|
|
| Author |
Message |
aruba
|
|
Bambi vs. Thumper
| 
Feb 18 14:46 UTC 1995 |
Someone you work with has pictures of a hunting trip on his desk.
One of the pictures shows his wife holding up the severed head of a deer.
Someone else you work with has a playboy calendar on his desk, which
includes pictures of nude women.
Which, if either, of these offends you? What lengths, if any, would you
go to to have them removed?
|
| 18 responses total. |
mgout
|
|
response 1 of 18:
|
Feb 18 20:17 UTC 1995 |
neiter offends me
|
omni
|
|
response 2 of 18:
|
Feb 18 23:16 UTC 1995 |
Playboy calendars are inappropriate in the workplace, as it demeans
the equality of the women who work there.
|
carson
|
|
response 3 of 18:
|
Feb 18 23:58 UTC 1995 |
I wouldn't want to look at either sets of pictures, and I wouldn't
have to. As long as I can turn my head, close my eyes, walk away,
or take any number of physically evasive manuevers, I don't have to.
I don't think it would be necessary for the pictures to be removed,
nor would I be so self-righteous as to ask them to be removed. It's
my personal opinion that I'd rather know what people are like rather
than forcing them to hide it from others.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 4 of 18:
|
Feb 19 14:49 UTC 1995 |
(Gawd, what that man said!)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 5 of 18:
|
Feb 19 15:04 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 6 of 18:
|
Feb 20 01:02 UTC 1995 |
Pictures of dead animals make me a lot omre uncomfortable, just as I am
more disturbed by violence in movies than sex.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 7 of 18:
|
Feb 20 02:56 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
carson
|
|
response 8 of 18:
|
Feb 20 14:31 UTC 1995 |
same here...
|
zook
|
|
response 9 of 18:
|
Feb 20 19:28 UTC 1995 |
Ditto. It would also depend on how prominent the pictures were. If you
really had to strain to look at them (eg. tucked behind something), they
would be less potentially offensive. I wouldn't ask for them to be
removed, even if prominent, because of what Carson was explaining. But, if
I were the boss, I might, because of the professionalism issue (eg. bad
for business if a customer came in and saw disagreeable [to them] pictures).
|
simcha
|
|
response 10 of 18:
|
Mar 14 15:38 UTC 1995 |
In the fed workplace, playboy is verboten. hunting is okay, even an
appropriate male bonding activity.
OTOH, I am more upset by the hunting picture
|
aruba
|
|
response 11 of 18:
|
Mar 15 00:59 UTC 1995 |
I looked a little closer at the picture recently, and the deer head isn't
actually severed, like I said in #0. It's dead, though.
What if the person with the hunting pictures were your boss, rather than
your co-worker? Would that change anyone's opinion of the suituation?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 12 of 18:
|
Mar 17 08:10 UTC 1995 |
This response has been erased.
|
simcha
|
|
response 13 of 18:
|
Mar 20 17:12 UTC 1995 |
No, but I used to have a boss who had playboys out on his coffee table.
Sometimes they got buried under magazines like Gov't Exec!
|
aruba
|
|
response 14 of 18:
|
Mar 21 04:16 UTC 1995 |
Hmmm, that's an amusing image. I can just imagine them getting mixed up.
The "boys of the Secret Service" fold-out might be a little boring, though. :)
|
phreakus
|
|
response 15 of 18:
|
Jun 13 16:13 UTC 1995 |
"Men in Black Bare All"? No thanx!
|
madpoet
|
|
response 16 of 18:
|
Jul 23 09:14 UTC 1995 |
Hey, hunting and sex are two primal urges. What's so wrong about fulfilling
innate drives like food and procreation? Maybe that's not the issue...
in the workplace: WHICH workplace? what about the other people who work
there? Do these offend me ? NO not at all, but I'm not the only employee
now am I?
|
aruba
|
|
response 17 of 18:
|
Aug 2 05:11 UTC 1995 |
Well, I think there can be a LOT wrong with fulfilling primal urges in the
wrong manner. But that's my opinion, of course.
|
ewhisam
|
|
response 18 of 18:
|
Dec 28 03:50 UTC 1995 |
Both are edible items, I dont know
|