would lead to no children. This article seems to be highlighting the judge's ridiculous stand on that very issue.

Why did no one help this woman? seanyboy nailed it: the judge's response shows a level of deeply ingrained and socially acceptable sexism. Who could possibly step forward for her?

For what it's worth, small_ruminant, I would also say MS and OR are different worlds. But Russia? Yeah. Understanding why people judge the way they do takes a lot more than just knowing what's right and wrong.

I'm not excusing this judge's decision and I don't think sexual harassment is okay.

small_ruminant:

I'm gonna cash in my "weak opinions strongly held" card here and aquiesce to someone who appears to know way more than me. You call bullshit, and although it seemed a plausible explanation for despicible behaviour at the time - you're probably right.

Would you say that it's the infantilization which has caused the move away from equality, or is it something else? Is it simply a byproduct of unfettered capitalism?

(sidebar - I'm now thinking about whether it's in the nature of capitilism to subjegate women for the purpose of sex. Obviously capitalism does subjegate, and areas that it'll subjegate are in ones of "getting paid or getting laid", but is it intrinsicly sexist? Dunno - gonna think on that a bit longer)

On your sidebar, I'd say that capitalism is intrinsically exploitative, and those with the least power are most easily exploited, and women, on the whole, tend to have less power than men in almost all societies. So I think you end up with Capitalism being sexist in outcome, if not intent; though I think sexism (and racism) then becomes a handy and powerful way of manipulating the least powerful into working against their own interests and preventing them from challenging the "ruling" class.

(Which is basically the Marxist argument, as I understand it, but all of my Marxism has come through feminism, so I may not be understanding it fully.)

seanyboy, I regarding capitalism and the subjugation of women: I don't know. I have thought a lot about that question (in light of the changes in Russia) and I don't know the answer. But here are a few of the things that have changed since the Soviet era that I think might have influenced it.

1) Immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union, when things were privatized, the people who followed the rules got screwed- the greedest and least ethical people got obscenely wealthy while the people who showed up for their shift at the car factory got paid in tampons. I think this has caused a culture shift towards thinking "regular" jobs are for suckers. Get your money quick and easy and keep it in a stable currency and/or out of the country. (Paying taxes is for suckers, too, by the way.)

2) The Soviet Union had great reserves of intellectual capital- if you were smart you went into the sciences because the liberal arts were all about politics. Since then the education system has started falling apart. Teachers weren't paid well unless they were teaching private classes on "Business English." Scholars of the sciences bailed out to countries that actually paid them. The US got a huge number of mathematicians and I don't know whom else. I don't know if they've rebuilt their system (I haven't lived there since the late 1990s and haven't even visited in 5 years) but there is at least one whole generation, and maybe even two, whose education foundation is very shaky.

If your education is all based on "Business English" and movies, your marketability is very low. In addition, if you're a woman, you've seen your frumpy, overworked mom get the shaft at her state-run job. After working there 40 years she got pennies on the dollar for her pension- certainly not enough to live on. Why would you put yourself through that misery? If you have no education to speak of, you might as well take advantage of being young and pretty. (Though having seen a lot of young women standing in 20F in the snow at the bus stop in high heels and miniskirts, this isn't easier than a "real" job, imo.)

Also, I do think that lack of education tends to lead to the subjugation of women, but I don't know why I think that. For some reason people who decide to go back to the "old ways! When people had values!" often come up with some reason in which values=subjugation of women. It's weird. I'd love to have someone who knows what they're talking about explain that to me, or even tell me I'm totally off.

But a lot of this is conjecture on my part. I'm not one of these women, and the few women I've run into who are of this generation (the one below mine) are convinced they ARE well-educated even though they don't know basic math, Soviet history, or even Russian literature and poetry except through cultural references and TV shows.

3) Lastly, I think women were tired of not being allowed to be feminine. The "official" esthetic of women in the Soviet Union was the healthy, happy peasant woman, which itself was in reaction to the hyper-feminine upper class/royal esthetic of pre-revolution Russia.

Staying at home and being a housewife sounded like a pretty good deal when the alternative was to go to work AND be the housewife. So dressing in a very feminine manner and refusing to do certain "male" jobs became the norm. They were reclaiming their right to be moms (in Soviet times you gave your kid over to state daycare for most of the day) and wives.

I'm going out on a limb, but I can't help but think there's a correlation to the women in Iran who took up the hijab. They did it as a way to reclaim their identity and now it's turned on them and has gotten out of their control.

Wow, s_r, thanks for your historical perspective there. I lived in Latvia this past year and was pretty amazed at both how feminine the Russian women and girls I knew were expected to be, and how the women and girls who ignored/disagreed with this were not exactly shunned, but definitely looked at differently.

One tiny example I noticed was the huge proliferation of obviously-dyed hair; I have no idea if hair dye was limited/rationed like everything else in Soviet times, but the number of older women I saw with straight-up purple hair astounded me. The hair-dye maxim here in the States seems to be "make it look as natural as possible", but perhaps the emphasis on how unnatural purple hair looks is some expression of a stereotype of femininity that emphasizes a (probably new, since the end of Soviet times) woman's social choice to present her appearance however she likes?

In any case, all the wild outfits and hair made for great people-watching on the bus to work. I'm moving to Poland in the fall and while it's obviously a totally different country from Latvia or Russia, many of the same fashion statements - including big white boots (link slightly NSFW) seem to be au courant there.

I wasn't going to comment on this post, it seems kind of volatile with potential for bad feelings. However, I find the behavior in the story inexcusable. There's plenty of similarly bad behavior to go around for all the countries and peoples of the world. As for the money aspect, I think of money as just a factor in the social hierarchy, a major factor, and social hierarchy exists in part to obtain sex. On the population topic, depopulation is "only" a short-term political/economic problem. Ecologically, it would be great if we could cut the world population by simple attrition.

Thanks a lot for the info s_r; I really didn't know how different Russian Culture seems to be than ours (or mine).

It seems that you're saying that if the judge were concerned about extinction, he wouldn't have made the ruling he did.

Yes, for the simple reason that someone who is concerned about the extinction of a society, would have realized that this kind of behaviour (which seems to be the norm in Russia, as I've gathered from this thread) would be just as devastating to its population as anything else, maybe even more so.

How many women do you think are going to want to get married and start a family knowing fully well that that is probably going to be the end of them. They'd rather try and survive on their own the best they can, and probably move out of the country as soon as possible, which might be what's causing the birth-rate to plunge in the first place.

I honestly think that judge was trying to justify his slanted way of thinking by defending it on the grounds of there being insufficient number of children to go around.

I honestly think that judge was trying to justify his slanted way of thinking by defending it on the grounds of there being insufficient number of children to go around.

Yeah, "We have a social ill! It must be women's fault!" is a pretty standard backlash response to pretty much ... everything.

Goddamn, it must suck shit to be blamed for pretty much ... everything.