Enough is enough, what's up with all the Sexual Harassment?

z31maniac said:

aircooled said:

z31maniac said:

^Let's please not compare a catering company filled college kids to a professional/corporate environment. 

 

A catering company filled with college kids IS a professional environment and has to comply to all the laws / regulations / standards being discussed in these cases.

 

Ahhhh, going to be that guy I see. Well done and kudos to you. Have a wonderful day.

Yes, excellent reply  I particularly like how you utterly dismiss my comment, make it about me, then seemingly walk away with your fingers in your ears not wanting to hear any more.

Dismiss it all you want.  Some of what he described could easily be classified as sexual assault (I hate the term because of it's vagueness) or at least harassment.  All someone has to say is that they did not speak up because they were intimidated (either physically , socially, or organizationally) but where offended.  The fact that they are young and stupid is a defense that is not likely to hold up.

While I believe context is very important is such situations, it has not been shown to be in the court of public opinion.

That is a huge problem with these perspective based issues.  How it made you feel.  How do you quantify that? Some will say there is a very definite line, but the reality is it's a lot more fuzzy.

I do wonder what people in other countries think of this (if they even hear about it).  France has got to be a bit confused (I have worked a bit with French people) and most of Central (maybe South?) America has to be absolutely unclear what the problem is.

aircooled said:

I do wonder what people in other countries think of this (if they even hear about it).  France has got to be a bit confused (I have worked a bit with French people) and most of Central (maybe South?) America has to be absolutely unclear what the problem is.

Well by me we understand quite well what's going on...and that we're trailing behind by about 30~40 years.

Annie and I worked at the same company for a long time prior to retirement (an old New England industrial company). She experienced sexual harassment first-hand from her immediate boss back in the '80's. It was pretty bad based on today's standards. I know the details. But in the day, women felt like they just had to endure to survive. That is atrocious by today's standards.

On the other hand, I had an opportunistic woman working for me who accused me of harassment (not physical sexual, just related to doing her job, as it would have been for a man) to HR. Her claim was deemed absolutely false by HR, and she left the company without challenge. She was indeed opportunistic, and her accusation was false. So if you're making an accusation you really need to have absolute proof.  Accusations alone are meangingless.

Marjorie Suddard said:

SVreX said:

What just happened?

Margie, just a short while ago you said this was a civil conversation. Now you seem upset. 

I don't understand. 

I thought I explained it. Read above. Comment was made that was deleted by the poster. Not especially terrible, not even remarkable. Just more of the same E36 M3, different day. I am not upset, just all too constantly reminded that I am the anomaly here because... different parts. Perhaps you can relate? Marj

Marjorie,  the deleted comment was  ME.....truly did not want to upset you or any other dwellers.....In my travels on this planet I've encountered life experiences both overwhelming  and excruciating.....therefore my comments are not specifically focused on those currently seeking worldly  acknowledgement, but perhaps spiritual enlightenment as well ...peace out

Yes, I saw it, she deleted it I suspect. 

Keep up the good fight Marjorie.

In reply to aircooled:

What does "keep up the good fight" mean?

It means that she should keep fighting the good fight against d-bags and ignorance, even when it is tiresome to do so. I for one am sorry that she’s gone from this thread , since I value her input. 

Marjorie Suddard said:

Uh, why lock? This seems to be a civil discussion with hardly any disparate views. We wouldn't be gender-stereotyping now, would we?

Gender stereotyping?  I don't understand.  It looked about to become uncivil on page two hence the IBTL comment.

Dan

aircooled said:

z31maniac said:

aircooled said:

z31maniac said:

^Let's please not compare a catering company filled college kids to a professional/corporate environment. 

 

A catering company filled with college kids IS a professional environment and has to comply to all the laws / regulations / standards being discussed in these cases.

 

Ahhhh, going to be that guy I see. Well done and kudos to you. Have a wonderful day.

Yes, excellent reply  I particularly like how you utterly dismiss my comment, make it about me, then seemingly walk away with your fingers in your ears not wanting to hear any more.

Dismiss it all you want.  Some of what he described could easily be classified as sexual assault (I hate the term because of it's vagueness) or at least harassment.  All someone has to say is that they did not speak up because they were intimidated (either physically , socially, or organizationally) but where offended.  The fact that they are young and stupid is a defense that is not likely to hold up.

While I believe context is very important is such situations, it has not been shown to be in the court of public opinion.

That is a huge problem with these perspective based issues.  How it made you feel.  How do you quantify that? Some will say there is a very definite line, but the reality is it's a lot more fuzzy.

I do wonder what people in other countries think of this (if they even hear about it).  France has got to be a bit confused (I have worked a bit with French people) and most of Central (maybe South?) America has to be absolutely unclear what the problem is.

My point was I don't think any reasonable person expects 18 year olds in the service industry to act like the CEO of a company, or a $50 million dollar per year anchor, or a well regarded public figure, a congressperson, etc. 

It's way different when people know each other and are joking around (what was described). It's an entirely different thing to use your power to intimidate or force yourself on someone. 

Please tell me you see the distinction? 

In reply to z31maniac :

I do see the distinction. I also see aircooled's point. 

The problem is that defining sexual harrassment would not make the distinction. Banter among young people can still be considered harrassment. 

Your concern (and part of mine) seems to be about the coercion or abuse of power. My opinion is that makes it worse, but it's a different issue. 

We are unfortunately in an environment that could categorize "banter" as harrassment. From an employer standpoint, the harrassment still has to be addressed, even if it is a company that employs a bunch of part time college students. 

Its not much fun. 

I am uncomfortable with the standard for harrassment being based on the victim's feelings or opinions. It's nebulous, and a completely moving target. 

My own situation (described in another thread) could easily be interpreted in a dozen different ways. A very conservative person could be seriously offended. A very liberal person could consider it good clean fun. I fall somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately there is no way for a person to know when he's crossed the line, because the line is inside the other person's head. Yes, there are things that are clear and obvious. But when the standard is "I felt harassed", it's pretty difficult to address. 

I don't think most of the things we are hearing about in the news fall into this situation. Most are quite grievous, and need to be addressed. 

"The Sexual Revolution is now out of control. Initially promising freedom, like all revolutions, it has entered something like its Reign of Terror phase and is devouring its own children. "  Stephen Baskerville, Patrick Henry College.

SVreX said:

I am uncomfortable with the standard for harrassment being based on the victim's feelings or opinions. It's nebulous, and a completely moving target. 

My own situation (described in another thread) could easily be interpreted in a dozen different ways. A very conservative person could be seriously offended. A very liberal person could consider it good clean fun. I fall somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately there is no way for a person to know when he's crossed the line, because the line is inside the other person's head. Yes, there are things that are clear and obvious. But when the standard is "I felt harassed", it's pretty difficult to address. 

I don't think most of the things we are hearing about in the news fall into this situation. Most are quite grievous, and need to be addressed. 

I agree--the Garrison keillor situation, at least what we have heard of it, falls into this camp. The Harvey Weinstein situation is just black and white sexual assault. 

SVreX said:

I am uncomfortable with the standard for harrassment being based on the victim's feelings or opinions. It's nebulous, and a completely moving target. 

My own situation (described in another thread) could easily be interpreted in a dozen different ways. A very conservative person could be seriously offended. A very liberal person could consider it good clean fun. I fall somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately there is no way for a person to know when he's crossed the line, because the line is inside the other person's head. Yes, there are things that are clear and obvious. But when the standard is "I felt harassed", it's pretty difficult to address. 

I don't think most of the things we are hearing about in the news fall into this situation. Most are quite grievous, and need to be addressed. 

Sure, there are a group of people who will take advantage of a person to person accusation set up. 

But should that be real grounds to not have a mechanism in place for actual harassment???  NPR had a report that ~25% of working women felt they were sexually harassed, but very few reported it.  It's even been posted here where someone physically assaulted didn't report.

Now we are trying to flush out and end that abuse.  But fear of a false accusation should somehow prevent that from happening?  I don't understand that.

BTW, the exact same situation happens from male to male interactions on a personal level, too.  To pretend that it's only women who do that is wrong.

Right now, we need to end the harassment and abuse.  Otherwise women will always feel like a second class citizen to men, and that's wrong.  Of course, the mechanism needs to be robust enough to prevent false accusations.  But something needs to be there to prevent harassment, even if you don't think it is.

In reply to alfadriver :

I didn't say anything about not having a mechanism in place. You know that. 

I said we need an improved mechanism. 

mtn said:

 

I agree--the Garrison keillor situation, at least what we have heard of it, falls into this camp. The Harvey Weinstein situation is just black and white sexual assault. 

On a different board, someone posted that same note.  In reaction to someone else pointing out that Keillor had a long standing reputation that this confirmed.  Then the original poster went out to find that the accusations go back a long time.

Again, we should look at our companies policies WRT harassment and how it's dealt with.  To me, it's safe to think that NPR and NBC have similar policies- one instance isn't likely to result in a firing (unless it's really bad), but more than one is.  These are not likely to be a single incident resulting in firing, it's a single incident that added to a lot of straws to break the camels back.

SVreX said:

In reply to alfadriver :

I didn't say anything about not having a mechanism in place. You know that. 

I said we need an improved mechanism. 

Without proposing a solution to the mechanism problem, then you are complaining that the mechanism is in place.  

What is an improved mechanism??  Just saying that it does not work is not enough anymore.  

Propose an alternative instead of just being scared of the current one.

Aaaand we're not bringing anything new to the thread.  Time for it to die on the vine.

In reply to z31maniac :

My point of view is that it is within almost everyone's ability to act professionally at 18 years old. The choice not to do so isn't an acceptable excuse for behavior on the job that could be close to harrassment. Being 18 doesn't give a legal right to ignore the laws of the country or the policies of your employer. If they employer sold a shock, edgy service (comedy, theme bar, strip club)then there is more room to allow behavior abnormal to most businesses, if they inform job applicants of the environment.

A judge teaches a social legal course for 5th graders and 8th graders at my kids school. He says the number one thing he hears in juvenile court is "It was an accident.." Second is " I didn't know...." In the IDK cases he says he will walk through the history of the accused and point out where they were told things that made it clear they were told it was wrong. On accidents. That if sexual assault was accidental then it means anyone at any age can accidentally commit the crime. That despite any effort to avoid it you could still commit the crime. 

We have control of our minds and bodies. I have never felt my body uncontrollably lunge towards a woman I found attractive. Or uncontrollably attack them with words.

I accidentally insulted someone by using and engineering acronym commonly used in my workplace. She wasn't in engineering and in her culture that acronym is a serious sexual slur. She recoiled from the meeting table. But didn't say anything. Luckily she talked to a woman engineer who explained our internal use of the acronym. She asked me if we could use a different acronym. We changed all of our future communications to use a different acronym. NP everyone got on board. Using an acronym isn't near important relative to someone's workplace comfort. 

alfadriver said:

SVreX said:

In reply to alfadriver :

I didn't say anything about not having a mechanism in place. You know that. 

I said we need an improved mechanism. 

Without proposing a solution to the mechanism problem, then you are complaining that the mechanism is in place.  

What is an improved mechanism??  Just saying that it does not work is not enough anymore.  

Propose an alternative instead of just being scared of the current one.

One thing to add to that.

What is the goal of the mechanism?  

It *should* be to end harassment.  And remember that far, far, far more women don't report harassment than do.  So you are worried about you being falsely accused because of the system, apparently women are more worried about nothing happening in the face of real harassment.  By a pretty wide margin.

It's funny to me that in the face of an endemic sexual harassment situation, people are more worried about themselves than the victims.

alfadriver said:

mtn said:

 

I agree--the Garrison keillor situation, at least what we have heard of it, falls into this camp. The Harvey Weinstein situation is just black and white sexual assault. 

On a different board, someone posted that same note.  In reaction to someone else pointing out that Keillor had a long standing reputation that this confirmed.  Then the original poster went out to find that the accusations go back a long time.

 

Have more accusations against him come out? (Not adding to this discussion, I'm honestly just curious about him and his case--I've always loved his programs) 

To the OP:

I am frustrated by the explosion of media coverage as well. Mostly because they won't cover the part that matters, the trials and resolutions. 

This is not similar to the McCarthyism terminology. If it transitions to government openly proscecuting people without just cause. If the FBI and state police agencies join forces to intimidate and if necessary assault people.  And the legal system shifts to falsly imprisonment of people.

Then we are basically where we have been for people already.. people = women who accuse men of assualt in the history of this country.

I agree that trusting/protecting the victims more and reducing sexual assault are higher priority problems than reducing false accusations. And I would just venture a guess that the actual rate of sexual assault far outstrips the actual rate of false accusation. That doesn't mean false accusation isn't a problem or that it isn't something to be worried about.

Many crimes are based on if it hurts or offends someone else or not (bullying, anyone?). It is a grey area of society and law that is hard to sort out, and a blanket solution never works (see the ironic nested double-blanket statement there?).

So for those concerned about being punished for something you didn't do, what are the current problems with the system as you see it? I'm honestly curious if you've been forced out of a job because of something you didn't say, or didn't do, because that falls well outside my personal experience and those who I know personally.

From my own personal experience, I've never known someone who was the victim of a witch hunt to the point that they lost their jobs over false accusations. I took the time to ask around at our large institution, and nobody else knew of anyone they could say faced false sexual harassment charges and was fired. I heard from many however, who were themselves the victims of sexual harassment all the way up to sexual assault, in which the perpetrators kept their jobs. Only one case in recent memory of someone losing their job over sexual harassment and inappropriate touching charges, and "a handful" who had remedial training by HR (consists of a slideshow).

Policies state "zero tolerance" at my institution, but also state "punishment in proportion to the magnitude of the infraction." In the eyes of HR, that means if it's a single offense of teasing, inappropriate jokes, comments etc etc, that would probably net you a verbal warning. If a pattern of harassment occurs, that results in training. And if it's an egregious offense, then you get canned, maybe. 

In the same training slideshow, HR pledges to work with supervisors accused of harassment. 

Obviously this is just one example at one very large urban medical center, but I think it shows something. The idea that men are facing a dramatic witch hunt where many are losing their jobs over a single false accusation does not appear to have any merit or proof behind it.

The fact that many women are harassed and the perpetrators face no consequences for their actions still appears to be a problem. 

One last personal aside - I was once indeed falsely accused, in class, of being racist by a student back in my substitute teaching glory days. I invited the student to lodge a complaint with the principal, which he did. They investigated and spoke with the student and parents, and found nothing. I faced no further actions. The system worked. 

In reply to Erich :

I know of three. I know of one firing which was justified outside of those three which was not.