NationStates Jolt Archive

There was a quiz on AOL yesterday about what was perceived as sexual harassment (I'm not going to post the quiz; it was the usual AOL inanity). Out of 10 questions, I got 5 wrong (according to the AOL perception). It did, however, start me thinking about the topic. I always had a pretty clear notion of what constitutes sexual harassment, but the line seems to have become fuzzy so that now any contact between people could be construed as such, while things like having a blatantly pornographic screen saver in full view of everyone is acceptable. So, educated and aware people of NS, tell me, what exactly constitutes sexual harassment? And don't give me the current catch phrases about words or actions that make you uncomfortable or that you find offensive - that leaves it too much in the "sexual harassment is whatever you want it to be" ballpark. Laws need to be objective and the laws about sexual harassment are not, they are very much open to interpretation.

Apparently, as it stands now, I can't hug a co-worker, but I can have a sexually explicit screensaver.

Sexual harassment according to the (un)Official dictionary of CM's twisted mind is Any unwanted sexually suggestive act that would constitute an R rated movie(Or at least part of one).

Sexual harassment is any unwelcome contact, comments, or gestures.

You hug me and I'm cool with it? Not harassment. You hug me when I tell you it makes me uncomfortable? Possibly harassment.

My school actually has it in our code of conduct that sexually explicit images on a public computer screen (library, lab computers, things like that) does count as sexual harassment.

The fuzzy line is when, oh. Someone tells a dirty joke and everyone present laughs (and probably continues the telling of dirty jokes), but the next day some dumb ho decides they find it offensive. :/ Dumb ho is the official term for any gender because anyone who does that bothers me a lot.

I had a possible case for sexual harassment freshman year at uni, but I never went to school officials about it. Should have, seeing as the guy was a music education major, but he dropped out and hasn't come back (or finished a degree in education anywhere, that I know of).

I always saw it as this:

If you make a remark in the workplace about my body or my clothing that makes me uncomfortable, and I tell you to stop, and you press it, it's sexual harassment.

If you are touching my person in the workplace against my express invitation, especially the bits that are different on girls than guys, it's sexual harassment. This doesn't apply to the single accidental brush as you pass in a hall, but if your hand is on my chest or my ass it's not cool. If you're massaging my shoulders or stroking me without permission, it's sexual harassment.

If you are telling risque jokes to me and I tell you that it's making me uncomfortable and you keep telling them to me -- it's sexual harassment.

If you make comments about me to colleagues about my body, my sexuality, etc. that I find embarrassing, it's harassment.

Basically, for me, I'm not one to run whining harassment right off, but if I tell you to stop and you keep it up, human resources is going to hear about it.

Sexual harassment is any unwelcome contact, comments, or gestures.

You hug me and I'm cool with it? Not harassment. You hug me when I tell you it makes me uncomfortable? Possibly harassment.

Any unwelcome comments, see some could see that as me going up to someone and asking if they want to go out on a date or maybe grab a drink, that could be considered sexual harassment. Which wouldn’t surprise me if someone gets done for doing just that?

Hugging someone while could be sexual harassment, especially if a male does it to a female the other way around wouldn't see a lawyer bother to get out of his chair. But would that not just be harassment, because you would have to prove that there was some sort of sexual motive behind the hug, but then sexual harassment sounds better so we might as well pin people with that.

My school actually has it in our code of conduct that sexually explicit images on a public computer screen (library, lab computers, things like that) does count as sexual harassment.

The fuzzy line is when, oh. Someone tells a dirty joke and everyone present laughs (and probably continues the telling of dirty jokes), but the next day some dumb ho decides they find it offensive. :/ Dumb ho is the official term for any gender because anyone who does that bothers me a lot.

At a former place of business we were told that our pictures of females none were naked but they were in bikinis was sexual harassment, and so the posters came down. What irked me wasn't the fact that we had to take them down but the one women who hade made the complaint (never mind the fact that plenty of women didn’t give two hoots about it) was allowed to go through our work areas and get rid of them herself, surprise surprise, however, she didn't take down the two posters one of John Aloisi with his shirt off and the other of avid Beckham in his underpants, that our gayman in residence had put up and we didn't have a problem with it, but it seems there are standards only for some. Anyway before I continue blogging I have to agree with you there is a fuzzy line between what is sexual harassment and what isn't we will have to see how far those with an agenda gets.

I always saw it as this:

If you make a remark in the workplace about my body or my clothing that makes me uncomfortable, and I tell you to stop, and you press it, it's sexual harassment.

If you are touching my person in the workplace against my express invitation, especially the bits that are different on girls than guys, it's sexual harassment. This doesn't apply to the single accidental brush as you pass in a hall, but if your hand is on my chest or my ass it's not cool. If you're massaging my shoulders or stroking me without permission, it's sexual harassment.

If you are telling risque jokes to me and I tell you that it's making me uncomfortable and you keep telling them to me -- it's sexual harassment.

If you make comments about me to colleagues about my body, my sexuality, etc. that I find embarrassing, it's harassment.

Basically, for me, I'm not one to run whining harassment right off, but if I tell you to stop and you keep it up, human resources is going to hear about it.

I think that is the best way to think about it. But Kat I ask you while you may tell them being the strong women that you are some may not and may be uncomfortable about it does that constitute sexual harassment, and when asking that question I don't mean going up and squeezing your breasts I mean telling a dirty joke. Would it also be sexual harassment if the person just runs off to HR the moment they hear a dirty joke without letting the person telling the joke that they find it embarrassing?

Any unwelcome comments, see some could see that as me going up to someone and asking if they want to go out on a date or maybe grab a drink, that could be considered sexual harassment. Which wouldn’t surprise me if someone gets done for doing just that?

Hugging someone while could be sexual harassment, especially if a male does it to a female the other way around wouldn't see a lawyer bother to get out of his chair. But would that not just be harassment, because you would have to prove that there was some sort of sexual motive behind the hug, but then sexual harassment sounds better so we might as well pin people with that.



At a former place of business we were told that our pictures of females none were naked but they were in bikinis was sexual harassment, and so the posters came down. What irked me wasn't the fact that we had to take them down but the one women who hade made the complaint (never mind the fact that plenty of women didn’t give two hoots about it) was allowed to go through our work areas and get rid of them herself, surprise surprise, however, she didn't take down the two posters one of John Aloisi with his shirt off and the other of avid Beckham in his underpants, that our gayman in residence had put up and we didn't have a problem with it, but it seems there are standards only for some. Anyway before I continue blogging I have to agree with you there is a fuzzy line between what is sexual harassment and what isn't we will have to see how far those with an agenda gets.

You're not supposed to be picking up your co-workers, so yeah, asking them out could be harassment. It's certainly a stupid idea to date someone you work with.

You should have said that you found the posters of the half-dressed guys inappropriate because they objectified men, and they'd have been taken down too.

ur face is sexual harrasement

OHHHHH YEAH BURNNNNNNNEDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I think the key word in the definition of sexual harassment is unwanted. So, how do you tell what is wanted and what is unwanted sexual conduct? As I see it, if somebody does not like it they need to make it known. That does not require going and getting the other person counselled/fired/eaten by giant carnivorous plants. It can just be a matter of asking them to stop. If the person does not stop then yeah, go and 'tell on them'.

Any unwelcome comments, see some could see that as me going up to someone and asking if they want to go out on a date or maybe grab a drink, that could be considered sexual harassment. Which wouldn’t surprise me if someone gets done for doing just that?

Hugging someone while could be sexual harassment, especially if a male does it to a female the other way around wouldn't see a lawyer bother to get out of his chair. But would that not just be harassment, because you would have to prove that there was some sort of sexual motive behind the hug, but then sexual harassment sounds better so we might as well pin people with that.

If you ask someone on a date once, that's not harassment. If you ask them any time again after the first rejection, they may have a case. (And I've heard some great advice about dating co-workers anyway... "Don't shit where you eat.")

You don't have to prove sexual motive. If it's unwelcome contact, it probably falls under sexual harassment. It doesn't matter who (male or female) initiates it. However, unwelcome means you have to state an objection to it when it happens, not pretend like nothing is wrong then go skipping off to HR later when someone gave you a pat on the back once.

Would it also be sexual harassment if the person just runs off to HR the moment they hear a dirty joke without letting the person telling the joke that they find it embarrassing?

I think so, but I always let someone have the chance to straighten up before bringing on the big guns.

You're not supposed to be picking up your co-workers, so yeah, asking them out could be harassment. It's certainly a stupid idea to date someone you work with.

You should have said that you found the posters of the half-dressed guys inappropriate because they objectified men, and they'd have been taken down too.

Yes not the most stupid thing I have ever done but still.

Oh people did raise it during the sexual harrassment meeting we all had to sit through (not that I minded much got an hours overtime pay) but it was casually dismissed.

If you ask someone on a date once, that's not harassment. If you ask them any time again after the first rejection, they may have a case. (And I've heard some great advice about dating co-workers anyway... "Don't shit where you eat.")

They say the average toilet seat is cleaner than the average kitchen bench.

You don't have to prove sexual motive. If it's unwelcome contact, it probably falls under sexual harassment. It doesn't matter who (male or female) initiates it. However, unwelcome means you have to state an objection to it when it happens, not pretend like nothing is wrong then go skipping off to HR later when someone gave you a pat on the back once.

But that is my point if I patted someone on the shoulder while it may not have any sexual meaning behind it, I could get done for sexual harrassment, yet at the very most it should just be considered harrassment. I would hope I would be told by the worker that they didn't like it before being called to the managers office with a stern person from HR also waiting for me.

I think so, but I always let someone have the chance to straighten up before bringing on the big guns.

And that's one of the things I like about you Kat. I would hope that when someone does run to HR that HR gives them a warning first before any further action

Yes not the most stupid thing I have ever done but still.

Oh people did raise it during the sexual harrassment meeting we all had to sit through (not that I minded much got an hours overtime pay) but it was casually dismissed.



They say the average toilet seat is cleaner than the average kitchen bench.



But that is my point if I patted someone on the shoulder while it may not have any sexual meaning behind it, I could get done for sexual harrassment, yet at the very most it should just be considered harrassment. I would hope I would be told by the worker that they didn't like it before being called to the managers office with a stern person from HR also waiting for me.

A good rule of thumb, basically -- if it's not a handshake (which pretty much needs both people's involvement), do you NEED to invade someone's personal space?

I'd say that any sort of flirtation would be out of bounds, tasteful or not. I was always taught never to make personal acquaintance with co-workers, even if they were to approach me first, and regardless of gender. Maybe that's not the rule at every workplace, but it takes a lot of potential friction out of the equation and makes for good policy, in my experience.

A good rule of thumb, basically -- if it's not a handshake (which pretty much needs both people's involvement), do you NEED to invade someone's personal space?

Yes I suppose so, but it depends on the situation, sometimes after do a tough job in which everybody has been busting their balls (if you will pardon the expression) you may pat them on the back or shake their shoulders, there was no sexual intention behind the pat but it could be done as sexual harassment. I suppose you just need to know the person and what they are like and what you would expect them to do in those sorts of situations.

If an employer wants to set as a condition of employment that he fucks his employee so be it. If coworkers want to fuck leave 'em to it.
Any typical come-ons are harassment if a chick doesn't like the guy just as any sex is rape if she says so later.
Some guys objected to working next to women when they first had to be employed. How were they to focus w/some dame hanging around? But sexual harassment laws threaten to've cops on his ass if he's on her ass.
The most legitimate concern I know is favoritism. What if promotion etc. was dependent on sexual favors? Then bosses who put poor employees in higher positions b/c of how they served sexually when candidates better based on merits the business directly depends on were available would tend to drive their companies into the ground. Laws regarding race function the same way. If the No Mongolians Chinese restaurant is passing up kick-ass Mongolian employees its ' competitors pick up the competitors will drive their bigoted rivals out of business. If a company can get along w/men or members of only one race then diversity isn't needed for their production: there're enough able folks that meet the company's narrow criteria to keep it going.

I'd say that any sort of flirtation would be out of bounds, tasteful or not. I was always taught never to make personal acquaintance with co-workers, even if they were to approach me first, and regardless of gender. Maybe that's not the rule at every workplace, but it takes a lot of potential friction out of the equation and makes for good policy, in my experience.

Personal acquaintance or intimate acquaintance?

I know it depends on the culture of the country and company you are working in. In Germany it is the culture for co-workers not really to know much about each other and call them by the sir names with the correct title, apprentaly people could work next to each other for 20 years and not know their first name. In Australia we do know each other and no more about or lives outside of work, many would be friends and have each other over for BBQ's or go out to dinner with the two families.

Personal acquaintance or intimate acquaintance?

I know it depends on the culture of the country and company you are working in. In Germany it is the culture for co-workers not really to know much about each other and call them by the sir names with the correct title, apprentaly people could work next to each other for 20 years and not know their first name. In Australia we do know each other and no more about or lives outside of work, many would be friends and have each other over for BBQ's or go out to dinner with the two families.

I would proscribe any acquaintance that wasn't related to business, if I were in management (i'm not, thankfully). Not that anyone could consistently enforce those standards, but it's never bad to aim high.

What I've seen in my work so far is that the majority will separate business and personal matters by choice, with a small number (perhaps even only one or two employees) openly socializing and nosing around in others' affairs. The remainder may have a couple friends within the workplace, but will mainly socialize during lunch and breaks. In other words, the atmosphere most places I've been had been neither personal nor impersonal, but rather a mixed bag, which makes some sense. However, it's usually pretty obvious that the flirts and gossipers aren't very effective employees.

At a former place of business we were told that our pictures of females none were naked but they were in bikinis was sexual harassment, and so the posters came down. What irked me wasn't the fact that we had to take them down but the one women who hade made the complaint (never mind the fact that plenty of women didn’t give two hoots about it) was allowed to go through our work areas and get rid of them herself, surprise surprise, however, she didn't take down the two posters one of John Aloisi with his shirt off and the other of avid Beckham in his underpants, that our gayman in residence had put up and we didn't have a problem with it, but it seems there are standards only for some. Anyway before I continue blogging I have to agree with you there is a fuzzy line between what is sexual harassment and what isn't we will have to see how far those with an agenda gets.[/QUOTE]

Even age-of-consent laws are women's ways of barring competitors from entering the field.

ur face is sexual harrasement

OHHHHH YEAH BURNNNNNNNEDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I think the key word in the definition of sexual harassment is unwanted. So, how do you tell what is wanted and what is unwanted sexual conduct? As I see it, if somebody does not like it they need to make it known. That does not require going and getting the other person counselled/fired/eaten by giant carnivorous plants. It can just be a matter of asking them to stop. If the person does not stop then yeah, go and 'tell on them'.

I generally agree, but there are certainly times when that can be difficult to do. If, for example, there is a disparity in power between the harasser and harassed, and the behavior, while unwanted, could be easily construed as non-sexual (like giving hugs), it can be difficult to just tell someone to stop.

Also, I'm sure we'd all agree there are things you can NOT do even once, like grab someone's breast. No woman should have to say, "Yeah, when you felt me up by the fax machine earlier? Please don't do that again."

if An Employer Wants To Set As A Condition Of Employment That He Fucks His Employee So Be It. If Coworkers Want To Fuck Leave 'em To It.
Any Typical Come-ons Are Harassment If A Chick Doesn't Like The Guy Just As Any Sex Is Rape If She Says So Later.
Some Guys Objected To Working Next To Women When They First Had To Be Employed. How Were They To Focus W/some Dame Hanging Around? But Sexual Harassment Laws Threaten To've Cops On His Ass If He's On Her Ass.
The Most Legitimate Concern I Know Is Favoritism. What If Promotion Etc. Was Dependent On Sexual Favors? Then Bosses Who Put Poor Employees In Higher Positions B/c Of How They Served Sexually When Candidates Better Based On Merits The Business Directly Depends On Were Available Would Tend To Drive Their Companies Into The Ground. Laws Regarding Race Function The Same Way. If The No Mongolians Chinese Restaurant Is Passing Up Kick-ass Mongolian Employees Its ' Competitors Pick Up The Competitors Will Drive Their Bigoted Rivals Out Of Business. If A Company Can Get Along W/men Or Members Of Only One Race Then Diversity Isn't Needed For Their Production: There're Enough Able Folks That Meet The Company's Narrow Criteria To Keep It Going.

Lol.

At a former place of business we were told that our pictures of females none were naked but they were in bikinis was sexual harassment, and so the posters came down. What irked me wasn't the fact that we had to take them down but the one women who hade made the complaint (never mind the fact that plenty of women didn’t give two hoots about it) was allowed to go through our work areas and get rid of them herself, surprise surprise, however, she didn't take down the two posters one of John Aloisi with his shirt off and the other of avid Beckham in his underpants, that our gayman in residence had put up and we didn't have a problem with it, but it seems there are standards only for some. Anyway before I continue blogging I have to agree with you there is a fuzzy line between what is sexual harassment and what isn't we will have to see how far those with an agenda gets.

Even age-of-consent laws are women's ways of barring competitors from entering the field.

Ohhhh, those evil wimmens. They rule the world, you know!

Ohhhh, those evil wimmens. They rule the world, you know!

Men rule the world. Women rule men. Therefore Women rule the world!






Joke post. This isn't really my stance on it. It's more like:
Humans rule the world. Women are humans. Therefore, women rule the world!:D

I can recall three instances where I felt harassed. Two were easily handled with words. One instance a male co-worker literally shoved a piece of candy down the front of my blouse - once I recovered from the shock of realizing that someone would actually do that, I followed him, with the candy, into his boss's office, tossed the candy in his lap and said, in front of his boss, "don't ever do that again, you're lucky I don't report you for sexual harassment." The look of shock on his face was priceless and he was very careful around me after that. In another instance, I was expressing displeasure at a male co-worker about some careless paperwork when he put his arm around me and said "Aw, you're upset, you must be on the rag." I removed his arm and said, "If that's the only reason I can be upset, what the Hell is your excuse?" Again, he was very careful around me after that.

In those two instances, while the behavior was inappropriate, It wasn't really harassment, it was ignorance on the part of two men who, once they were informed that it wasn't appreciated, stopped.

The third instance was the problem. The Department head invited me up to his cabin for the weekend, alone. Without my kids, without his wife. When I didn't show up, he asked me where I had been, I told him what he did was inappropriate. He said nothing, but every attempt I made after that at getting promotions or transfers was blocked (I was foolish enough to take the advice of my then priest and "tried to be understanding because his son had just died and he was unhappy and acting out."). That pretty much ruined my career and was most definitely sexual harassment.

Even age-of-consent laws are women's ways of barring competitors from entering the field.

What? :confused:

I would proscribe any acquaintance that wasn't related to business, if I were in management (i'm not, thankfully). Not that anyone could consistently enforce those standards, but it's never bad to aim high.

What I've seen in my work so far is that the majority will separate business and personal matters by choice, with a small number (perhaps even only one or two employees) openly socializing and nosing around in others' affairs. The remainder may have a couple friends within the workplace, but will mainly socialize during lunch and breaks. In other words, the atmosphere most places I've been had been neither personal nor impersonal, but rather a mixed bag, which makes some sense. However, it's usually pretty obvious that the flirts and gossipers aren't very effective employees.

Fair enough, I don't mind getting to know someone you wrok with and sccializing with them during and lunch and outside of the workplace, of course when there is work to be done that is when it is time to stop the talking and get stuck into your job.

Sexual harassment is when people are having sex on my desk and won't leave when I ask them to.

You're not supposed to be picking up your co-workers, so yeah, asking them out could be harassment. It's certainly a stupid idea to date someone you work with

Oh my, I've been sexually harassed by a beautiful girl who works here then! She regularily asks me out at lunch, even up to once a week! (and of course I agree... help me, I've been objectified!)

Meh, good manners and common sense have gone to the dogs since the birth of lawyers.

Sexual harassment is when people are having sex on my desk and won't let me join when I ask them to.

Fixed ;)

There was a quiz on AOL yesterday about what was perceived as sexual harassment (I'm not going to post the quiz; it was the usual AOL inanity). Out of 10 questions, I got 5 wrong (according to the AOL perception). It did, however, start me thinking about the topic. I always had a pretty clear notion of what constitutes sexual harassment, but the line seems to have become fuzzy so that now any contact between people could be construed as such, while things like having a blatantly pornographic screen saver in full view of everyone is acceptable. So, educated and aware people of NS, tell me, what exactly constitutes sexual harassment? And don't give me the current catch phrases about words or actions that make you uncomfortable or that you find offensive - that leaves it too much in the "sexual harassment is whatever you want it to be" ballpark. Laws need to be objective and the laws about sexual harassment are not, they are very much open to interpretation.

Apparently, as it stands now, I can't hug a co-worker, but I can have a sexually explicit screensaver.

Any unwanted gesture with a sexual intent.

In Victoria, Oz, all workers are entitled to work in an environment free of sexual harassment.

The crucial aspect of the law is that the employer is held responsible for any harassment. Since this law was introduced in the eighties all girlie pictures (including screensavers) and boy pictures have disappeared from all the workplaces I've seen. Because the employer can be prosecuted for its employee's actions companies take the issue very seriously.

Public companies train their staff about the issue and commonly appoint harassment advisors to assist their workmates.

Having worked since before these changes were made, I can say that workplaces are far more pleasant and that women, new Australians and gays are treated much better than they used to be.

There are still arseholes about but things are improving.

In Victoria, Oz, all workers are entitled to work in an environment free of sexual harassment.

The crucial aspect of the law is that the employer is held responsible for any harassment. Since this law was introduced in the eighties all girlie pictures (including screensavers) and boy pictures have disappeared from all the workplaces I've seen. Because the employer can be prosecuted for its employee's actions companies take the issue very seriously.

Define 'girlie' picture?

Define 'girlie' picture?

In context, I suppose you could say it's any picture of a woman that a fellow worker might find objectionable.

To me, a picture of a woman in partial or total undress and intended to provoke a sexual reaction.

In context, I suppose you could say it's any picture of a woman that a fellow worker might find objectionable.

To me, a picture of a woman in partial or total undress and intended to provoke a sexual reaction.

And this is the gray area it goes down to the individual person, what do they find objectionable?

And this is the gray area it goes down to the individual person, what do they find objectionable?

No, it's not grey. in Oz at least.

If someone feels harrassed by something then the employer must address the issue. In my previous job I was the token male harrassment adviser and received additional training on the issue. (In Oz, all corporations are required to have an harrassment policy and provide training for all staff.)

The test isn't whether a picture is sexual or not; it's whether an employee feels harrassed in their work environment. The law and the courts are very much on the employee's side.

No, it's not grey. in Oz at least.

If someone feels harrassed by something then the employer must address the issue. In my previous job I was the token male harrassment adviser and received additional training on the issue. (In Oz, all corporations are required to have an harrassment policy and provide training for all staff.)

The test isn't whether a picture is sexual or not; it's whether an employee feels harrassed in their work environment. The law and the courts are very much on the employee's side.

But my point is if someone had a picture of Jessica Alba in her maternity dress up on the wall, and someone says they find it offensive and objectable then they will have to take it down, but a newspaper might on its front page have a picture of a woman in a bikini yet that is allowed to be displayed in public view.

But my point is if someone had a picture of Jessica Alba in her maternity dress up on the wall, and someone says they find it offensive and objectable then they will have to take it down, but a newspaper might on its front page have a picture of a woman in a bikini yet that is allowed to be displayed in public view.

Society has many double standards.

If Jessica Alba were on the front page of a newspaper lying in the foyer of a corporate office and the receptionist objected, then the employer would be required to act upon the complaint.

If it were displayed on a news stand outside the office, too bad.

Sexual Harassment is fabricated lies and bullshit as it hardly need any evidence to file charges. It also lacks standards and is completely subjective. A near unprovable event scaled by subjective feelings can only lead to an unjust system.

I am not denying that real explicit, inappropriate behaviors does not exist, like a boss taking advantage of their employee who might have no real way to file charges against. But the reality is that most of those men gets away with it. It's usually the oversensitive, paranoid woman who gets their way against people who's not even looking at them because they think their feelings matter so much. Then you end up with real cases where the woman does not look nearly as traumatize as those with paranoia disorder and end up being ignored.

I have never heard of a single case where a man file charges against a woman for sexual harassment.

Society has many double standards.

If Jessica Alba were on the front page of a newspaper lying in the foyer of a corporate office and the receptionist objected, then the employer would be required to act upon the complaint.

If it were displayed on a news stand outside the office, too bad.

It is the double standards that I find amusing and frustrating at the same time. I know that a complaint that I might make against someone having say David Beckham up on their wall, the complaint would not be dealt with the same severity and quick response then if someone else objected to me having Jessica Alba up on my wall.

It is the double standards that I find amusing and frustrating at the same time...

A couple of amusing what ifs have occured to me.

What if the news vendor were an employee and objected to seeing Jessica Alba on the front page?

What if a receptionist for a porn magazine objected to the images around them?

Life is sooooo complicated.

A couple of amusing what ifs have occured to me.

What if the news vendor were an employee and objected to seeing Jessica Alba on the front page?

What if a receptionist for a porn magazine objected to the images around them?

Life is sooooo complicated.

I would be interested to see one of those go to court.

It is the double standards that I find amusing and frustrating at the same time. I know that a complaint that I might make against someone having say David Beckham up on their wall, the complaint would not be dealt with the same severity and quick response then if someone else objected to me having Jessica Alba up on my wall.

If it was the picture of him in his Armani undies, I'd certainly say you had a case and I would expect the employer to make sure the picture was removed. Then again, if you worked in Union Square you'd be confronted with a six-story picture of him...

Dont worry im sure that this is from some assumption that only men can become sexually aroused. When e female ends up sleeping with many men she may have the defence of nymphomania. However if a man sleeps with many females he is just a pervert.

Double standards are well entrenched in society. It will be a long long long time before a female is found guilty of sexual harrasment of the same staff level male. Because the male of course would have wanted the sexual advances.

So, if taxation is theft. . . (1 2 3 4 5 6)
Tiegstan

What is Sexual Harassment? (1 2 3)
Anti-Social Darwinism

Hmm...

If it was the picture of him in his Armani undies, I'd certainly say you had a case and I would expect the employer to make sure the picture was removed. Then again, if you worked in Union Square you'd be confronted with a six-story picture of him...

And here are the double standards coming into effect. And apparently in Victoria and I think it is very similar throughout Australia, it wouldn't matter if he was wearing a tuxedo if I found it offensive or objectionable then they would have to take it down by law.

Double standards are well entrenched in society. It will be a long long long time before a female is found guilty of sexual harrasment of the same staff level male. Because the male of course would have wanted the sexual advances.

Of course, which is why I find laws at least how they are carried out both amusing and frustrating.

Oh my, I've been sexually harassed by a beautiful girl who works here then! She regularily asks me out at lunch, even up to once a week! (and of course I agree... help me, I've been objectified!)

Meh, good manners and common sense have gone to the dogs since the birth of lawyers.

There is a difference between eating lunch with a coworker and picking them up. Apparently, you don't know the difference.

Sexual Harassment is fabricated lies and bullshit as it hardly need any evidence to file charges. It also lacks standards and is completely subjective. A near unprovable event scaled by subjective feelings can only lead to an unjust system.

God, your ass is hot in those jeans.

God, your ass is hot in those jeans.

Funny thing. That has been said to me by my female retail department MANAGER

and this was in ear shot of her store MANAGER (male)

I was afraid. She was butch. I mean really butch. This being said as a 20 year old i am not interested at all in butch 50 year olds of the opposite sex. She had also previously called me handsome
.
I wonder if there would have been a completely different approach to this had I been a female and she been a male?

Sorry that was a stupid question.

God, your ass is hot in those jeans.So hot in fact, it's probably best you take those jeans off right now, before they spontaneously combust.

So hot in fact, it's probably best you take those jeans off right now, before they spontaneously combust.

A good manager is always on the lookout to prevent workplace injuries. *nods*

Would it be harassment if I followed in the footsteps of "The Todd" and ask everyone, "Hey, how is your penis"?

I guess if the penis is shown to a worker and isnt sexual harassment it is public nudity :D

Sexual Harassment is fabricated lies and bullshit as it hardly need any evidence to file charges. It also lacks standards and is completely subjective. A near unprovable event scaled by subjective feelings can only lead to an unjust system.

It's only an unjust system because people abuse it, much like what can happen with any other sort of legal action, like a frivolous lawsuit.


I have never heard of a single case where a man file charges against a woman for sexual harassment.

I have heard and been a part of one of such case, not at the work place, but in year 12 of school (senior year of high school for those of you who from the US).
This was when a Chemistry teacher continuously offered to take me out to dinner, during the course that year, when that was clearly bothering me. The situation got to the point where she ended up insinuating that my mark could drop if I kept refusing (which would harshly affect my chances to get into a good university).
If you think the system is unjust, how just would it have been for me if it didn't exist in the first place?

Honestly, you just strike me as someone who's been on the end of a sexual harassment charge as the harasser.

If you (any you, ofc) are told to stop doing something because it is not appropriate, or feels uncomfortable.

I once had to sit through a training video on this subject and one thing that disturbed me greatly was that the emphasis was on the idea that perception had more to do with what defined harassment than intent.

They did a dramatization of a guy going around the office saying things that were clearly inappropriate in some cases, ambiguous in others, but the result was that co-workers complained and he was disciplined for it. During the 'counseling' he had to submit to, he even made the comment "But it sounds like even if I don't mean any harm they can still call it harassment?" And the counselor said "Yes."

That bugged me because the people who were offended didn't say a word to him. They didn't let him know he was out of line. The problem is that some people are just clueless, and don't mean any harm they just need to have it explained to them. Even worse, the ambiguous stuff was stuff that wasn't really creepy in the first place, but he got in trouble for those too on just the fact that the perception was there.

That last part strikes me as unfair. We have rules that are meant to make clear what's okay and what isn't. Since when is the line fluid, or since when can people just make it up on the spot?

I once had to sit through a training video on this subject and one thing that disturbed me greatly was that the emphasis was on the idea that perception had more to do with what defined harassment than intent.

They did a dramatization of a guy going around the office saying things that were clearly inappropriate in some cases, ambiguous in others, but the result was that co-workers complained and he was disciplined for it. During the 'counseling' he had to submit to, he even made the comment "But it sounds like even if I don't mean any harm they can still call it harassment?" And the counselor said "Yes."

That bugged me because the people who were offended didn't say a word to him. They didn't let him know he was out of line. The problem is that some people are just clueless, and don't mean any harm they just need to have it explained to them. Even worse, the ambiguous stuff was stuff that wasn't really creepy in the first place, but he got in trouble for those too on just the fact that the perception was there.

That last part strikes me as unfair. We have rules that are meant to make clear what's okay and what isn't. Since when is the line fluid, or since when can people just make it up on the spot?


Exactly, if, after I have talked directly to the person whose actions bothered me, he stops the actions, I don't consider it harassment, just the actions of an ignorant person who needed to be informed. If, on the other hand, he continues to behave inappropriately, it can be considered harassment.

What stupid about sexual harrassment laws and such is how easily they can be abused. A woman could theoretically get a man fired/disciplined for sexual harrassment just because she wants him "out of the way" for one reason or another. I'm not saying that sexual harrassment doesn't exist. I'm just saying that a few more ground rules on what is and isn't sexual harrassment are needed. It's too abuseable. It needs refinement.

Exactly, if, after I have talked directly to the person whose actions bothered me, he stops the actions, I don't consider it harassment, just the actions of an ignorant person who needed to be informed. If, on the other hand, he continues to behave inappropriately, it can be considered harassment.

The problem is that not all people will say this they will go straight to their boss or HR department and that person will be getting in some serious strife, because that person did not know even though that person may do the same thing to everybody else in the company and no one seems to mind. I would hope I am asked first rather than being sent away to get a refresher course on sexual harassment and a black mark in my file.

[QUOTE=
This was when a Chemistry teacher continuously offered to take me out to dinner, during the course that year, when that was clearly bothering me. The situation got to the point where she ended up insinuating that my mark could drop if I kept refusing (which would harshly affect my chances to get into a good university).
[/QUOTE]

Was she ugly?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103798/

As far as the EEO is concerned, this is sexual harassment...
(a) Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of section 703 of
title VII.<SUP>1</SUP> Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual
favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature
constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made
either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's
employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an
individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such
individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of
unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or
creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

The important thing is the connection to employment and work performance. It seems kind of wide open to abuse, if you want my opinion.

The problem is that not all people will say this they will go straight to their boss or HR department and that person will be getting in some serious strife, because that person did not know even though that person may do the same thing to everybody else in the company and no one seems to mind. I would hope I am asked first rather than being sent away to get a refresher course on sexual harassment and a black mark in my file.
The best thing that can happen is for HR to investigate impartially. The worst is for the 'victim' to immediately sue the employer -- according to the law, the employer should _know_ what is going on in his workplace and is responsible for acts of harassment, whether he knows about them, or not.

I got a good 10 seconds of laughter out of that :D

[QUOTE=Ohhhh, those evil wimmens. They rule the world, you know!

A man comes to rule by breaking other men to live in his service. http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2167.shtml

[QUOTE=What?:confused:[/QUOTE]

I've looked for the case establishing statutory rape but've failed to find it. The biggest effect of this law is to discourage the marriage of women under 18. It attempts to effect a trend wherein 6+ years of women's lives during which they could establish households be wasted. Secondly it puts state agents in the stead of fathers who naturally would revenge their daughters on guys who're unsuitable suitors. Because this law's potential social changes weaken families while strengthening the state I deduce they were established and are maintained for that purpose.