The "Battle of the Sexes" has been raging since the first man found himself facing the first woman. And from the very beginning it has fallen upon the man to make the first move - it was always considered un-lady like for a woman to chase the man. But that appears to be changing rapidly in this age of "feminism" and "political correctness", when the mere act of letting someone know you are interested can get you in trouble.
Here's the problem - if a man makes a pass at a woman, and she likes it, that can lead to a beautiful relationship. But if the woman does not like it, she can now call it an "unwanted advance" and the man loses his job, and his reputation. In short, "unwanted advance" and "inappropriate behavior" are subjective - what is unwanted or inappropriate to one person might well be wanted or appropriate to another.
Not long ago, a man making the "wolf whistle" at a woman was considered to be giving her a compliment. Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby - yes, even Pat Boone - have all used the whistle to indicate they like what they see. But today, whistling at the wrong woman can be deemed harassment (even though it is not).
It seems the new rules in this Battle of the Sexes are, at the very least, confusing and only blur the lines. And the strange thing is, it is all so unnecessary.
There are only two real rules, and neither should be breached. If everone were to follow these two rules, there would be no issues, and we would easily be able to pick out the people who break them.
RULE #1: Every man has an OBLIGATION to pursue those he is attracted to, but with that obligation comes the OBLIGATION to stop when the other party makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that he is to stop. He can make any pass, whistle or whatever, but if the other party says, "Stop - leave me alone", he must stop immediately. No harm, no foul.
RULE #2: When a man interacts with a woman in any personal sense, and that women wants him to stop at any point, she has an OBLIGATION to let the man know, in clear terms, that she wants him to stop. It is her obligation to inform him of the line or lines he may not cross.
If all persons were to adhere to these two simple rules, there would be no issues of harassment or sexual misconduct. ALL issues of harassment, sexual misconduct and even rape occur when a person violates one or both of those rules.
If a woman does not draw clear lines for the men she attracts, then the fault is hers if he goes too far. And if a woman draws clear lines, and a man crosses them, he is the one at fault. There is a responsibility on the part of both parties, and each must play by the rules if they are to prevent issues of misconduct.
/
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Sexual Harassment - What It Is, and Isn't
From various legal and dictionary definitions:
harassment - n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. To annoy persistently. Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances. It is commonly understood as behavior that disturbs or upsets, and it is characteristically repetitive
For those with good English comprehension skills, the operative words are "persistent", "systematic", "continued" and "repetitive", all of which must be coupled with "unwanted".
That being said, harassment can only be claimed if the actions are unwanted, AND are of an ongoing, persistent or repetitive nature. Both parts - unwanted and repetitive - must be met in order for any act to be considered harassment.
But even that does not necessarily constitute harassment. In most instances, particularly for sexual harassment, in order for actions to constitute harassment, the harassed individual has an obligation to make it known to the perpetrator that the actions are unwanted. Simply being unwanted is not enough - it must be communicated as being unwanted. In other words, if you do not inform the perpetrator that his or her actions are unwanted, then that person may fairly assume that their actions are not unwanted, and they may continue to act improperly. By not informing the perpetrator, you are giving permission by silent acceptance.
After all, if you expect someone to play by the rules, you have an obligation to inform him or her as to what those rules are. A man hitting on a woman in a persistent manner is normal, and not harassment, as long as she has not openly and clearly objected. Men have been taught for generations (by women, no less) that women are often taught to "play hard to get".
So, sexual harassment consists of three separate parts, each being a requirement:
All too often, a person falsely believes that they can legitimately claim sexual harassment even though they never expressed their discomfort to the person harassing them. But if a person does not set the perp straight, then they have no complaint if the perp continues. He likely believes you are just playing hard to get.
This can be highlighted by the the bogus "sexual harassment" claim against Dustin Hoffman, where the complainant actually said she "liked it - until I didn't". In other words, she allowed it for awhile, and even liked it, implying consent, which would naturally result in such actions continuing. By "liking it" and not complaining, she gave permission. She later stopped "liking it" and claimed harassment. Nowhere does she claim to have told him his actions were no longer appreciated nor wanted, so he had no way of knowing. And if she had told him, and telling him resulted in him stopping, then there still is no harassment - he stopped when asked to do so. It is only sexual harassment when the perpetrator continues unwanted actions after being told to stop.
That accuser accepted sexually explicit conduct without complaint, and only later grew to dislike it. That is not harassment. That is simply a case of giving permission for advances, then changing your mind without bothering to tell the other party you've changed your mind.
We must also remain aware of human nature - I suspect that at least half of all claims of harassment are either a result of "sour grapes", or vengeance, or from not having stood up and telling the perpetrator to stop. We have all heard the stories about a woman who makes false claims against a man simply because she was scorned. Or because it will get them a huge settlement, or 15 minutes of fame. Certainly, not all claims are false. But many are, so we should not automatically assume they are true. Remember the hooker who claimed rape in the Duke University case? She was proved to be a liar and the boys - whose lives were ruined - were innocent.
The take-way: in order to be considered sexual harassment, first there must be solid evidence (the premise of innocent until proved guilty still applies), and second, the actions had to be repetitive, unwanted, and the perp was made aware the actions are unwanted. Any claim that does not meet this standard is bogus.
Ladies, if someone makes sexual overtures toward you and they are unwanted, document it as best as you can, if only by immediately telling everyone. And be sure to stand up for yourself - tell him you are not interested, will never be interested and to stop, or there will be unpleasant ramifications. Then if he persists, take legal action. In no case should you be too afraid to stand up for yourself at the time of the offense.
/
harassment - n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. To annoy persistently. Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances. It is commonly understood as behavior that disturbs or upsets, and it is characteristically repetitive
For those with good English comprehension skills, the operative words are "persistent", "systematic", "continued" and "repetitive", all of which must be coupled with "unwanted".
That being said, harassment can only be claimed if the actions are unwanted, AND are of an ongoing, persistent or repetitive nature. Both parts - unwanted and repetitive - must be met in order for any act to be considered harassment.
But even that does not necessarily constitute harassment. In most instances, particularly for sexual harassment, in order for actions to constitute harassment, the harassed individual has an obligation to make it known to the perpetrator that the actions are unwanted. Simply being unwanted is not enough - it must be communicated as being unwanted. In other words, if you do not inform the perpetrator that his or her actions are unwanted, then that person may fairly assume that their actions are not unwanted, and they may continue to act improperly. By not informing the perpetrator, you are giving permission by silent acceptance.
After all, if you expect someone to play by the rules, you have an obligation to inform him or her as to what those rules are. A man hitting on a woman in a persistent manner is normal, and not harassment, as long as she has not openly and clearly objected. Men have been taught for generations (by women, no less) that women are often taught to "play hard to get".
So, sexual harassment consists of three separate parts, each being a requirement:
- repetive or systematic actions, coupled with
- being unwanted actions and
- the "victim" has made it clear to the perpetrator that such actions are unwanted
All too often, a person falsely believes that they can legitimately claim sexual harassment even though they never expressed their discomfort to the person harassing them. But if a person does not set the perp straight, then they have no complaint if the perp continues. He likely believes you are just playing hard to get.
This can be highlighted by the the bogus "sexual harassment" claim against Dustin Hoffman, where the complainant actually said she "liked it - until I didn't". In other words, she allowed it for awhile, and even liked it, implying consent, which would naturally result in such actions continuing. By "liking it" and not complaining, she gave permission. She later stopped "liking it" and claimed harassment. Nowhere does she claim to have told him his actions were no longer appreciated nor wanted, so he had no way of knowing. And if she had told him, and telling him resulted in him stopping, then there still is no harassment - he stopped when asked to do so. It is only sexual harassment when the perpetrator continues unwanted actions after being told to stop.
That accuser accepted sexually explicit conduct without complaint, and only later grew to dislike it. That is not harassment. That is simply a case of giving permission for advances, then changing your mind without bothering to tell the other party you've changed your mind.
We must also remain aware of human nature - I suspect that at least half of all claims of harassment are either a result of "sour grapes", or vengeance, or from not having stood up and telling the perpetrator to stop. We have all heard the stories about a woman who makes false claims against a man simply because she was scorned. Or because it will get them a huge settlement, or 15 minutes of fame. Certainly, not all claims are false. But many are, so we should not automatically assume they are true. Remember the hooker who claimed rape in the Duke University case? She was proved to be a liar and the boys - whose lives were ruined - were innocent.
The take-way: in order to be considered sexual harassment, first there must be solid evidence (the premise of innocent until proved guilty still applies), and second, the actions had to be repetitive, unwanted, and the perp was made aware the actions are unwanted. Any claim that does not meet this standard is bogus.
Ladies, if someone makes sexual overtures toward you and they are unwanted, document it as best as you can, if only by immediately telling everyone. And be sure to stand up for yourself - tell him you are not interested, will never be interested and to stop, or there will be unpleasant ramifications. Then if he persists, take legal action. In no case should you be too afraid to stand up for yourself at the time of the offense.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)