We have another case of a man fired for obnoxious conduct outside of his workplace. While we recently discussed this issue with regard to academics, it is increasing common for private employers to fire people who make themselves notorious with thuggish or insulting conduct in public. The latest is Shawn Simoes, who appears to have the mentality of a three year old and taunted a female report with a disgusting sexually explicit heckle on television. He was an engineer with Hydro One, which fired him after the scene was posted outside of BMO Field.
Reporter Shauna Hunt was surrounded by a group of juvenile men who seemed to wait to get the insult on the air. They wanted to embarrass Hunt by using FHRITP, which stands for “f–k her right in the p—y.” The two men speaking with Hunt actually laugh which is equally disgusting. Hunt says that two men “in a row” shouted the offensive phrase while passing by and “I could hear these other guys conspiring to do it,” Hunt added.
Hunt then confronted the group of men in a wonderfully balanced but firm way. One of the men however then proceeds to explain how using the vulgar expression is incredibly funny. “It is f——- hilarious … it’s f—— amazing, and I respect it.”
He later sent an apology to Hunt though I find it bizarre that a grown man would have to be confronted in public to suddenly realize that he is a thug with a toddler’s mentality.
His company did not like the exposure and fired him. There is of course a difference with the Duke and Boston University professors who were voicing their views of race relations and social issues. Having an employee espousing the value to degrading women with vulgarity expressions presents a different issue for a company that has hired employees to perform specific engineering or business tasks.
As we discussed recently, people who achieve such infamy on social media tend to find that their reputation can follow them with devastating consequences as in the case of Adam Smith.
It is encouraging that the team is planning to take action against all of the men but it is only considering a ban for a year. Why not just ban the men entirely? That could only be a net benefit to every other fan and send a message that boorish thugs should stay home and watch on television where they act like total morons in private.
I honestly cannot even imagine why these men — at least six in number — think that such an insult is so funny. It reflects a sad reality about the upbringing and values of too many people — not just in the treatment of women but basic civil conduct.
“Every bit as disordered thinking as Grundy.”
According to the PC scorecard, Inga is racist.
Pogo – according to the PC scorecard just breathing makes you racist.
Every bit as disordered thinking as Grundy. Two peas in a pod.
“Reverted”? No. This has been going on for eons.
“Abuse of women is not a consequence feminism, multiculturalism, or anti religious behavior. ”
Yes, it is.
Interestingly, lesbians, the uber-feminists, are far more abusive to women than are men.
“The issue is proper civil, decent conduct. Gender is irrelevant.”
For males, proper civil, decent conduct is especially about how they treat women.
These guys have reverted to barbaric behavior, not unlike how Muslims treat women in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Why is that?
Why would a guy with a professional-type job be a barbarian in 2014?
What has changed in Western Civilization since the 1940s-1950s?
Pogo said….
“I am arguing that it is an unsurprising though unintended consequence of man-hating feminism, multiculturalism, and anti-religious behavior; that civilized behavior has died out because of them.”
Abuse of women is not a consequence feminism, multiculturalism, or anti religious behavior. These fools were white, the woman reporter was white, religious men abused their wives as much if not more than non religious men back when women were considered chattel, and women were not treated better before feminism. Unbelievably disordered thinking.
“This behavior should not be tolerated in a civil society”
I am not arguing that it should.
Do note I clearly stated: This is stupid and ugly behavior.
“much less somehow confused with feminism.
I am arguing that it is an unsurprising though unintended consequence of man-hating feminism, multiculturalism, and anti-religious behavior; that civilized behavior has died out because of them.
“Would you want a mob to gather around your loved one–a wife, daughter, mother or sister–and chant this?”
Again, I clearly stated: This is stupid and ugly behavior.
Men have less and less reason to act in a civilized fashion, as they have become increasingly marginalized by feminism, atheism, and multiculturalism.
This kind of horrific behavior has arisen in tandem with those efforts.
Indeed, I argue, these behaviors are a direct result of those efforts.
My pointing out the origin of the behaviors in no way condones them, much as I found Ferguson abhorrent, and the ISIS murders evil.
Studying lions or dogs or sociopaths or burglars or communism who kill people doesn’t mean you favor them.
Words can, and often do, incite violence.
We don’t have to pretend this could have led to violence to condemn it as rude and juvenile and therefore demonstrative of shockingly poor judgement.
Take feminism out of the picture. It should never have been raised as relevant in the first place.
Let’s change the situation, just slightly. Let’s have the men, instead of calling for this act to be performed on a female reporter, shout that a sex act should be performed on a MALE reporter. Feminism is not the issue. The issue is proper civil, decent conduct. Gender is irrelevant.
It’s the jokester mentality that dominates the Anglosphere. Anything serious is shunned and mocked if it doesn’t relate to money-making. The result is that almost everyone talks too much, thinks of himself or herself as something of a comedian and tells too many lame jokes. Out of the small minority non-jokester population come the relatively harmless 9/11 cranks and the like along with neo-Stalinist witch-hunting ideological bullies like SJWs and Grundy.
This case of Swedish right wing performance art is actually funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKW4BGMCB3o
Pogo’s opinions of women seem to be every bit as deranged as Grundy’s are of white males. The question should be similar, can a male MD with the mindset of Pogo treat a woman properly? Would a professor with the mindset of Grundy treat her male students properly? Free speech is great, it lets people know who to avoid when seeking certain services.
I guess we could blame men for feminism. Perhaps feminism is a byproduct of eons of subjugation of females by males. So feminism is man’s own fault, if one used the reasoning of Pogo. Before feminism we all know men treated women with respect…don’t we?
Pogo
Usually, I agree with you, but not here. This behavior should not be tolerated in a civil society, much less somehow confused with feminism. Your take on feminism, or your obvious distaste for it, should not blind you to this specific situation. Would you want a mob to gather around your loved one–a wife, daughter, mother or sister–and chant this? These words were not just disrespectful and rude; words and mobs are never a good combination. Words can, and often do, incite violence. Things could’ve easily turned bad for this female reporter. Only then would people have questioned why this chanting was condoned as acceptable behavior.
Blame bad behavior by men toward women on feminists, Oy.
I have hesitated to respond to this problem since there is no black or white issue. As for the fools who acted badly with the reporter, I think that as long as the person was not publically associated with the company or was a major representative of it, firing him was simply wrong. When it comes to the profs written and verbal comments outside of class, the area is perilous. Short of outright classroom misconduct, wide latitude needs to be given in such statements. Thus a statement by a prof that his opinion that blacks are less intelligent should not be cause for dismissal. A statement saying that no black can pass his course, would be cause for dismissal. The prime question should be can the prof give an impartial evaluation of the student performance. If not, or the prof refuses to let a student enroll in his class would be grounds for firing. So while Grundy treads on the line for dismissal, I do not think she went over the line. I did support the firing of Ward Churchill for cause in his academic failures and his falsification of his background.
In Churchill’s case, I did not support his firing on the grounds of his statements that the 9/11 terrorists were heroes. As an airline captain flying many flights out of DEN, I did inform my company, the TSA, and the FAA that I would refuse his boarding any of my flights out of that airport as a security risk and hazard. That is a totally different standard and reason.
Women are taught to hate heterosexual men, especially the white ones.
All the schools (elementary to college) endorse this view.
The media endorse this view.
Since men haven’t yet been killed off or isolated to camps, and they retain some free will, they fight back.
This is stupid and ugly behavior, but think of it as a white Ferguson, and you get the idea.
Meaning: What did feminists think would happen.
Gamergate was a superior response to feminists hating the white male.
“The sad reality is that this sort of perception of the opposite sex is way too embedded in ignorant people. They learn it somewhere.”
Maybe because they have been taught by women that all men are:
Source.
The guy is in need of counseling. The fact that his employer fired him and he will be seen in the media and society as an aberration is a good thing. The employers of the other participants should follow suit and the media should jump all over this. Perhaps, with any luck these misfits will take legal action and get even more exposure.
The sad reality is that this sort of perception of the opposite sex is way too embedded in ignorant people. They learn it somewhere. The right dose of exposure may help in presenting it for what it is.
Why does JT find this so very different from the words spoken by Grundy? Who defines what constitutes a violation of basic civil conduct, in terms of words spoken? Is it defined on the basis of instilling fear or sense of intimidation in the subject of those words? Did these words make the reporter fear for her safety and well-being? What about the fear or insecurity instilled in white students at BU, when they are touted as the problem for all the ills of society and relegated to the position of scapegoat? Don’t think the two situations have similarities? Think again. Only this crude and vulgar behavior, in terms of a verbal exchange, violates basic civil conduct? I would argue that an allegedly educated professor, who speaks about not spending money in establishments owned, or perceived to be owned, by whites, also violates basic civil conduct, by condoning the financial victimization of whites. Claiming that white men are a problem on campus is another violation of basic civil conduct, touting them as the problem responsible for all of the ills in society and creating a sense of insecurity and fear in those singled out. Words have meaning.
Once the mob gathers, it no longer has an intelligence.