Men are vile

Some women are vile, too--but that doesn't make it OK for some men to be vile. No, not all men are "like that."
Many do "support" womens rights, but not enough to override the ones who are particularily blatent.

What happens is, much like the movie--you have just a handful of people who behave outrageously, and others who don't agree with it, but they are silent. So the few who behave "badly" continue, because they have no motivation NOT to. Instead all they see is the support of a few other "badly behaved" people, and little to no reaction from anyone else.

Other people then try to justifiy their inaction by someone rationalizing the bad behavior. It is easier for them to deal with than to realize that something horrible is happening right before their eyes, and they are too afraid to help.

If you watch the movie carefully, you will notice that it is only a small number of people. the others just don't do anything, or try to rationaize what happens to Jose (did you sleep with another man? Well, now you broke union oath..etc.)

So, if MOST people don't agree with the behavior, it is worth (something but) very little if they are silent.

And yes, this still happens. Contrary to popular belief, the trend is that it is MORE difficult to pursue such cases in recent years.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

You mean christianofacists?

How conveniently you forget the movie takes place in America 15 years ago... not 200 years ago.

I just watched North Country and browsed through the comments...yours was so funny I laughed out loud and woke up my husband! I love it!

I have a friend that excuses stupid behavior by men by saying, "men just haven't evolved yet..." and her husband immediately gets up and walks around on his knuckles.

Sorry that other idiot didn't get it, but who cares. Just had to let you know I appreciated the post!

[deleted]

A cultural dissidence.

Men and women alike are taught from childhood acceptable behavior, norms, and ethics.

however, there Men are also taught a sort of subculture of their own, what it means to be "masculine." The "code of masculinity" which is taught not only in an incidental fashion, through observations of the adult role models around them, but even in a very direct fashion.

"Guy rules."

to put it simply.

These "rules" often contradict the ethics and acceptable behavior mainstream society teaches.

Creates a ton of confusion in adolencent males.

think about it. Think of the things that "Guy rules" promote vs. what society frowns upon.

This has the affect of stunting human growth in males, sometimes. Or at least is a burden of the process.

So, much of this behavior is really quite adolencent. It is no more than grade school bullying.

This is not to say that ONLY men engage in such behavior (by no means) or that ALL men, or even MOST men engage in such behavior.

It is a significant influeance, however.

We need to teach our boys what it really means to be men.

[deleted]

kenkeniff, you're just another vile pig. You're just proving the OP's point.

All incidents of harassment had to of actually occured in order to be included in this film.

Most of the harassment was tamed down for the film. Many things which were shown happened multiple times. The "sweater" incident, for example, happened three times. The third time she found it after she put the sweater ON and got it on her.

The women involved in the case were mostly single mothers trying to stay off welfare. This was a good paying job, with medical benefits. One they could support their families with. When the mine first hired women, they only hired those who were "head of households."

"Here's something for you to ponder... What if she assumed before going into that job that there would most likely be some sort of sexual harrasment..? What if the whole thing was planned on her part so she could eventually go to court and try to get a barrel of $$$..? Much worse has certainly happened. "

No one in their right mind would "set up" a situation for sexual harassment. If they did, they would soon discover that it not worth the "barrel of $$$." There IS no barrel of money for anyone--except the attorneys--and even then they typically get paid ONLY if they have a case.

This woman did not expect a church environment. In fact, most of the women who worked in the mines grew up in that area and didn't realize that much of what happened to them was wrong. They accepted the attitudes and behavior as "normal."

These people were looking to make a living. Jobs at the mine were the jobs that PAID. The alternative was welfare. The original plantiff, like many of the other women, were ON welfare prior to the job. They didn't want to lose their jobs (some still work at the mines--although olglebee/norton no longer owns it).

They lived & worked with this harassment for YEARS before an administrative complaint was filed. They packed knives and rope (the rope to tie the doors shut & keep the men out of their workstations) in their lunchboxed, along with their sandwiches. They didn't like it, but came to accept it as "normal." when one of the supervisors began to stalk a woman, and another was entering their homes at night, as well as a few other incidents where they felt their safety was seriously threatened..THAT is what the original administrative complaint was about. But in the process, the history of their employment and the harassment was revealed.

The first two women went for two-three years through the administrative process. All they wanted at that point was a sexual harassment policy & training. They were still working at the mines. They didn't get anywhere with the state, so they looked into hiring their own attorney. They interviewed 50 attorneys. No one would take a sexual harassment case against this particular mining company, until they found Paul Springer. He didn't know the mining company.

People read headlines in the paper and assume that people get a "bundle of $$" from sexual harassment claims. It's absolutley naive. No one would want to go through everything that the women went through.

arond 40$ give or take goes to legal fees and court costs. Then there is "back pay" which is taxed. This is wages LOST because of the company's wrongdoing. Then medical expenses, if applicable. Certainly understandable in a situation like this. Back pay is taxed. So are punitive damages. But at that time, punitive damages were actually paid to the state.

Lawsuits are not about "making money" unless you are an attorney. Then it's your job, so of course you should be making money (as well as covering expenses). Lawsuits are about minimizing damage done.

You can't make up for all of it. Only attempt to minimize.

By the way, it took over ten years to settle this case. For the amount received, the public attention & retailiation from friends, family, and co-workers...loss of job (years), stress of the trial itself...when you look at the actual amount it is not worth it.

This case was fought primarily on principal.

Typical blame the victim mentality. What other options did she have, supporting two children with no health care? You would have walked into that building as well rather than let your kids starve to death. However, I don't think she saw the flames when she entered, beause trust me, with her kind of rape background, there's no way she CHOSE to be sexually harrassed like that. People with her kind of background typically RUN from any sign of sexual harrassment. She was brave and determined to support her children.