Equal Treatment Or Special Treatment?
Wayne State University law prof and evolutionary psychologist Kingsley Browne has an interesting take (and a well-founded one, if you read his excellent book, Biology at Work) on sexual harassment. As reported in Forbes by Meghan Casserly, the basis of his argument is this:
Women seek to be treated equally to their male counterparts at work. In fact, the federal law Title XII, which is invoked in sexual harassment cases, interprets harassment as a form of sexual discrimination--of treating women differently than men. And while some women have had to endure foul, crude or sexually raw working conditions in the form of language, intimidation or degradation, Browne argues that men have long subjected each other to the very same abuses at work.He continues: This behavior is a part of the male tool kit for competitive situations-a means of weeding out the strong from the weak that dates back to the era of hunter-gatherers.
The upshot is that if women want to be treated as true equals, then they better get used to it.
"When someone wants to challenge or disrespect someone, they tend to chose words that they know the person will be upset by. A fat person might be called fat, a homosexual person gay. For a woman it might be her gender and sexuality that's the real dig. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's motivated by sex. Sexual names don't have to equal sexual animosity," Browns concludes.
Come again?
"Men grow up accustomed to large hierarchical groups in which they struggle to be top dog," says biological anthropologist Helen Fisher, professor at Rutgers University and sex expert. "They tease, they degrade, they give each other bloody noses. Men are used to putting each other down," she says, and even attacks on each other's sexuality--particularly their heterosexuality and masculinity--is commonplace.
She refers to "dominance matching" in men. "Men seek power. And beyond their predisposition to aggression or put-downs as a means of achieving it, men expect their opponent to turn around and give it right back."
Women, she continues, are not brought up that way. Instead of hierarchical groups, women are more concerned with being "in" or "out" of social cliques. Once on the inside of a social group, women seek harmony. Rather than meeting social discord head on, fighting for dominance within a group, women instead tend to throw in the towel.
Or march to human resources and file a complaint.
And I'll ask you to weigh in on the questions Casserly posts at the end (I guess they're mainly directed at women from the way they're written, but feel free to answer them no matter who or what you've got in your pants):
Do you think you've been primed to think you're being sexually harassed by every man who treats you poorly? Is it fair to say that women wanted to be treated equally? If that means putting up with questionable or uncomfortable language, do you still want it? Or would you rather be treated like a lady? And if so--what does that mean for women's lib?
Who says women should adapt to the male archetype?
I've worked in hi-tech for almost 20 years. An entire generation of management theory encourages cross-group cooperation in relatively flat organizations - versus old-style corporate ladders.
Working groups are created on-the-fly, then dissolve. Often they mix employees with freelance technical gurus and part-time workers. The emphasis is on personal responsibility and team building at all but the highest levels - and there are far fewer executives in relation to actual creative workers than previously.
Ben David at December 13, 2010 12:26 AM
The prevailing trend is also feminizing the men, I've noticed. Now men are more apt to go "boo-hoo-hoo-ing" to the H.R. because so-and-so called him a nasty name.
Patrick at December 13, 2010 12:29 AM
Maybe it's just because most of my life I've had nearly exclusive male friends, but I feel like I am accepted in the group if I get the joking and teasing by them that they do with the rest of the group. I am "equal" in that situation.
I also view very few things as true sexual harassment and crude jokes or comments on my appearance don't meet the standard. Telling me I need to engage in certain sexually activity in return for a raise, promotion, special project, or just keeping a job would meet the definition, but it's more a threat than anything, much like if I were told I could keep my job only if I cleaned his house every weekend or something. Groping my breasts or crotch uninvited would also fit the bill, but that is a form of assault to me, not harassment. I have a hard tine being able to place something as sexual harassment, perhaps because I doubt there is really such a thing that is distinct and separate from another offense.
BunnyGirl at December 13, 2010 12:42 AM
I've been around enough -- unless I know you well -- when you come up calling on my phone at work, it's "hey there".
I did do a a few "hey sweety"/ "hey darling"/ "hey cutie" on the day a co-worker announced to her close co-workers/friends that she was getting a divorce.
Otherwise -- as a male -- I wouldn't dare.
I have a female co-worker (remote office) that always calls me with and ends the call with "honey", "sweetie" or something similar. Even after I found out she said the same thing to other men (and women) as her style, it still gives me a good visceral reaction.
The point being is that there is a double standard, and probably will always be. Men will always want the attention from women that allows them to get away with it.
Guys will always be under a challenge of whether their attention is welcome. We will be tolerated in certain workplaces but will always be judged for our uncouthness. This is regardless of how the ladies talk among themselves.
Jim P. at December 13, 2010 12:49 AM
I think that Jim P. hit it on the head. It's a matter of being able to read signals, erring on the side of caution, and not being socially inept.
I think that the hysteria about sexual harassment has largely died down, at least in my field (military I.T.). The few cases I have heard about in the last ten years, and these have been third and fourth hand stories, are stories that leave you with, "Why the fuck would anyone be so stupid as to say or do that?"
Thankfully, in my field anyway, it's not as though the average guy can stumble ass-backward into a sexual harassment problem as is often put forward in the various media.
Oh, and we're plenty vulgar. Don't worry about that.
whistleDick at December 13, 2010 2:58 AM
The real question is how verbal sexual harassment can even be legally codified under federal law?
Isn't there something in the constitution about prohibiting free speech? (if you're reading exasperation and sarcasm in that sentence...you're right)
Robert at December 13, 2010 3:52 AM
"The real question is how verbal sexual harassment can even be legally codified under federal law?
Isn't there something in the constitution about prohibiting free speech?"
Actual verbal sexual harassment is a piece of shit and is and should be codified under federal law. As is normal harassment. If I called you on the phone each day and threatened your life, that's not a free speech issue. Although it's verbal, it creates fear and equals terrorism. In fact, that's the legal term for it -- terroristic threat.
When my ex-wife and I were first dating and she landed her first real professional job, she experienced some real verbal sexual harassment -- not the made up shit that makes the news. This was in the mid 90's. She was maybe twenty-two years old. She was making coffee on her very first day on the job and a guy in his late forties approached, introduced himself, and immediately said, "You know, I really know how to eat out a woman." I mention the ages of each party only to accentuate the creepiness, not to say that it would have been okay if the fellow had been younger.
What the fuck is that? Here you have a young, nervous, girl on her first day on the job. She didn't have any idea about his position in the company. How the fuck was she supposed to react? She didn't react at all because of a total feeling of shock and helplessness.
Later in her tenure, she was "voted" as having the best rack on the seventh floor. Again, what the fuck is that?
The first amendment is there to protect political speech and it extends beyond even political speech to cover a lot of things. It's not there to give carte blanche to bullies.
Although most people would agree that the sexual harassment thing went way too far and over compensated, let's not pretend there wasn't ever any problem at all.
I have daughters and I wouldn't want them to be treated like this. I'm very glad that, although it was a bit tumultuous and continues to be, I'm glad our society went through the process of making people aware of what bullshit sexual harassment can be.
whistleDick at December 13, 2010 4:37 AM
I suspect that the behavior that the author has in mind is the type that currently falls on the margins of what may be regarded as sexual harassment. The definition of harassment has stretched considerably since the introduction of sexual harassment laws. There used to be the requirement that that some threat or coercion was present, then with 'hostile workplace' doctrine, the climate of the workplace became a factor. This is where you tend to get the more frivolous complaints.
It's my impression that we're gradually moving towards the understanding that he's advocating. The hey day of 'you looked at me funny' harassment claims seems to have passed. Younger women seem much less hostile towards men than women of my generation are.
jim at December 13, 2010 5:22 AM
Growing up with brothers, I was used to the way men behaved but its not always a black and white answer. While I am comfortable with men and don't get offended easily, I have always maintained a more professional demeanor with my bosses, especially in a larger company. There's a difference between a harmless joke and a boss or co-worker who constantly makes tasteless jokes at someone's expense. I wouldn't say that all harrassment claims are baseless. I had a boss once who was pissed I wouldn't date him. He called my phone drunk one night and left numerous messages telling me what he wanted to do to me. I never gave him my home number nor did I give him any reason to think those calls were welcome. I didn't file a suit, though it was a huge corporation and I could have made a fortune by suing. I told him privately that I was saving his messages and he needed to leave me alone. He did. But what about the ones that don't or the ones who escalate the behavior? Clearly those should not be swept aside because men are biologically different than women.
Kristen at December 13, 2010 5:47 AM
As long as woman B can file a complaint about how I sexually harassed her by ignoring her and chatting up woman A I dont care how justified a sexual harrasment complaint might be.
I'll not take your word for it
lujlp at December 13, 2010 5:47 AM
I should add that about a year after the above incident, my boss approached me and thanked me for not reporting him. He confessed that he had been having major personal problems and that he wasn't handling them well. He acknowledged that what he did to me was wrong and apologized. I accepted his apology and we became friendly acquaintances after that.
Kristen at December 13, 2010 5:50 AM
Why does sexual harassment have a special category? Why isn't there just harassment as something to contend with?
With two professors I know, I've seen narrow escapes from career-ruining charges of by students (sick women in both cases). One of them was only able to escape the charges when he showed that he was out of the country when he supposedly had sex with the woman, per her accusation (and he'd had nothing to do with her).
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2010 6:08 AM
Amy, nobody is saying that they're aren't egregious cases such as these. There are a lot of straight up bitches out there with no ethics whatsoever. However, I think that this sort of behavior is, thankfully, on the decline. People are beginning to catch on to garbage like this and have become better at figuring out the difference.
My point was that there was a reason for the hysteria of the sexual harassment thing. It didn't come out of thin air.
whistleDick at December 13, 2010 6:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/13/equal_treatment.html#comment-1799030">comment from whistleDickHowever, I think that this sort of behavior is, thankfully, on the decline.
Tell that to these two professors.
When laws exist, people can game them.
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2010 6:40 AM
>> Why does sexual harassment have a special category?
Because it typically doesn't rise to the legal standard for criminal harassment. Sexual harassment could have been incorporated into existing harassment laws, to deal with incidents of coercion and intimidation, but Feminists wanted their own category because they sought a more expansive definition of harassment.
Do you think you've been primed to think you're being sexually harassed by every man who treats you poorly?
No but I've dealt with genuine harassment and know the difference. There are some women for whom 'harassment' basically means 'stuff that men do that I don't like'. There are also women who just don't like men, and regard any interaction with them harassing. This is why sexual harassment policies in workplaces are such a loaded gun. In trying to protect women, you're also privileging a group of people who are going to abuse their ability to file complaints.
lola at December 13, 2010 7:23 AM
I think some women have been brought up to believe that every little thing is harassment. I had a friend who overheard a male co-worker hiring a stripper for a bachelor party. She asked me if I thought she should complain to HR. I told her she was nuts. He's not having phone sex every day. He made one brief phone call to hire a stripper; he didn't even say anything graphic just the word stripper. She did not complain, but I was stunned that she even thought she should. And I told her that if she really had a problem with him she should talk to him like a big girl not run to someone else for help.
Fink-Nottle at December 13, 2010 7:27 AM
"When laws exist, people can game them."
Insurance fraud is a problem too, should we not allow people to file insurance claims?
Shannon at December 13, 2010 7:48 AM
>> Insurance fraud is a problem too, should we not allow people to file insurance claims?
It's illegal to file fraudulent insurance claims. There's no such thing in the domain of sexual harassment claims.
jj price at December 13, 2010 8:00 AM
I'm one of those people that you have to get up pretty early in the morning to offend. When I worked out on the factory floor, I was the one who made the pervy maintenance man blush when he got a little too off-color with me. He respected me after that and never gave me any more shit. I think some women are just too chicken to stand up for themselves. You can't giggle at some guy's off-color joke and expect him to realize you're offended by it - just flat out say so. 99.9% of the time the guy will quit right there. Either give back as good as you get or make it clear you don't appreciate whatever is being said/done or STFU. Running to HR like a six-year-old over every little comment is stupid.
Ann at December 13, 2010 8:45 AM
I’m still waiting to be sexually harassed. Maybe it’ll happen someday.
Roger at December 13, 2010 8:57 AM
Roger, those tight pants show off your child-bearing hips.
There, you've been sexually harassed.
MonicaP at December 13, 2010 9:00 AM
Obviously, white-collar workplaces are different from blue-collar workplaces.
However, as Miss Manners has pointed out, over and over (see "Miss Manners Rescues Civilization") equality doesn't mean having to put up with things at work that are just plain rude. Example: If you're a man who wouldn't dream of groping a male co-worker (or expecting to get away with it!), don't think you can do it to women co-workers either.
And, as travel writer Roger Axtell wrote, in the U.S., football players may pat each other on the rear at the start of a game, but even then, they musn't linger.
lenona at December 13, 2010 9:18 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/13/equal_treatment.html#comment-1799084">comment from lenonaDoes anybody think it's okay to grope any co-worker -- anybody who isn't speed-sucking Bud on the job?
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2010 9:23 AM
"Does anybody think it's okay to grope any co-worker -- anybody who isn't speed-sucking Bud on the job?"
Ask a flight attendant 25 years ago. Sexual harassment codes have gone way too far, but they didn't spring out of a vacuum.
Astra at December 13, 2010 10:00 AM
"They tease, they degrade, they give each other bloody noses. Men are used to putting each other down," she says, and even attacks on each other's sexuality--particularly their heterosexuality and masculinity--is commonplace."
So, I punched my employee in the nose until it bled, and then called him a "little dick-sucking faggot."
Then I slapped the bitch employee, and gave her a spanking, while calling her my "slave sex girl, who going spin on my 10-inch rod."
And the bith filed suit!
BOTU at December 13, 2010 11:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/13/equal_treatment.html#comment-1799122">comment from BOTUSmart bosses try to make their workplace someplace people want to be, and do their best to motivate people to do well.
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2010 11:15 AM
Sexual harassment that falls short of criminal harassment is hard to prove in court. The damage is in the reaction of the legal and HR departments, in the codification of preventive policies, and in fostering women's erroneous belief that tattling is an effective remedy for such conflicts.
As a young woman I experienced the hostile work environment and persistent unwanted sexual advance types of harassment; I believe Mr. Browne must be right, because I just didn't have the stomach to take it like a man and dish it back. In both cases I quit without making a complaint about the behavior, and found another job. I didn't like it, but it wasn't that big a deal. Now I'm confident enough to speak up firmly if necessary, but since I'm no longer young it's usually not necessary. Surely a lot of harassment is just due to men having to work alongside really hot young women. Not all of them are able to express their attraction tactfully.
Miss Conduct at December 13, 2010 11:58 AM
What Browne is discussing isn't gropey harassment, it's verbal taunts and jibes of a sexual nature.
Hey needle dick!
..and that sort of thing.
Frankly I'm glad that people are dissuaded from sex talk in the workplace, though I don't think that they should be actionable. It's all fun and games until the horny creepy people get in on it, and then it can ugly very quickly.
lilo at December 13, 2010 12:00 PM
I have always put women on a pedestal - makes it easier to look up their skirt.
bernie at December 13, 2010 12:16 PM
I think there are real cases, total BS cases, and cases where some are just a little too "thin skinned". For me I think it has to be something done directly to you that was obviously out of line.
Actually, come to think of it, I had a male employee who told me I was "melting away" and that I looked like I lost a lot of weight ( I had lost 40lbs, YAY, anyway) and he hoped that wasn't inappropriate to say something like that and he wasn't going to get a call from HR. I looked at him like he was crazy and said "No, it wasn't. THANKS, I've been TRYING!" So, if that's considered sexual harassment, that's silly. I worked my ass off to loose that weight I wanted the whole WORLD to tell me how nice I looked!
CC at December 13, 2010 12:19 PM
Oh, if you saw the size of my rod, you'd be motivated.
BOTU at December 13, 2010 1:49 PM
Ah, the classics! Wimmins be different from mens.
As a woman, I feel comfortable saying the following: Get Over It! Men do not always act the way we think they should. And since we occasionally
change how we think that should be, they can't be blamed, can they?
Well, of course they can. So women, get over it, and men, get with it.
Pricklypear at December 13, 2010 2:35 PM
"Actual verbal sexual harassment,is a piece of shit and is and should be codified under federal law."
Not liking something is not an argument for making that something illegal.
Making threats of physical harm should only enter the federal picture when such a threat crosses state lines. Moreover, making a physical threat is not the same as sexual harassment, any more than murder is like jay walking.
The first ammendment is not meant to protect political speech alone, but all speech. Nowhere in that ammendment does it exclude any form of speech. The federal government is not granted the right to abridge any persons right to speak freely or make a total jackass out of themselves, whether you like it or not.
And why even mention having daughters? I have a daughter too. What of it? I also have a younger sister, an older sister, a mother, and a wife. One would have to be in a very odd position indeed to have no close female interaction or relationship of any kind. None of that however, is relevent to one single underlying fact:
Not liking something, is not a reason to legislate it. Hurt feelings and embarassment have no place in the law, federal, state, or local.
---------------
Robert at December 13, 2010 3:25 PM
Does anybody think it's okay to grope any co-worker -- anybody who isn't speed-sucking Bud on the job?
Posted by: Amy Alkon
_______________________
Well, as MM went on to say, there WERE those who had the gall to say (I don't know why I can't find the exact quotation): "A woman employee didn't used to mind when you pulled her down by her hair and stuck your tongue in her mouth, and now everyone's saying she does. That's not fair! You can't suddenly change the rules like that!"
(This may be a reference to Bob Packwood.)
As MM coldly pointed out, anyone lower on the ladder than you was very often not in a position to complain openly about your behavior. Especially if you're the one who hired her. So one can't say women "didn't used to mind."
I WILL say that NOWADAYS, anyway, when you're working in a setting such as Anthony Bourdain describes in "Kitchen Confidential," it only makes sense to deal with harassment the way the female (and male) victims did. (One of them was Bourdain himself - he sent the scumbag to the clinic with injuries, and everyone just laughed, knowing it was justified.)
And, as MM said elsewhere, even if both parties CONSENT, that doesn't mean any such on-the-job behavior is welcome to those who aren't paying them to spend their time that way! That clearly includes bosses, co-workers, and clients.
lenona at December 13, 2010 3:25 PM
Sexual Harrassment and You
mpetrie98 at December 13, 2010 4:05 PM
When my stats professor started his harassment of me I got his ass fired. Case fucking closed! My friend was all "You should have fucked him, statistics is hard!" lol! A strong argument except last time I checked hot twenty somethings aren't very moist for Persian men in their sixties with fucked up teeth and receding hair lines.
Was I primed to think I'm being harassed? Um no, flirting at the grocery store is fun, being whistled at in your car is fun--when someone has power over my grade or my income it isn't fun.
I'm supposed to come up with some kind of comment or comeback to that shit-NO! Why the fuck am I being called on for that? I'm supposed to be working, not shooting up Testosterone so I can compete with someone who forgot his manners. If some guy yells "I want pussy!" to me on the street I don't faint-- I laugh-- bc it's funny and me and my friends can riff on it for a bit, but mostly bc homeboy doesn't have any power over me at all. That womens lib question is bs! People who demand to be treated well get treated well and that's what HR is for- so that working people can demand the respect they deserve when their ability to buy groceries depends on it.
Gspotted at December 13, 2010 10:14 PM
Good for you Gspotted.
My problem is that I want to pick and choose who I work with. I have about three people I work with that are exceptional, fifteen who are good, three that are plodders, and two who I would can if I had a choice.
Are you sure that you aren't in the numbers I would can?
Jim P. at December 13, 2010 10:27 PM
Robert says, "Not liking something is not an argument for making that something illegal."
Agreed. But in the case of sexual harassment, it isn't (at least shouldn't be) simply a matter of being offended. It's a matter of someone having their ability to make a living negatively affected.
I think that my threat analogy works well in this case. Firstly, it's an example of verbal speech that is illegal, has a negative effect on others, and is not covered by the First Amendment. Secondly, true sexual harassment normally carries with it an implied or explicit threat.
whistleDick at December 14, 2010 12:10 AM
I have never been canned, dumped or any other such thing bc I'm somewhat of a perfectionist, so yeah I'm sure.
Gspotted at December 14, 2010 1:02 AM
You can't giggle at some guy's off-color joke and expect him to realize you're offended by it
I think this is where much of the problem with legitimate sexual harassment claims lies. If there was never a direct complaint, then it's that much harder to investigate. And I sure as hell don't want the company taking the "Well, we can't prove he didn't do it, so we have to punish him" approach. I wonder if part of it's that these particular women don't want to be seen as the office killjoy/bitch/prude/PC police, so they don't complain directly to the perpetrator and instead seemingly ignore the behavior while going to HR to complain. They're just shooting themselves in their respective feet with this approach. First, I do believe that everyone deserves (one) fair warning if there is potential investigation or action to come. Because second, it can only help your credibility in a sexual harassment case to have made your wishes clear, to have told the guy what you were going to do and then to have done exactly that. That way, the guy can't say that he didn't think you were offended because you didn't say anything. Waffles are delicious, but they don't belong in sexual harassment claims.
That said, I do think HR can be a valuable resource in legitimate sexual harassment cases (provided HR is willing to do its job). If your asserting yourself to someone who's intent on treating you badly (sexually or otherwise) at work isn't doing a damn bit of good, then you should absolutely be able to go to HR and file a formal complaint. That's much of the reason they exist: to mediate. Especially if the harasser is a superior. While I do think the first course of action is to be clear with the perpetrator that you don't like whatever it is and won't put up with it, if you're just going to be beating your head against the wall that way, then go to HR. Though I guess I feel this way because I know I'm never going to go crying to them because some guy looked at my ass or made one lascivious comment. I can handle myself, but I do think there is security in knowing my company would try to have my back if I couldn't. But again, they wouldn't be wasting their time with me, and I know there are women out there who are a huge waste of time for their HRs.
And I agree with you, whistleDick (may I call you whis?): it's not about someone hurting my feelings. The language in sexual harassment policies is clear: it's about a worker (or workers) creating a hostile working environment. If someone's mean to me, I can deal. If that someone is persistent with making my work day hell and talking directly isn't doing any good, then that is your hostile workplace. I could complain to that person until I start looking like Violet Beauregard, and it likely wouldn't make any difference, so it's time to get someone else involved. And it's in the company's best interest to resolve the issue (even if the claim is fraudulent--taking action against the person who filed it would definitely create a better working environment).
I can say for certain that I was not raised to be primed to think I was being sexually harassed by any man who didn't treat me well. I was, however, raised to defend myself to anyone I needed to. So, yes, I do want to be treated equally, but I still reserve the right to tell you to fuck off, same as anybody else.
NumberSix at December 14, 2010 1:08 AM
NumberSix,
You may definitely call me Whis. I hope you don't find my moniker offensive ... oh shit, that uppity bitch is heading to HR, isn't she?
You couldn't have said it better. I've always thought that there should be no chance of a sexual harassment claim unless the victim tells the offender that they are being made to feel uncomfortable and details what they don't want to happen anymore. Some people are just socially inept and that shouldn't be a crime.
After that has happened and the behavior continues, nail the fucker.
whistleDick at December 14, 2010 2:43 AM
Many years ago when I was in college, I had a summer job as a shipping and receiving clerk at an engine factory. One of my daily duties was to take the shipping receipts to the accounting department, a department staffed completely by 25-40 year old women. This group of about 15 women would whistle at me, cat-call, make suggestive remarks and pinch my ass every day.
At first I was flattered, then it became annoying, and by the end of the summer I dreaded going to accounting. Now, had I been harassed by men, I would have had words and threatened violence. But I clearly couldn't take this approach with a group of women.
So I have mixed emotions. I can certainly identify with sexual harassment. And I do think that there should be a way for employees to try and stop treatment that threatens their job or truly demeans them. However, this type of power will always be abused.
In another story, several years later, I was a manager at a software firm. We had an admin who wore very revealing clothing and piled on the makeup. She was also young and very attractive. In fact, she looked a lot like Pamela Anderson, so we nicknamed her "Pamela." Word got around to HR that we had this nickname for her and so HR forced about 10 managers to apologize to this woman under the threat of a possible sexual harassment suit to be filed by HR on behalf of this woman (who had not complained and was not aware of the nickname.) This is sexual harassment enforcement gone awry as a result of HR running scared at the possibility of a law suit.
AllenS at December 14, 2010 7:01 AM
Listen, I was just power-scanning, OK? First three words of every paragraph, etc... Y'know, 3.7 seconds per comment. But this—
> The language in sexual harassment policies
> is clear: it's about a worker (or workers)
> creating a hostile working environment.
—is just INCREDIBLY priggish, and authoritarian, and technocratic, and scoldy-Mommy, and UNPROFITABLE. And cowardly. And ninnyish.
If people execute their working lives with the idea that sentences like that will sustain them, capitalism is fucking doomed.
Deservedly. This is just ain't how wealth is created.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at December 14, 2010 7:31 AM
"It's a matter of someone having their ability to make a living negatively affected."
Uh huh, problem is, every person has that power, coworker, boss, subordinates. You're surrounded by people you need. The threat analogy does not work well, if you are physically harmed, your ability to work is screwed, maybe you are screwed up for life. Being physically harmed is nothing like having your ears burn. If you don't like one of your coworkers behavior, that is a far cry from having them threaten to break your legs with a tire iron.
"You've got a nice ass honey." Is nothing like, "Kiss me or I'll kick your ass."
Lots of speech has a negative impact on others, boo fucking hoo. You learn to dish it right back. Hurt feelings are the norm in the world, not the example, nobody has any obligation to protect anyone else's feelings, and the mandate to be sensitive to what is essentially nothing more than subjective emotion, or face legal problems, is as unconstitutional as it gets.
Coworker says to female coworker, "Nice ass." Sexual harassment suit follows, millions paid.
George Clooney stops by office and says to same worker, "Nice ass." Worker sleeps with George Clooney.
When the circumstances can be dictated entirely by the level of attractiveness of the speaker to the listener, you have a law that is not only created to be abused, you have a law that is selectively enforced to the point of lunacy.
------
I used to have a tenant renting one of my rooms, and a long time ago she worked as a car salesman in an office full of men. She was the only woman, she was also one of the guys, then one day that dealership hired another woman, and she used to follow one man around, he was the raunchiest of the lot, and one day he said to one of his coworkers, "Yeah I would never sleep with the new one." She heard it, smiled, and went right to the manager to make a sexual harassment complaint, she collected a 7,000 settlement and left the job. He incidentally, also lost his job.
Robert at December 14, 2010 12:10 PM
I think I'll go ahead and answer the questions, even though I'm late to the party (as always), just 'cuz I think they're interesting questions.
>>Do you think you've been primed to think you're being sexually harassed by every man who treats you poorly?
No! The men who've treated me poorly in jobs have done so mainly because they were assholes to begin with, and 90% of those were assholes who didn't feel like working. Gender played very little role, if any, in their direct treatment of me.
>>Is it fair to say that women wanted to be treated equally?
Yes, in accordance to how they've been presented a working environment is supposed to be. The reality does not always match the fantasy, most significantly in white collar versus blue collar jobs. I'll explain in a sec.
>>If that means putting up with questionable or uncomfortable language, do you still want it? Or would you rather be treated like a lady? And if so--what does that mean for women's lib?
Okay, here we go. My experience comes only from retail and white collar jobs. So I will say that I expect ALL employees to treat each other **professionally**. That means no calling each other "needle dick" or "sugar tits" on the job, even if you're best friends outside of work. On the job, you keep it professional and work-appropriate. I understand that in a blue collar job, this probably differs, but not having been in that environment, I'll hold off on commenting. So when you say "questionable" or "uncomfortable", I'm taking that to mean something like Fink-Nottle's "stripper" anecdote, which is, of course, acceptable. It means that I don't mind hearing that one episode of Seinfeld related over the water cooler, or hearing someone snap "Fuck!" when they drop a box of copier paper on their foot. I don't mind hearing an "adorable" nickname for myself or a coworker (like "sweetie" or "honey" or "doll"). But I would mind a coworker who sprinkled every sentence with fucks and shits, as that's pretty unprofessional, I would mind hearing your description of last night's sexual exploits, and I would mind someone who thinks its hiliarious to play like we're a couple at work [Sidenote: One of my husband's male coworkers had a supervisor who would constantly imply to everyone at the workplace that they had a thing on the side when he was married with kids. Gross.]
For me, it's all about professional and unprofessional behavior. Your standards of behavior at work are different from those at the bar. And *any* kind of touching, aside from the occassional hug or pat of sympathy, should be off-limits.
cornerdemon at December 14, 2010 1:47 PM
I'll agree cornerdemon, with one caveat:
It should be decided in the workplace, not in the courthouse, not by the legislature.
To borrow another statement, someone once said:
"To say there is no God does me no harm. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
"To say I have a nice ass does me no harm, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
You cannot legislate speech that does no physical harm nor indicates any physical threat, the attempt to do so ends in randomness that is left entirely in the hands of millions of working women, some of whom are tough as nails, some of whom are delicate as garden roses, all of whom will decide for themselves if they feel harassed, and will ensure that selective enforcement is the rule, and not the exception.
(where I said example before, I mean to write exception)
Sexual harassment law is entirely dependent upon whether or not the listener's gina tingles when she is within hearing reach.
How the fuck do you base law on that and still rationally expect to have a free thinking freely speaking society???
How do you oppose censorship on the one hand, and support sexual harassment legislation on the other?
Robert at December 14, 2010 1:59 PM
INCREDIBLY priggish, and authoritarian, and technocratic, and scoldy-Mommy, and UNPROFITABLE. And cowardly. And ninnyish.
If you feel that way, Crid, then I recommend you actually read the whole of my comment. My point with the "hostile working environment" comment is that, like I said above, sexual harassment isn't really about someone hurting my feelings. One-off comments, or comments/behavior that happen occasionally should absolutely not send you running to HR. The problem lies in those situations in which you can't actually take care of the issue yourself. Like I said, I'm a big girl and can tell anyone I don't like what he just said (if I choose not to just ignore it, which I think should be a plan more often than it is). But there are situations where the worker cannot deal with the problem her/himself, which is where HR comes in.
My point is that if someone is persistent in comments or behavior and you're telling him to stop every time, then your actions alone aren't having much effect, right? So getting someone else involved is the next logical step if you actually want to solve the problem.
As far as the language goes, I have a very narrow definition of "hostile working environment." It does not include occasional come-ons, insults, comments on my body, occasional inappropriate touching, etc. Those things have all happened to me at one time or another and I've never felt I had to go to HR. But, as some posters said above, sexual harassment rules didn't just spring forth fully-formed from the ether. There are actually people who are persistent in making someone's working life hell and can't be dissuaded by that person's assertiveness alone.
Like I said, no HR department would ever be wasting its time with a claim from me, because I would never go to them with anything less than an issue that was real and definitely couldn't handle by myself, and I can handle myself just fine, thank you very much. Hurt feelings do not legitimate harassment claims make, but there is such a thing as a hostile working environment and it actually is beneficial for the company to resolve it one way or the other. I also said that taking action against someone who filed a fraudulent complaint would settle a hostile working environment, too. Because those people also create them and should be punished accordingly.
NumberSix at December 14, 2010 2:15 PM
"I'm supposed to come up with some kind of comment or comeback to that shit-NO! Why the fuck am I being called on for that? I'm supposed to be working, not shooting up Testosterone so I can compete with someone who forgot his manners."
Shorter Gspoted: Treat me like a lady, even when i come inot your workspace. Once I come in, it's my rules or you're in deep shit. I can't be bothered to adjust because my way is better.
"Forgot his manners"? Who decides what is and isn't good manners? A spoiled little girl who thinks she's Mommy to the world, She Who Must Be Obeyed? It's an office, not your parlor. Grow up.
Man up, you little girl, or find a man to leach off of. That's about all you're good for.
Jim at December 14, 2010 2:26 PM
Bwhahahahaha! I'm also good at getting turds fired, so maybe it is my parlor. Jealous bc you don't know how to stand up for yourself? So sad and so sorry for you :(
Gspotted at December 14, 2010 4:04 PM
"As long as woman B can file a complaint about how I sexually harassed her by ignoring her and chatting up woman A I dont care how justified a sexual harrasment complaint might be."
Third-party complaints is one of the major ways the system is abused. And it's what happened to me. A female co-worker put her ear to a door and eavesdropped on a private conversation between myself and another male employee. Nowhere in the conversation was she mentioned, but she decided she didn't like the way we talked about another woman (the woman we talked about was a mutual acquaintance of ours, not an employee of the company and not someone the eavesdropper knew), and she filed a complaint. That effectively ended my career with that company; I wound up staying three more years, but I never got another raise or promotion, and I was consistently passed over for desirable assignments.
Further, my experience has been that the outcome of harassment complaints is determined entirely by whether the accuser and accused are members of the race/sex privileged or non-privileged classes. Is the accused non-privileged? Slam-dunk guilty; no defense possible. Is the accused privileged? Well now, let's be reasonable and discuss this like adults. Is the accuser non-privileged? Ha ha. Non-priv people, by definition, cannot be harassed. You must have imagined it.
Cousin Dave at December 14, 2010 4:40 PM
Since we're talking about privilege, here's a fun fact:
In 2006, the World Economic Forum published its long-awaited "Global Gender Gap Report" in which the U.S. was ranked 19th in economic and political empowerment of women, and 46th for economic opportunity, putting them on the same playing field as Swaziland and Papua New Guinea.
Gspotted at December 14, 2010 5:23 PM
Since we are talking about privilege here's a fun fact:
In 2006, the World Economic Forum published its long-awaited "Global Gender Gap Report" in which the U.S. was ranked 19th in economic and political empowerment of women, and 46th for economic opportunity, putting them on the same playing field as Swaziland and Papua New Guinea.
Gspotted at December 14, 2010 5:25 PM
> The problem lies in those situations in
> which you can't actually take care
> of the issue yourself
You or yourself, OK? I don't like your metrics for when government intrusion is appropriate.
You seem to believe that they can somehow be stitched to fit each of us like a tailored suit in the moment, with a comfy subjective inner lining that's as durable as it is good-looking.
I don't think the world, or the marketplace, works that way. I think every day of our lives spent around others is about making judgments and adjustments and recognizing the needs of others and our own weaknesses with humility.
But in a technocractic paradise like ours, your very prim wording of these seemingly nihilistic perspectives has proven very popular. You think the economy can't function if people are concerned about a "hostile environment". I think it can't function if they aren't.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 14, 2010 6:21 PM
Extra italic markup.... Deep shame.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 14, 2010 6:21 PM
"In 2006, the World Economic Forum published its long-awaited "Global Gender Gap Report" in which the U.S. was ranked 19th in economic and political empowerment of women, and 46th for economic opportunity, putting them on the same playing field as Swaziland and Papua New Guinea."
Is the intent here to claim that the economic situation of American women is equivalent to the economic situation of women in Papua New Guinea? Clearly that's absurd, which tends to throw the whole enterprise of the Global Gender Gap Report into disrepute. I'm guessing that it's like these studies that keep claiming that California has the best public school system in the U.S., based solely on per-pupil spending ratios. Trouble is, better studies have shown that per-pupil spending has no correlation with test scores.
Cousin Dave at December 14, 2010 6:58 PM
"Clearly that's absurd, which tends to throw the whole enterprise of the Global Gender Gap Report into disrepute."
Clearly you've never been a poor woman. Look, women need to get paid so they can have food on the table and if some asshole with a hard on is an obstacle to those ends then he needs to go. Yes we want to be treated equally, not like daffodils, but seriously-- if you wouldn't give your male coworker the ogling eye then don't give it to me. You're not going to ask him out, so don't ask me out- fair enough?
Gspotted at December 14, 2010 7:20 PM
your very prim wording of these seemingly nihilistic perspectives has proven very popular
Thats not my wording, Crid. I used the term because that's what's in company policy handbooks. There is a difference between hurt feelings and not being able to work. And I do admit that it's tough to determine if an employee's not being able to do her job properly is because she's being persistently harassed or because she's too sensitive and/or lazy to deal with it. That's why I think people who waste the company's time and money on baseless harassment claims should be punished themselves.
You think the economy can't function if people are concerned about a "hostile environment". I think it can't function if they aren't.
I have no idea where you're getting this assessment of me. I don't think we should all walk around concerned that someone is going to make our work lives miserable. That's no way to live and no way to function in commercial society. But it does happen. And I am very much in favor of not taking something to HR if there is any other way to take care of it. I think people should suck it up more and stop wasting other people's time and resources, not to mention the damaging careers with tenuous or outright fraudulent harassment claims.
You seem to think I'm for putting cushy padding on all the corners of the playground. I'm not. I'm also not for government intrusion here. I'm not advocating more legislation, and I'd love for the government to back off on what's already there. I don't like making things easy for whiners while screwing everyone else. I'm just saying that it's in the best interest of a company to cover its own ass by mediating employee disputes. And, yes, in an ideal world, there would be no case-by-case basis for sexual harassment claims. But the problem is in the wording of these policies: it's harassment when the behavior is unwanted. That's a slippery little word, isn't it? Subjective, one might say. There is no objective definition of what constitutes harassment, never mind what the policy handbooks would have us think.
NumberSix at December 14, 2010 8:06 PM
"in an ideal world, there would be no case-by-case basis for sexual harassment claims."
In an ideal world there would be no case by case basis for how to conduct oneself at work. A time and a place people.
Gspotted at December 14, 2010 8:26 PM
Let's not forget about the one in every three women who are sexually abused as children, do you think they might have a different reaction (to someone who has power over them coming on to them) then, say, the gal down the hall who had an awesome childhood?
People aren't robots, that's why it's case by case. Most people come into a professional environment wanting it to be safe, whatever that means for them. Certainly the guy who makes lewd remarks could get lucky and pick on the girl who would just take it in stride, but that seems like kind of a gamble. Why go there? Why? Because
"Men seek power. And beyond their predisposition to aggression or put-downs as a means of achieving it, men expect their opponent to turn around and give it right back."
Expect? They expect? Can we transcend our cave man expectations for eight hours a day? Can we be a bit more creative? Hmmm..maybe find a gf who likes to roleplay office slut when you get home, trust me- she exists. That's a hell of a lot better than coming into work all repressed and ready to blow.
I feel for these guys though, because well, Cornelia Otis Skinner said it best:
It is disturbing to discover in oneself these curious revelations of the validity of the Darwinian theory. If it is true that we have sprung from the ape, there are occasions when my own spring appears not to have been very far.
Gspotted at December 14, 2010 11:50 PM
> Thats not my wording
Oh now, don't take it back...
> I have no idea where you're getting this
> assessment of me.
Your blog comment. It's got a whole lefty 'we hafta have an even playing field' kinda vibe to it. It would be fun to imagine that the world can be made safe and regulated, but I don't think it can. People who work for a living are at risk... Which sounds really cruel, until you remember that everyone's at risk anyway. To imagine that there's a technocracy out there that will, darn it, force people to be nice just seems terribly naive.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2010 12:25 AM
You're still misunderstanding my meaning, Crid. I'm not going to retype my previous posts again because I can't think of a way to make it clearer, but your assessment of my meaning is wrong. I have no desire to live in a world where people are or can be forced to be nice, and that is in no way what I meant by my earlier posts. And I agree the whole "there must be an even playing field" thing is naive crap, which is why I never said anything of the sort. You're reading things into my posts that aren't there.
And I wasn't taking back my wording, I was explaining why I chose those particular words.
NumberSix at December 15, 2010 12:59 AM
Y'know what it is? It's like the Simon comment in the next topic. It's a genie/bottle proposition. Once you decide, without details or insight into personalities, that "there is such a thing as a hostile working environment and it actually is beneficial for the company to resolve it", you've already picked your outcome.... Or authorized some bogus authority to pick it for you.
It's a competitive planet.
Now, far too many of people think that everything that's a competition is zero-sum. People who think and live that way suck the joy from the globe. I don't think that way, and I don't live that way.
But in any number of conflicts, in technocratic settings or others, progress stops until there's a winner and a loser. And pretending that everyone can be a winner is cancer.
Yeah, it's "hostile" out there.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2010 1:42 AM
Crid, it's amazing that you reference my post and even quote from it, but still aren't actually talking about the same thing I'm talking about. You've decided what you think I'm saying, I've said that wasn't actually the case, and you're still arguing a point irrelevant to my posts. Irrelevant because I actually agree with the points you've been making and have not said otherwise. My only issue here has been with your interpretation of what I've said. I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it isn't me.
For clarification, I'm not whining or trying to sound put-upon for effect. I just think we're both now wasting time and blog space on this one.
NumberSix at December 15, 2010 2:01 AM
gspotted you know why 1 in 3 women are abused? Because abuse has been redifined to the point that yelling is considered abuse, or even to touch the arm of a woman in order to get her attention can be considered abuse if she didnt want you to touch her. Hell even consentual sex is abuse if the woman regrets it later at any point in the future
You know why the golbal gender gap has americam women on par with thrid worlders? $20 says they folded housewives into the mix to drop the avereage earned income
lujlp at December 15, 2010 5:31 AM
THANKYOU lujlp! Well said. My only quarrel with your statement is that "I" didn't get to say it first! :)
Robert at December 15, 2010 7:08 AM
Ah, the old "one in three" stat. That's along the lines of a study I found that said two-thirds of college students have been sexually harassed. They intentionally broadened the definition of "harassed" to include looks, comments and jokes so that if a woman reported that two weeks ago a guy at a frat party looked at her cleavage a beat too long, she'd be marked down as having been sexually harassed. Really a great tactic for inflating the numbers and making victims out of women who don't want to be.
NumberSix at December 15, 2010 8:23 AM
*****Let's not forget about the one in every three women who are sexually abused as children, do you think they might have a different reaction (to someone who has power over them coming on to them) then, say, the gal down the hall who had an awesome childhood?*****
Okay, if someone has been sexually abused, I feel for them, really, I do.
HOWEVER, one can not use that as a club to beat the world into submission so she can be a little delicate flower who can't be looked at sideways.
If you're really that fragile, I think your time is better spent in therapy than the workplace.
Ann at December 15, 2010 9:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/13/equal_treatment.html#comment-1800714">comment from AnnRegarding sexual abuse during childhood, psychologist Martin Seligman was -- by some newsstand guy. He credits not being fucked up by it to the way his parents dealt with it -- they didn't get hysterical, it was just something that happened, and not something that was seen as something that would direct his entire life.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2010 9:19 AM
> it's amazing that you reference my post
> and even quote from it, but still aren't
> actually talking about the same thing
> I'm talking about
Surrender, Dorothy! You said what you said: I know you meant it, because you said it again. All these little paperwork procedures and darling regulations interfere with finding out who's who and what's what. You sincerely believe that a righteous, productive capitalist enterprise can operate without hostility... Or in the precious tongue of our times, without a "hostile work environment". You further think it should be forced to do so, perhaps by technocratic law and government intrusion. I think that's ludicrous.
Lesser free-market players have always had their interests subsumed to better ones. And no matter how righteous a defeat, lesser players have always looked at the victor and thought Geez, that was unnecessarily snotty. That secretary with the big tits was standing right there when the manager canceled my project; so was that neat guy from the shipping department. This is hostile!
Well, in many such scenarios, the figure you've identified as our hero is supposed to find his work life to be "hell", or at least bad enough that he moves to some other realm to make a living... Because he's not adding enough value to the proposition to make his paycheck worth printing. (And who but the owner of the enterprise should make that proposition?)
Listen, we're not talking about mineworkers in 1908 Appalachia. You keep starting from a position of 'certainly there are times for government intrusion', and then walking it back to a posture of cocktail-party dignity.
I think you're doing it backwards.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2010 10:48 AM
And I think it's ludicrous that you keep telling me what I think even though I've said it's not so. You're not understanding what I'm saying and I can't think of a better way of saying it. I don't think what you think I think, but I'm obviously not going to convince you unless I can come up with a better way of expressing it.
NumberSix at December 15, 2010 11:12 AM
He credits not being fucked up by it to the way his parents dealt with it -- they didn't get hysterical, it was just something that happened, and not something that was seen as something that would direct his entire life.
A friend of mine who was molested by a neighbor when she was 6 was pretty screwed up by it, and her parents never talked about it. Lots of things conspire to make one person more resilient than another.
MonicaP at December 15, 2010 11:14 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/13/equal_treatment.html#comment-1800772">comment from MonicaPInteresting article on this here, MonicaP:
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume11/j11_1_3.htm
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2010 11:19 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/13/equal_treatment.html#comment-1800775">comment from Amy AlkonA quote from it:
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2010 11:20 AM
> I can't think of a better way of saying it
Right... But I don't trust you.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2010 11:38 AM
For the record, that was comment #69: And it was circuitously mutual, wasn't it?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2010 11:40 AM
Interesting article. Just finished reading it.
In the case of my friend, I don't know that therapy would have helped. But there does seem to be a space between "relive the incident over and over until it's a monster in your brain" and "Never mention it again and pretend it never happened, thus leaving the kid to find a mental space for it by herself."
MonicaP at December 15, 2010 11:47 AM
Regarding sexual abuse during childhood, psychologist Martin Seligman was -- by some newsstand guy. He credits not being fucked up by it to the way his parents dealt with it -- they didn't get hysterical, it was just something that happened, and not something that was seen as something that would direct his entire life.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 15, 2010 9:19 AM
__________________________
I appreciate the parents' motives, but did "dealt with it" include "made a real effort to make sure that the newsstand guy would never molest anyone else"?
After all, when crimes like that continue, it's very often because people DON'T care about anything other than the well-being of their own family. Not unlike those whose household employees steal from them (I've heard of at-home nurses who do that, for one), but if the theft isn't discovered until after the employee has disappeared for good, the victim often decides it's not worth pursuing and the thief moves on to steal from others. Don't think this is trivial - after all, what if the NEXT thing the thief decides to steal is someone's identity?
lenona at December 15, 2010 2:06 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/13/equal_treatment.html#comment-1800847">comment from lenonalenona, Martin Seligman is 70-something, I think, and I've only heard him speak at a conference; I don't know him; so I have no idea.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2010 2:19 PM
See also. (Even you, Six.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 15, 2010 5:45 PM
Virtual smooch, Crid, I'm glad to be included.
Love the "rant." Amy's said stuff like that before on here and it really made consider some things I hadn't before. I knew the "women are paid less than men because of men" argument was faulty, but I couldn't put my finger on exactly why until I came to this blog lo those many months ago. I was just in my Social Problems class listening to final paper presentations and several students (not all female) talked about the glass ceiling problem. During the discussion time, it came about that none of them had considered the fact that there are other, more complicated factors in play than men discriminate against women and subsequently pay them less. And it was the professor who brought up this argument, too (she's cool for a sociology professor--always asking us to evaluate the claims of the articles we read). I remember Amy's big point being that women tend not to ask for bigger starting salaries or raises; instead they take what they're offered and wait for the boss to give them raises. Mr. Shirky addresses that point nicely. Several salient points from the link:
And I’ve grown increasingly worried that most of the women in the department, past or present, simply couldn’t write a [self-promoting] letter like that.
It’s just that until women have role models who are willing to risk incarceration to get ahead, they’ll miss out on channelling smaller amounts of self-promoting con artistry to get what they want, and if they can’t do that, they’ll get less of what they want than they want.
self-promotion will be a skill that produces disproportionate rewards, and if skill at self-promotion remains disproportionately male, those rewards will as well. This isn’t because of oppression, it’s because of freedom.
And my favorite:
Now this is asking women to behave more like men, but so what? Right on, Shirk.
NumberSix at December 15, 2010 8:15 PM
"Ah, the old "one in three" stat. "
Yeah, that one's right up there with the Super Bowl Sunday myth.
Cousin Dave at December 15, 2010 8:19 PM
I was using that stat to illustrate that it's kind of a gamble to start hurtling lewd remarks at people without really knowing them, bc one just doesn't know how another might feel.
I do think the reaction on here is disturbing, like those kids don't matter and their desire to feel safe in the workplace as adults is too much to ask.
Gspotted at December 15, 2010 9:51 PM
If you have to bubble wrap the world to make in vouge 'victims' safe from words - well what kind of world is that?
gspotted do you understand that the 1 in 3 stat is pushedby ideological man hating feminists who view any contact between a man an a woman as assul if it was no initated by the woman, and if the woman fail to constantly give reapeted verbal approval?
lujlp at December 16, 2010 3:14 AM
I actually heard the one in three stat from my friend who is a certified sex therapist. She wrote her dissertation on the presumed correlation between those living the BDSM lifestyle and sexual abuse during childhood. I think she may have come into contact with some sort of data during the process, or maybe she just wrote her dissertation on a pizza box while watching The View. She is also the director of a child services center in LA, and happily married with three kids. Oh, but I'm sure you're right-- that stat must have come from the man hating feminists with uni-brow.
Gspotted at December 18, 2010 12:54 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/13/equal_treatment.html#comment-1803035">comment from GspottedDon't be too quick to respect people because they have credentials -- or fail to respect them because they don't. This statistic is crap. I've written about it, and got fired from the C-ville alt weekly over not parroting the proper non-evidence-based ideological feminist crap. It's from my column "Diddle He Or Didn't He?"
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/05/diddle-he-or-di.html
Amy Alkon at December 18, 2010 1:12 AM
Oh, but I'm sure you're right-- that stat must have come from the man hating feminists with uni-brow.
I've heard all kinds of crap stats during my studies, Gspotted. And they're all actually true. The studies we hear about don't just make up numbers, they widen or narrow the definitions of what they're studying to inflate or deflate the numbers (not always even consciously--I've read studies where they didn't care enough to realize that's what they were doing). That's why numbers alone don't really mean anything. Context is king.
The key is to find out what the criteria are for inclusion in the statistic. "One in every three women has been sexually abused as a child" is a frighteningly vague statement if you really think about it. As I said above, and as Amy just posted, you can include rather innocuous childhood experiences as "abuse" if you try hard enough. And it's not like they're asking the participants if they've been abused; they ask them a series of specific questions and then interpret the answers as abuse.
The study I read about how two-thirds of college students have been sexually harassed did just this. Many of those participants did not categorize their experiences as harassment; they were just answering the questions on a campus-wide survey. And by their criteria, I have been sexually harassed when a guy gives an obvious look at my cleavage. It pisses me off to be told I'm a victim because of that.
NumberSix at December 18, 2010 1:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/13/equal_treatment.html#comment-1803246">comment from NumberSixKate Roiphe wrote about this stat, saying, if one out of every three women were sexually abused, wouldn't we know? If every time you, as a woman, went to lunch with three girlfriends, one of you had been diddled by Daddy or an uncle or the neighbor, would this really remain a secret?
Amy Alkon at December 18, 2010 7:38 AM
Okay, so what qualifies as abuse?
I think many women were sexualized or fetishized in some way as children. I remember going over to a friend of a friends house when I was eleven and being flashed by her dad. He was sitting on the couch with his mouse out of the house, totally showing off for us. I thought it was an accident and was trying desperately not to crack up at the site of hairy old man balls. The truth is- it wasn't an accident- he got off on it. I don't count that as abuse. True abuse gets into your head, not just your line of vision. Maybe 1 in 3 girls are flashed or something and 1 in 10 are mind-fucked with abuse. Whatever, that's not even the point. The point is- it's too risky for guys to go around sex-posturing in the workplace bc you just don't know who or what you might trigger. The problem is repressed individuals who aren't clever enough, or can't or won't find ways to play out those fantasies outside of the workplace--so maybe women are working out their demons through HR as a result. That doesn't mean men have to start shit,in fact, lot's of men don't and keep their jobs bc they act professional while at work. So men are competitive? So what? They also have society telling them to go to school, get a good job, marry a nice gal, have a bunch o' kids, and pay the mortgage. Guess what? They still have office slut fantasies and surprise surprise- she doesn't share their enthusiasm. She doesn't want to have to come up with a comeback either. Why should she? It's not about women's lib it's about men who aren't that clever and deserve to get canned for fucking around at work. Get a clue guys!
btw I am going to start telling that story at lunch with my girlfriends ;)
Gspotted at December 19, 2010 12:04 AM
So maybe the numbers are wildly inflated, but thats not the point?
THAT IS PRECISLY THE POINT GODDAMNIT. Any childhood abuse is horrific enough, there is no valid reason to lie about the real facts because one, it shifts resorces AWAY from those who really need. Two it means every times someone dicusses the topic of their own abuse they have people wondering whether or not they were really abused of if they are a perpetual victim of femisinsim and blowing their peronal experiance out of proportion. Three sooner or later with everything qualifying as abuse people become apathetic about helping real abuse victims because they dont know if their real abuse victims are jackasses gaming the system becuase they want attention.
So yes gspotted, when you use stats that are a lie it very much becomes the point
lujlp at December 19, 2010 11:13 AM
Are you type screaming at me? That is so HOT! It's not the point in this discussion, okay. It's like a cautionary minor point--I'm actually helping you guys out here(probably bc my dad, who I love, got fired once for being a social retard), with tips on how to protect yourself at work from sensitive souls or as you refer to them
"a perpetual victim of femisinsim... blowing their peronal experiance(sic) out of proportion."
The question "do we want equal treatment?" was posed and I'm going to answer that one so everyone can understand...
Yes. Since I don't ask people out for dates at work. I don't make personal comments about their bodies, what they are wearing or ask personal questions about their private lives. I don't touch people at work either. So yea, I'd like to be treated equally and professionally.
I've elbowed dudes in the face in mosh pits, trust me, I can "bring it" to the boys club, but the office isn't the place for that.
Gspotted at December 19, 2010 2:43 PM
The original point was do women want equal treatment when equal treatment means they will be getting comments on their bodies, personalities, and sexual proclivities as men use those subjects when attempting dominace over other men.
YOU brought up a bogus stat to illistrate the point that we dont know what peoples past entails so such subjects should be off limits for women(why you dont feel they should be off limits for men as they to suffer from sexual abuse is beyond me at the moment)
So if you are gong to go on about the 'point' of the post perhaps you should not stray from it to begin with??
But since you brought up a bogus stat people discussed the fact that is was crap - only for you to say that the fact it is a lie is immaterial to your argument
Which it most certainly is not
lujlp at December 19, 2010 7:22 PM
Saying that inflated stats aren't the point because, even though they aren't precisely true in the way they're presented, they're useful in deciding what's "too risky" for men to do reminds me of something I read for research for a paper. It was about the supposed "fact" that the phrase "rule of thumb" refers to an old English law that said that a man could beat his wife as long as it was with something smaller around than his thumb. A law professor actually published that in a textbook even after being told that, at the very least, it's unsupported. There was never any such law on the books and to disseminate falsehoods like that is damaging on many levels. But then I read on a blog that, even though the "law" is bogus, we still shouldn't use the phrase because of the feelings it could provoke in women who had been beaten. Really? A woman who was beaten by her husband is going to go off on someone for saying "How much nutmeg do you put in eggnog? Well, the rule of thumb is..."? I suspect those "feelings" lie with women who have not actually been victims of spousal abuse. Because the true victims have more to worry about than common phrases with bogus origins (it's pretty clear that it was in reference to a crude form of measurement, like the cubit). Which brings me to this:
it's too risky for guys to go around sex-posturing in the workplace bc you just don't know who or what you might trigger.
Barf. There are reasons for guys not to act like that, but fear of triggering something in a woman is not one of them. That's like telling someone he shouldn't rob a bank at gunpoint because it may bring back bad memories for a teller who was robbed before. Perhaps the right sentiment, but entirely the wrong reason. It's like Crid was saying above (and I happen to agree with): people don't need to have all the sharp corners cushioned for them. I think it may sometimes be necessary to action after the fact (depending on many factors), because that's (ideally, admittedly) the point of the justice system, but preventative measures in reference to "sex-posturing" are pretty ludicrous, not to mention intrusive. And living in fear of offending someone else is no way to be. If someone says something that "triggers" you, then explain to him why and maybe he won't do it again, or maybe he will and you'll have to seek outside help. But it's naive to say that you shouldn't act certain ways because you just don't know...
NumberSix at December 19, 2010 9:28 PM
Leave a comment