Stallion Spotlight

Total Hope-11-18-09-3662

Real Estate Spotlight

koi pond
  • Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

Rob Gage

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post
    Could be, but I haven’t seen any Facebook posts saying that either.
    I've definitely seen some of it. It's gross.

    I work in finance and today we had our sexual harassment training. I live in Los Angeles, I am literally a couple miles from where the worst of Harvey Weinstein's transgressions occurred.

    The teacher brought up a real case where a female officer working for the CA Sheriff sued for harassment. She said the sheriff had hugged her over 100 times over the ten years she had been there. The teacher asked if that met the legal standard of harassment and one of the guys raised his hand and said come on, that's like one hug a month and why didn't she say something sooner.

    In that moment, I realized how far we are going to have to come as a nation if this is being said, in a sexual harassment course, in "woke" southern California. People are just not getting it. And by people, I mostly mean men.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by greysfordays View Post
      The teacher brought up a real case where a female officer working for the CA Sheriff sued for harassment. She said the sheriff had hugged her over 100 times over the ten years she had been there. The teacher asked if that met the legal standard of harassment and one of the guys raised his hand and said come on, that's like one hug a month and why didn't she say something sooner.

      In that moment, I realized how far we are going to have to come as a nation if this is being said, in a sexual harassment course, in "woke" southern California. People are just not getting it. And by people, I mostly mean men.
      It would have been great if the teacher had turned it around and asked that guy how many hugs it would have taken to make him uncomfortable, if the roles had been reversed? What would be his monthly quota for being hugged by a girl when it was unwelcome? Or being hugged by a guy, for that matter?

      Comment


      • In a business setting, best practices include the idea that you don’t go around gratuitously touching your subordinates. However, in my mind whether hugging once a month constitutes sexual harassment would depend on the context. Is the sheriff hugging lots of subordinates, male and female? Just females? Just her?
        Is there verbal flirting and other forms of non-business related attention directed at her?
        Yes, best practice is a no-touch policy. But not all hugs are sexual in nature.
        And I have some sympathy with the thought that instead of gritting her teeth for ten years and then bringing a law suit, she could have said “Gee Sheriff, I know you don’t mean anything by it, but the hugging makes me uncomfortable.”
        I hope you’re not suggesting that you think SafeSport would issue a permanent ban on a coach for occasionally hugging a student (when the rest of the context indicated it was just a hug).

        Comment


        • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post
          In a business setting, best practices include the idea that you don’t go around gratuitously touching your subordinates. However, in my mind whether hugging once a month constitutes sexual harassment would depend on the context. Is the sheriff hugging lots of subordinates, male and female? Just females? Just her?
          Is there verbal flirting and other forms of non-business related attention directed at her?
          Yes, best practice is a no-touch policy. But not all hugs are sexual in nature.
          And I have some sympathy with the thought that instead of gritting her teeth for ten years and then bringing a law suit, she could have said “Gee Sheriff, I know you don’t mean anything by it, but the hugging makes me uncomfortable.”
          I hope you’re not suggesting that you think SafeSport would issue a permanent ban on a coach for occasionally hugging a student (when the rest of the context indicated it was just a hug).
          According to SafeSport Overhaul facebook page, an 18 year old trainer can no longer be friends with younger kids he has been friends with for years because of safe sport. And a trainer should think before they catch a kid who is slipping off of her pony because there can be no touching.

          And there is no one in the hierarchy of that group making any effort to quell that sort of nonsense.
          *****
          You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post
            As RG’s lawyer, BN had extra credibility on June 13 because she had seen the process from the inside. I would think that least some of the honestly grieving friends of RG would be angry with her for the way she deliberately misled them in her bashing of SafeSport.
            My question is, how long was she his lawyer?
            *****
            You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Midge View Post

              According to SafeSport Overhaul facebook page, an 18 year old trainer can no longer be friends with younger kids he has been friends with for years because of safe sport. And a trainer should think before they catch a kid who is slipping off of her pony because there can be no touching.

              And there is no one in the hierarchy of that group making any effort to quell that sort of nonsense.
              The people who would be inclined to attempt to quell that nonsense would be people like me. But I have been blocked from that page (can’t post, can’t see it). I assume I’ve been blocked because early on I attempted to push back, politely and mildly, at some of the worst of the anti SafeSport hysteria (He didn’t even know her name! He was banned without a hearing!, etc.)

              It looks to me that the people running the SafeSport Overhaul page are still trying to undermine SafeSport. However, they’ve pivoted from “SafeSport inappropriately sanctioned an innocent man” to “A trainer will be afraid to catch a child slipping from a pony” as their reason that SafeSport is ruining the sport.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Midge View Post

                My question is, how long was she his lawyer?
                I’ve just seen her described as his lawyer, not sure how long.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                  The people who would be inclined to attempt to quell that nonsense would be people like me. But I have been blocked from that page (can’t post, can’t see it). I assume I’ve been blocked because early on I attempted to push back, politely and mildly, at some of the worst of the anti SafeSport hysteria (He didn’t even know her name! He was banned without a hearing!, etc.)

                  It looks to me that the people running the SafeSport Overhaul page are still trying to undermine SafeSport. However, they’ve pivoted from “SafeSport inappropriately sanctioned an innocent man” to “A trainer will be afraid to catch a child slipping from a pony” as their reason that SafeSport is ruining the sport.
                  I tried... but probably failed since they refuse to use reason.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                    The people who would be inclined to attempt to quell that nonsense would be people like me. But I have been blocked from that page (can’t post, can’t see it). I assume I’ve been blocked because early on I attempted to push back, politely and mildly, at some of the worst of the anti SafeSport hysteria (He didn’t even know her name! He was banned without a hearing!, etc.)

                    It looks to me that the people running the SafeSport Overhaul page are still trying to undermine SafeSport. However, they’ve pivoted from “SafeSport inappropriately sanctioned an innocent man” to “A trainer will be afraid to catch a child slipping from a pony” as their reason that SafeSport is ruining the sport.
                    So wait. Wait a second...

                    The Admins of that page have apparently blocked you for pushing back, yet have NOT banned known child molesters?

                    Lord. Have. Mercy.

                    khobstetter as an admin of that page, is there a logical explanation?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DarkBayUnicorn View Post

                      So wait. Wait a second...

                      The Admins of that page have apparently blocked you for pushing back, yet have NOT banned known child molesters?

                      Lord. Have. Mercy.

                      khobstetter as an admin of that page, is there a logical explanation?
                      I think anyone who is reasonable in that group is only a member in order to keep an eye on the situation and to note who to avoid ever doing business with. Any reasonable comments are blocked anyway.

                      In all the posts, it’s still not clear what exactly they want to do about Safesport or what exactly needs to change. The majority of comments either make no sense with regard to the actual Safesport policies (like the 18 year old not being allowed to keep his friends) or say something like “what is the world coming to?!” in response to the completely unreasonable posts.

                      I feel bad for all the legislators they are trying to contact.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post
                        In a business setting, best practices include the idea that you don’t go around gratuitously touching your subordinates. However, in my mind whether hugging once a month constitutes sexual harassment would depend on the context. Is the sheriff hugging lots of subordinates, male and female? Just females? Just her?
                        Is there verbal flirting and other forms of non-business related attention directed at her?
                        Yes, best practice is a no-touch policy. But not all hugs are sexual in nature.
                        And I have some sympathy with the thought that instead of gritting her teeth for ten years and then bringing a law suit, she could have said “Gee Sheriff, I know you don’t mean anything by it, but the hugging makes me uncomfortable.”
                        I hope you’re not suggesting that you think SafeSport would issue a permanent ban on a coach for occasionally hugging a student (when the rest of the context indicated it was just a hug).
                        While bolded is true it kind of misses the point- UNWANTED touching of ANY kind should not be tolerated. I am not a hugger, I am cactus prickly.
                        After a particularly frustrating month that included 2 falls off my new horse, I was crying (never do it) lamenting I was considering stopping riding all together- a full blown pity party. My dear friend even said "If you were a hugger- I'd give you one."


                        A pattern of touching is not good. Yes- I know huggers. Eh- sometimes they hug me - of course it is innocent. I'm vocal enough to be like "don't touch me" if I really didn't want someone to- whether I liked them or not. Some people can't, aren't like that, are afraid to call out sick to work- can you imagine "don't touch me" "I'm uncomfortable" if a boss is a jerk? Then we are talking possibly being teased or worse. No one needs that.

                        Over an extended period of time- yeah maybe that is just the hugger's way. Sexual harassment training has been around a long time. There is no excuse for being touched unwanted by a coworker.

                        A child falling off a pony is an exigent circumstance and BN knows it. Saying a trainer would be afraid to do that is ludicrous.

                        2 articles I enjoyed. The second is one I have gone over with my daughter.

                        https://money.cnn.com/2017/10/31/pf/workplace-touch-harassment/index.html

                        https://educateempowerkids.org/6817-2/



                        Come to the dark side, we have cookies

                        Comment


                        • https://www.chronofhorse.com/article...-from-a-junior

                          And now this.

                          Comment


                          • Interesting article written by a young lady. Freedom of Speech still exists in this country as of today. While some might not agree with her views she certainly has the right to be heard and express her opinions as much as any one else.

                            Kudos to her for saying and standing up for her views.

                            She is 17 and according to the article has an interest in how this new legislation has affected her life and other Junior Riders. I’m happy when young people of today take an interest in “ what’s going on in the real world”.
                            Last edited by supernatural; Jul. 18, 2019, 12:18 PM.
                            There are no stupid horses....just stupid people

                            Comment


                            • UNWANTED touching or hugging should not be tolerated. But how does a person who is inclined to give hugs know whether the hug is welcome or not? My suggestion is that if it is the case that in the whole context of behavior, the hugging is innocent and non sexual, then the hugee should use words instead of a lawsuit to convey that they prefer not to be hugged. Once the no-hug preference is expressed, at that point any hugging is harassment.

                              Partly I was trying to point out that there is a space in between “best practice” behavior and behavior that is “clearly out of line and likely to get you a SafeSport sanction”. Innocent hugging (when the whole context indicates it is innocent) is in that space.

                              Some of the SafeSport bashers are saying that not only will a trainer hesitate before catching a child falling off a pony, but that they are prohibited from hugging a child after the child has fallen. If the trainer is paranoid; don’t hug and return child to parents or peers. But I think that people who say that a trainer will be sanctioned by SafeSport for publicly hugging a crying child after a fall from a pony are being ridiculous and are trying to make SafeSport look ridiculous.



                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by endlessclimb View Post
                                Well-written and thoughtful. She makes it clear that her objection is with MAAP, and not SS.

                                I’m glad that her experience in a HS engineering class did not dissuade her from majoring in a STEM field, as her bio says she is majoring in chemical engineering in college.

                                I’d love to hear a response from SS and/or USEF.

                                COTH also posted it on their FB page and it’s generating comments.
                                The Evil Chem Prof

                                Comment


                                • Who on earth would hire a lawyer like BN? Her big mouth would keep me from ever wanting her as my attorney. She actually admitted that someone said she must not be a good lawyer because her client killed himself? She has no credibility at this point.
                                  Humans dont mind duress, in fact they thrive on it. What they mind is not feeling necessary. Sebastian Junger

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post
                                    UNWANTED touching or hugging should not be tolerated. But how does a person who is inclined to give hugs know whether the hug is welcome or not? My suggestion is that if it is the case that in the whole context of behavior, the hugging is innocent and non sexual, then the hugee should use words instead of a lawsuit to convey that they prefer not to be hugged. Once the no-hug preference is expressed, at that point any hugging is harassment.

                                    Partly I was trying to point out that there is a space in between “best practice” behavior and behavior that is “clearly out of line and likely to get you a SafeSport sanction”. Innocent hugging (when the whole context indicates it is innocent) is in that space.

                                    Some of the SafeSport bashers are saying that not only will a trainer hesitate before catching a child falling off a pony, but that they are prohibited from hugging a child after the child has fallen. If the trainer is paranoid; don’t hug and return child to parents or peers. But I think that people who say that a trainer will be sanctioned by SafeSport for publicly hugging a crying child after a fall from a pony are being ridiculous and are trying to make SafeSport look ridiculous.


                                    I agree with you to a certain extent. But for me, in the workplace, a superior should not hug an inferior. Sorry, it just should not happen. Certainly without asking. And certainly not regularly. It just is not appropriate.

                                    It's great to say, she should have spoken up, but you know what, I too would struggle telling my boss something made me uncomfortable, particularly if I worked in a very hierarchical workplace, such as the police. I wouldn't have sued, but I know I would have spent a lot of brain power trying to avoid situations where a hug might come. And that's a problem. That's not a comfortable work environment and that's what we need to avoid.

                                    The point of that example is that within the confines of CA law, the harassment either needs to be pervasive or severe. A hug from your boss when your mom dies is neither. A unwanted hug every month is pervasive and does meet that requirement.

                                    I think it's the same with SafeSport. Persistent hugging is out of place when you have an unequal power dynamic in place. Especially if it is not asked for. Asking a kid if they want a hug after falling off a pony is completely different. I applaud you for pushing back on folks trying to twist SafeSport into something that doesn't allow a trainer to catch a kid falling off a pony. Because we all know that is baloney.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post
                                      UNWANTED touching or hugging should not be tolerated. But how does a person who is inclined to give hugs know whether the hug is welcome or not? My suggestion is that if it is the case that in the whole context of behavior, the hugging is innocent and non sexual, then the hugee should use words instead of a lawsuit to convey that they prefer not to be hugged. Once the no-hug preference is expressed, at that point any hugging is harassment.

                                      Partly I was trying to point out that there is a space in between “best practice” behavior and behavior that is “clearly out of line and likely to get you a SafeSport sanction”. Innocent hugging (when the whole context indicates it is innocent) is in that space.
                                      I agree with you.

                                      EEOC defines harassment as

                                      Originally posted by EEOC
                                      Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
                                      EEOC also recommends:
                                      Originally posted by EEOC
                                      It is helpful for the victim to inform the harasser directly that the conduct is unwelcome and must stop
                                      So a successful harassment claim often, but not always, includes the harasser being told that the behaviour is unwelcome.

                                      The idea that just because you received an unwelcome hug means you've been harassed is extreme and only supportable based on the individual circumstances.


                                      Keith: "Now...let's do something normal fathers and daughters do."
                                      Veronica: "Buy me a pony?"

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by endlessclimb View Post
                                        This is useful input into a rational conversation about MAAP. But I have no sympathy with the claim that it is burdensome to have your text conversation with your trainer have Mom included as a third party. Doing so is absolutely costless.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by greysfordays View Post

                                          I agree with you to a certain extent. But for me, in the workplace, a superior should not hug an inferior. Sorry, it just should not happen. Certainly without asking. And certainly not regularly. It just is not appropriate.

                                          It's great to say, she should have spoken up, but you know what, I too would struggle telling my boss something made me uncomfortable, particularly if I worked in a very hierarchical workplace, such as the police. I wouldn't have sued, but I know I would have spent a lot of brain power trying to avoid situations where a hug might come. And that's a problem. That's not a comfortable work environment and that's what we need to avoid.

                                          The point of that example is that within the confines of CA law, the harassment either needs to be pervasive or severe. A hug from your boss when your mom dies is neither. A unwanted hug every month is pervasive and does meet that requirement.

                                          I think it's the same with SafeSport. Persistent hugging is out of place when you have an unequal power dynamic in place. Especially if it is not asked for. Asking a kid if they want a hug after falling off a pony is completely different. I applaud you for pushing back on folks trying to twist SafeSport into something that doesn't allow a trainer to catch a kid falling off a pony. Because we all know that is baloney.
                                          If you receive unwelcome hugs from your boss, and don’t feel empowered enough to say, “Gee, boss, I know you mean well, but the hugging makes me uncomfortable”, you can go to HR (or the office of sexual harassment prevention, if they have one) and ask them to convey your preferences.

                                          Note that the statement “Gee, boss, I know you mean well, but the hugging makes me uncomfortable” also works if you are in fact unclear about his intentions. He has been put on notice that the touching is unwelcome.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X