Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    In my opinion, the harassment began with the whistle.  In my opinion,
    an office is no place for whistles, or catcalls. Period.  
    
    Kim

    It started at the whistle although probably not worth the bother
    of a visit to personnel for a one off.
    
    After the remark it escallated into sexual harassment that should 
    have got the bloke sacked. The fact that she doesn't reply means
    there wasn't a mutual understanding between the two that this type
    of comment was acceptable.
    
    After blocking the doorway he should have been in serious trouble.
    This type of behaviour is very disturbing and it can be very
    frightning to be the victim of this type of harassment. He should
    at this stage not only lose his job but be taken to court as well.
    
    Maybe I'm overreacting but I that's the way I feel this type of thing.
    
    
    Jerome who'd sort out any man he saw behaving like this. 
                              

    Slightly besides the topic, but Dutch government started a TV campaign
    against sexual harassment.
    The idea is to cover several situtations which are harassing.
    This week's topic sends out the message that if a woman asks you in for
    a drink after you've been out somewhere (dinner, cinema, you name it),
    it's not because she *naturally* wants sex.
    
    And where the harassment started in the basenote? At the whistle.
    
    Charles

    
    The harassment in her mind probably started with the whistle (that's
    where the discomfort would start with me).
    
    Legally, if there is any gray area that could be construed as "is it
    harassment? isn't it harassment? what is it?", I think the 
    harassment starts when she says "please do not do that ever again, it
    makes me uncomfortable" and he continues the activity.
    
    -Jody
    

    Actually, legally, the harrassment began the minute she *felt*
    harrassed, which may have been long before the whistle.
    
    E Grace

    In Digital's guidelines for handling sexual harassment, I believe they
    feel it's important that the harassed person expressed their request
    for the harasser to stop the behavior if it is a "gray area" (not like
    someone actually threatening to fire someone if they didn't have sex
    with them, or someone actually fondling a bodily part).
    
    I'm not a professional valdif person, though.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    see also:
    
    human_relations
    686 - harassment?
    
    womannotes-V1
    271 - how do you spell harassment?
    798 - sexual harassment or cowardice?
    
    womannotes-V2
    375 - sexual harassment and physical assault
    949 - verbal abuse and harassment
    
    womannotes-V3 (this file)
    68 - helping sisters cope with harassment
    277 - what qualifies as sexual harassment
    964 - procedures for sexual harassment
    
    mennotes
    575 - notes and sexual harassment
    660 - just say 'no to dates'
    
    

    re.0 Unfortunately, since she said nothing we cannot assume she is
    being harassed at all. She and he may be secret lovers. What happens
    next? Do they undress and make it in the copy room? She's had
    _three_ chances to indicate his behavior is unwanted. She has not.

>Where did the Harrassment start?
        
        at the whistle
        
        Dan

    
    The harrassment began in Mr. Whistler's mind long before he saw her. 
    
    His attitudes were developed over a long period of time and shaped by
    the society he grew up in;  the obviously inappropriate behavior
    described is a manifestation of what he has learned and seen.
    
    
    						-rob in fkt

Although the EEOC's guidelines on harassment do not make this point
clear, it is a fact that the dictionary definition of "harass" uses
the word "continual."  This means that the whistle, while annoying, was
not harassment.  Following her to the copy room was not harassment even
though she might have been annoyed.  His remark is the *real* starting
point of the harassment.

BTW, Dana, she doesn't have to say anything when she feels harassed.
we have seen ample discussion over the past week of people who said
nothing.

-dick, the punctilious English user

    re. 8: "...She's had _three_ changes to indicate his behavior is
    inwanted.  She has not."
    
    Dana, isn't silently ignoring such come-ons an "I'm not interested"
    message in itself?  To me, she's used body language to indicate
    "NO" on each occasion.  Granted, a verbal, "Lay off you $&%(# or
    I'll castrate you" might be a clearer indication that she's not
    interested, but I certainly hope the "reasonable" man wouldn't
    require such a direct response to get the message.
    
    Karen

1. What does a whistle mean?

	It means "I'm looking at your body and it looks good."

	UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR AT WORK

2. What does "Now if you really want to see reproducing, come to my
    apartment tonight". mean?

	It means "I'm asking you to have sex with me."

	UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR AT WORK

3. What does  "She says nothing. Finishes her copying.
    She picks up her copies and heads to the door" mean?

	It means "I'm not engaging with you in this--leave me alone."

	A PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE RESPONSE TO COMPLETELY OUT OF .THE 
	WAY BEHAVIOR.  ONE THAT IS TAUGHT TO WOMEN -- "IF SOMEONE BOTHERS
	YOU, JUST TRY TO IGNORE IT."

3. What does  "he blocks her way out." mean?

	It means "I have superior physical strength and I'm threatening you
	that you must respond to me or I can overpower you."  A body language
	reference to the threat of RAPE.

	UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR ANYWHERE!  

 
These are the conditions that make it difficult for women to work.  The woman
was trying to do a job--photocopy some papers.  The introduction of a sexual
proposition and the pestering of her was obviously unwanted and also 
inappropriate. 

While it is certainly true that people do meet and find true love and less 
lofty varieties of relationships at work, the workplace is not a place to
HUNT (I'm using that word purposely) for sex objects. 
 
Had this man wanted to pursue the woman, he should not be doing so while on 
time paid for the company.  He could have asked her for some social contact, 
at which time he could determine her openness to him in general and sexually.

nina

	Sorry, I can't buy .12.

	We sit in this conference and tell everyone "say no if you mean no."
The guy in .0 may be a sexist slob, but I feel a "please stop" is minimally
required from the harassee.

	--Doug_who_has_already_sent_out_one_copy_of_his_yearly_anti-United_
	      Way_harassment_memo.

    Re. .14--Doug, we may be in agreement, really.  I also believe that a
    "please stop" is a clear, polite, and unequivocal way to notify a
    harasser that hir attentions are unwanted.  I don't believe, however,
    that it's the only way to get the message across.  I do believe that
    the woman in the example has clearly indicated a lack of interest in
    pursuing (at this time) whatever the man has in mind.
    
    Do you read her reactions, as described, any other way?
    
    Karen

    I vote to the whistle too. But, why do we have to have a seniro like
    this? This is rather blaintent. Why not a case like what happened with
    Hill and Thomas? 
    
    Of course your going to get a positive responce to this senerio. But,
    how about say you and a co-worker of a different gender are competing
    for a job in an office. And lets say that the two of you are know to
    flirt with each other. Common office behaivor. And lets say that 
    one of you win the new job and the other looses. And the loosing camp
    decides to file charge of horrasment with not only the office, but
    in a court of law. Now, lets say that the plaintive, the person bring 
    charge, looses. And the defenant wins, and looses the job over it? 
    And oh, by the way. This becomes a publicised affair now in the local
    paper. Do you think the defendant will get another job in town?
    Will they be as kind to the defendant as they were to Thomas? Do you
    think that if this were your son or daughter involved with this case
    as was in the case of Thomas and Hill, that you could defend either or?
    

    I would have to agree that a "Please stop" message should be delivered.
    
    It would be Ok to ignore the actions if everyone's interpretation of
    silence was disagreement to the action but this is not the case.  A
    simple statement that the erson did not find that appropriate behavior
    at work or don't bother me I'm trying to work would make things clear.
    
    Also I think that before we are able to put a stop to sexual harassment
    women will have to understand their role in the stereotyping process.
    (Not many women do this but as long as there is one the stereotyping
    will continue) Some women actually encourage the referenced behavior at
    work.  They find it flattering to be considered attractive, which is
    not bad just not appropriate for the work environment, and they often
    consider work to be a good place to meet men, often far better than the
    local singles bar where you don't know whether the person is really an
    obnoxious jerk or not at least at work you may have an idea.
    
    For whatever reasons I believe there is alot of educating required on
    both sides of the fence.
    
    Linda B - who never realized it was sexist to refer to the "guys" until
    someone called her on it in a meeting.

    I think Linda is right, even though a woman pointedly ignoring
    offensive behavior may think she is sending a "No!"  message, it really
    is better to be explicit.  
    
    I'm certainly going to teach my son & daughter to say it clear, and
    repeat it loud (if necessary), when anyone behaves offensively toward
    them.

    re: .16
    
    >>And lets say that the two of you are know to
    >>flirt with each other. Common office behaivor.
    
    If it is known that these two people have a history of flirting with
    each other, and no one ever objected to it, then I think it is pretty
    far fetched that this example would win in court.
    
    Although you are of the opinion that the example used in this string is
    too blatant, or not realistic, I can assure you that it is not.
    
    I believe that most adults understand the dynamics of flirting.  I also
    believe that there are times when adults can misinterpret another
    persons's "signals."  In the case of a sincere misinterpretation of
    signals, the reasonable man or woman would say just that, "gee, I
    thoughts you were interested in me, however, I won't bring it up
    again."
    
    This is not how sexual harassment works.  It works much more like the
    example given in this string.
    
    One of my personal experiences with sexual harassment took place when I
    had been working for my former employer for only about 3 months.  I was
    doing some systems analysis for our new payroll system and I had to
    deal with the cost accountant to figure out how labor charges were
    being allocated.
    
    On my very first business meeting with this man (who was married and
    had two or three small children) he told me that he found me very
    attractive and that he wanted to have sex with me.  Seems blatant, yes? 
    That's how a lot of sexual harassment occurs.
    
    I know of a situation here at DEC where the group manager used to
    wander in and out of the secretary's cube with a cucumber hanging out
    of his fly.  
    
    One final point regarding court cases on harassment charges...EEOC
    won't even look at the case unless there is some sort of documentation
    that the harassed person took some sort of steps to confront the
    harasser.

re: .15

>    Do you read her reactions, as described, any other way?
    
    I don't think .0 listed any reactions on her part, other than silence
    and a continuation to do her work.
    
    -Jody
 

    I believe that many <most?> women would be so astounded by this guy's
    behavior that trying to ignore it would be a very natural reaction. 
    Maybe the better course is to say "You're behavior is unacceptable". It's
    the stronger, clearer message but it isn't the only way to give the
    message.  Refusing to engage with the person is also a message.  And,
    the whistler, as portrayed, is such a boob he probably would assume
    "You're behavior is unacceptable" really means "Continue, continue....
    I'm interested" because afterall she talked to him.
    
    Dictionary definition or not I do not believe that behavior has to
    be continuing to be harassment.  Some behavior is so egregious that it
    probably qualifies on it's own.  
    
    I believe that there is behavior which only becomes harassment if
    continues after the person has indicated a lack of inerest or
    willingness to engage.  i.e.  Man asks co-worker for date. 
    Harassment-- I'd say "no".   Woman says "no" and he continues to ask
    her out.... and/or engages in other behavior that  attempts to get her
    to see him socially .  Harassment -- I'd say "yes".  (By the way I'd
    say that it is less clear re the first invitation if the it's a
    boss/subordinate situation.
    
    I also think that harassment can include behavior/statements which
    occur when the victim is not even there.  Example -- unfortunately real
    --  17 year old girl  is working in a hotel restaurant kitchen on
    "co-op" from high school.  One night when she isn't there her
    supervisor starts talking to her co-workers about her and states that
    he'd "...like to f*&k the s*&t out of her and then spit on her." 
    Sexual harassment?  I'd say so.  It's difficult to think of a more hostile
    work  environment than one created by those types of remarks,
    especially when they're made by the boss.
    
    Bottom line is -- I think -- sexual harassment comes in a lot of
    different packages.    

    
    In my opinion, no harassment took place in .0
    
    Reason:  She never said STOP or NO or anything, so the man may have 
    taken that as an indication that she approved.
    
    Now, if the "girl" or "woman" was 18 years old, it would change my
    opinion, because I would consider her naive.  But if the person was 25
    or so I would think she should know to say Stop, or No, or something.
    
    Also, there are so many variables....have they known each other long..
    .....have they stopped after work and had a few beers........have
    they flirted with each other before?  So much depends on so much.!
    
    Whether we like it or not, men and women are different.....what seems
    really apparent to one, may not be to the other....granted, we should
    all have the same standards in a perfect world....but ours isn't so
    perfect.
    
    
    Jackie
    

    All right, I will take the liberty of specifying "wolf whistle"
    in the original scenario.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  Raise your hand if you too have gotten tired of the ~well,
    gee, it might really have meant something else (but she [being a
    brainless woman] misinterpretted it).~ `suggestions'.

    I'm in agreement with E - Harrassment may *well* have started well
    before the whistle.  She may have felt uncomfortable before that by
    what they had been saying to each other, or body language, or even
    past experience with this person.
    
    I for one, am already getting quite sick of the "well, she's a
    woman, she's probably confused" responses.  To me, and I think many
    of us, this scenario makes the issues *quite* clear, and the "he's
    a man" response previously is just noise here.
    
    bright blessings,
    -HA

    Is anyone else getting tired of discussing borderline scenarios of rape
    and sexual harrassment when there are so many clear cases that go
    unreported and unprosecuted ?
    
    Jackie, in the case that you described I assumed they were not on
    friendly terms. Because had they been friends the woman would've
    responded in some way to the whistle. I read her ignoring it as not
    being interested.
    
    Manisha

    why, yes, Manisha.
    
    I am.
    
    But what is there to discuss about non-borderline cases of rape and
    sexual harassment except:
    
    1.  they shouldn't happen
    2.  ways to reduce the likelihood of their happening
    		be they preventive or post-punishing
    
    I mean there's REALLY very little to actually DISCUSS in nonborderline
    cases, isn't there?
    
    Just a kind of stunned silence which loudly screams
    "HEY!  THIS HAPPENS!  A LOT!  IT'S REAL!  AND IT EITHER HAS OR
    	COULD HAPPEN TO YOU!"
    
    -Jody
    

    HA,
    
    	Your right, we are just a noise here, and doesn't matter a tinkers
    diddle. But, as both notes were printed, you can see there is a level
    of integrety in both statements. Both bring forth a statement. The
    statement is that WE are tired of the name calling, fluffing off as
    part of the sexual traits. Both sides have a great deal of merrit.
    The men hitting on women in the workplace using the, "if you want your
    job then.....", the women who are looking for some attention or think
    that your wierd if you do not respond to them. Bottom line, if you wish
    to read it or not. But BOTH sides are the victumizers and victoms of
    this. And the way to stop it is to do put your foot down. And stop it
    via what legal methods exist. And that is for both sides. 
    
    George

    Re: .18
    
    > I'm certainly going to teach my son & daughter to say it clear, and
    > repeat it loud (if necessary), when anyone behaves offensively toward
    > them.
    
    Ah yes..... when I was a kid and being picked-on in the schoolyard
    all the time, my parents' advice to me was "Ignore 'em!  They'll
    tire of it when they see they can't get a rise out of you!"
    
    Yeah.  Right.
    
    I tried it for a while... all it did was make them try harder.  The
    kids teasing me KNEW that I was steaming inside (even though I was
    "ignoring" them), and it was all a waiting game... if they could keep
    it up long enough I'd blow up eventually.
    
    The point is, just because I said nothing didn't mean I APPROVED
    of the behavior; far from it!  It simply meant that either (a) I was
    trying what my parents and teachers suggested I do, or (b) I figured
    it would be less effort for me to tough it out than to try and confront
    the bully.  I see sexual harassment as being very similar in this
    regard.... right down to the fact that the authority figures who SHOULD
    be trying to rectify the situation instead wimp out and offer
    ineffective coping mechanisims to the VICTIM because it's too much
    d*mned trouble to try to deal with the BULLY!
    
    Ya know... I think more men would understand the sexual harassment
    issue if they realized that, when you come right down to it, it's just
    another form of bullying.  It *is* a form of power play, even if the
    harasser/bully doesn't have any kind of direct or organizational power
    over the victim.  In nearly all cases the victim perceives threats both
    physical (bully is frequently bigger and physically stronger than
    victim) and social (bully is frequently better-connected socially than
    victim, and is capable of spreading false rumors about the victim). 
    Whether the bully actually INTENDS to carry out these threats is
    irrelevant; the threat is perceived anyway.
    
    --jim
    

                   Dealing with Sexual Harassment

                      by Mary P. Rowe

Reprinted w/o permission from Harvard Business Review
Reprint #81339

Mary P. Rowe, a labor economist, is special assistant to the president of 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Since 1973, she has worked as a 
mediator with hundreds of cases from MIT and from other universities and 
corporations.


As the recent attention in the press and on television attests, managers 
are encountering sexual harassment problems more and more frequently. 
Although by now many corporations have investigated the legal side of these 
issues and have adopted appropriate policies, reaching an easy resolution 
in such cases is difficult for the following reasons:

o People cannot agree about how to define the problem.  In sexual 
harassment cases, managers will find the widest divergence of perceptions 
that they ever encounter.

o There is usually little evidence to substantiate anyone's allegations.  
The employer often feels that something ought to be done but can think of 
no action to take that does not infringe on the rights of one side or the 
other.

o Although third-party intervention often heals other kinds of disputes, 
such action in a sexual harassment case usually triggers wider disagreement 
between the original actors, who then persuade bystanders to take sides.

o No matter how carefull worded the corporate policy concerning sexual 
harassment is, new kinds of cases arise, and in such variety as to prevent 
any precise anticipation of problems.

o Those offended may be unwilling to report sexual harassment if they think 
that public exposure of the situation and mandatory punishment of the 
offender will follow.  Often they will talk with the manager only under an 
agreement that no public action will be taken.  (It is rate, in my 
experience, for a complainant to ask for any kind of retribution; nearly 
always this person simply wants the harassment to stop).

o The most serious aspect of almost all reported cases is the power 
relationship between the alleged offender and the offended person.  (I 
believe that most sexual agressiveness that occurs *outside* a power 
relationship is simply ignored or adequately dealt with by the offended 
party.)  In any case, reports of harassment usually involve fear of 
retribution because of the supposed power of a particular group of 
coworkers or of a supervisor.  In fact, most reported cases do involve a 
supervisor-subordinate relationship; hence, productivity is threatened.

Some practical approaches

I offer three recommendations for addressing these problems.  First, 
complainants can be helped to help themselves.  Second, such conflicts can 
usually be resolved most effectively through procedures designed to deal 
with all kinds of complaints, not just sexual harassment.  Third, 
corporation should confront the issue of power differences in the troubled 
relationship.

An employer must give unmistakable signals that action will be taken 
against proved offenders, if the complainant will agree, and also that 
proved targets of harassment will be protected from retaliation.  But those 
who deal with offended employees should first explore the possibilities of 
helping them to help themselves when there is no proof, and, of course, 
when the complainants prefer this method.

The sections that follow may be of special interest to offended persons 
whose companies do not yet have policies and structures to support them.

What can the individual do?

Complainants must be willing to take action themselves in a rational and 
responsible way.  To many people this may seem unjust since it appears to 
put a double burden on the offended person.  This concern makes sense.  But 
I recommend such action because it works and because nothing else really 
works as well.

Moreover, it helps offended persons to focus their anger outside themselves 
instead of becoming sick or depressed, which often happens otherwise.  
Finally, such measures may be the only way to obtain evidence for 
management (or the courts) to act on.

The aims of individual action are:

> To give the offended and offender a chance, usually for the first time, 
to see things the same way.  Since neither person may have any 
understanding of how the other sees the problem, discussion may help.  
Entry of a third party at this stage usually further polarizes the views of 
the opposing persons.

> To give those who are wrongly accused the chance to defend themselves.

> To give those who are correctly, or to some extent correctly, accused the 
chance to make amends. (This may not be possible in serious cases.)

> To provide some evidence of the offense, since usually there is no 
substantive evidence at all.  This step is vital if management or the 
courts must later take action.

> To give aggressors who do not understand what they were doing a fair 
warning, if this is appropriate.

> To provide the offended employee a chance to get the harassment stopped 
without provoking public counterattack, experiencing public embarrassment, 
harming third parties, damaging the company's reputation, or causing the 
aggressor to lose face.  In my experience, these points are almost always 
considered important by the aggrieved person.

> To provide offended persons a way to demonstrate that they tried all 
reasonable means to get the offender to stop.  This step may be convincing 
later to supervisors, spouses, and others who have become involved.

> To encourage ambivalent complainants, as well as those who have 
inadvertently given misunderstood signals, to present a consistent and 
clear message.

Writing a letter:  One method that works quite consistenly, even when many 
verbal requests have failed, is for the offended person to write a letter 
to the accused.  I usually recommend a polite, low-key letter (which may 
necessitate many drafts).

The letter I recommend has three parts.  The first part should be a 
detailed statement of facts as the writer sees them: "This is what I think 
happened..."  I encourage a precise rendition of all facts and dates 
relevant to the alleged harassment.  This section is sometimes very long.

In the second part of the letter, writers should describe their feelings 
and what damage they think has been done.  This is where opinions belong.  
"Your actions made me feel terrible"; "I am deeply embarrassed and worried 
that my parents will hear about this"; "You have caused me to ask for a 
transfer (change my career objectives; drop out of the training course; 
take excessive time off; or whatever)."  The writer should mention any 
perceived or actual costs and damages, along with feelings of dismay, 
distrust, revulsion, misery, and so on.

Finally, I recommend a short statement of what the accuser would like to 
have happen next.  Since most persons only want the harassment to end, the 
letter might finish by saying so: "I ask that our relationship from now on 
be on a purely professional basis."  

Someone who knows that he or she contributed to the problem does well to 
say so: "Although we once were happy dating, it is important to me that we 
now reestablish a formal and professional relationship, and I ask you to do 
so."

If the letter writer believes some remedy or recompense is in order, this 
is the place to say so:  "Please withdraw my last evaluation until we can 
work out a fair one"; "I will need a written answer as to the reference you 
will provide from now on"; and statements of that type.

What happens next:  The complainant should, if possible, deliver the letter 
in person to know that it arrived and when it arrived.  When necessary, a 
plainclothes police officer, security person, or some other protector 
and/or witness should accompany the writer or be present when the letter is 
delivered.  The writer of the letter should keep a copy.

Usually the recipient simply accepts the letter, says nothing, and reforms 
his or her  behavior.  Sometimes there is an apology, an astounded opening 
of discussion, or a denial.  Rarely will the recipient reply in writing to 
"set the record straight."  Nearly always, the alleged harassment stops.

Obviously, it is now more dangerous for the recipient of such a letter to 
harass the employee.  The letter constitutes an attempt to settle the 
problem peaceably.

A good letter is useful if the complainant later feels the need to appeal 
to high-level management, especially if the writer can prove it was 
delivered.  It can also, if necessary, constitute invaluable legal 
evidence.  Such letters are usually enough to stop a mildly disturbed 
aggressor--for example, someone who importunes with sexual inuendo and 
suggestions for sexual activity.

Even if a written order or request to stop harassment does not succeed, in 
my experience the complainant is always better off for having tried tostop 
the offense in a direct and unambiguous way.

Finally, and possibly most important, taking action in this or similar ways 
often has a powerful effect on all participants.  Taut nerves relax as 
victims learn they can protect themselves.  Insomniacs get needed sleep.  
Productivity improves.

Both persons are likely to feel better about themselves.  Aggressors 
sometimes turn for help, through which their self-esteem may rise.  They 
may also stop harassing people, thus sparing those who could have become 
victims; this often matter greatly to the person who takes action.

For all these reasons I strongly encourage persons who feel harassed to 
take action themselves if possible.

Employer's role

By what I have said so far I do not mean to imply that employers should 
place all the burden on those who are offended.  Employers can and should 
encourage employees to take the measures already discussed.  They may need 
to protect their employees from retaliation from a group of coworkers or a 
supervisor and also to offer strong emotional support.

If significant evidence of wrong-doing is available, the employer may also 
wish to reprimand the offender, deny a promotion or raise, require 
attendance at a training program, or transfer, demote, or fire the 
offender.

What about persons who are too bewildered, frightened, or unsure even to 
write a letter?  Obviously it helps them to talk things over, in 
confidence, with one or two responsible and supportive people.

If, as frequently happens, an offended employee is suffering physical 
consequences, such as anorexia, sleeplessness, or anxiety-induced pain, he 
or she may need medical help.  Some victims will want to talk things out 
with a social worker, psychologist, psychiatrist, Employee Assistance 
person, or other company counselor, if such people are known to be discreet 
and supportive.

Special measures

It often helps the offended person to keep a diary, a careful log of events 
and feelings.  This can serve to affirm the sanity of the writer, who 
otherwise may begin to doubt the reality of the situation, especially if 
coworkers are unaware or unsympathetic.

Writing in a diary will help to turn anger outward and will provide clues 
for responsible action by the offended person and by management.  It can 
provide legal evidence as well.  Keeping a diary may also resolve 
ambivalence ("Am I interested in him/her?") or demonstrate later one's lack 
of ambivalence to a doubting observer.  A careful diary is always useful 
later if it seems wise to write a letter of the sort I described earlier.

Persons who feel victimized should do whatever they can to get together 
with others who will understand.  Women's networks can help a great deal.  
If the company has no such structure, a woman should try to form one with 
the knowledge and approval of management.  Management stands to gain from 
such groups since in-house women's networks usually give strong support to 
orderly and responsible change.  Outside the workplace, there are 
compassionate and responsible organizations like the Alliance Against 
Sexual Coercion, the Working Women's Institute, and the National Commission 
on Working Women.

Cases of sexual harassment in which the complainant is a man are rare but 
especially painful.  The typcial offender is also male, and a male target 
often feels alone because he is too embarrassed to discuss his problem.  As 
with most female victims, the principal problems for men may be to overcome 
bewilderment and the immobilizing effect of violent fantasies.  They, too, 
need to muster courage to take action.

Here again, there is no substitute for discussing the problem with 
discreet, sympathetic, and responsible people.  The man who feels sexually 
harassed should make every effort to find help.  (Senior supervisors and 
commissions against discrimination are often helpful.)  In the meantime, a 
male who feels harassed should keep a diary and consider writing a letter.

Effective complaint procedures

Sexual harassment problems have illuminated the general need for better 
complaint procedures.  Union grievance procedures should be reviewed to see 
if they really work with respect to this class of complaints.

Companies should also have explicit general complaint procedures for 
employees not in unions.  To deal adequately with sexual harassment, 
non-union complaint procedures must apply to employees and managers at 
every level.  In my experience, the degree of sexual harassment is about 
the same at every level of employment. Studies show that many top managers 
are poorly informed about sexual harassment: usually people do not 
misbehave in front of the boss.  It is not true, however, tht sexual 
harassment is relatively rare near the top.

Nonunion complaint procedures should be as general as possible, admitting 
every kind of employee and every kind of concern.  Sexual harassment cases 
will represent only a small percentage of the problems brought in, but the 
grievance procedure will enjoy a better and wider reputation and will 
operate more effectively if it works well with every kind of employee 
concern.  In such procedures, it should be unnecessary to give a label to 
every problem, especially a very controversial problem, before management 
can help.

With poorly defined and controversial problems like sexual harassment, 
mediation-oriented procedures work best, at least in the first stages; 
usually the first hope is to help people help themselves.  Initial contact 
with the procedure must, of course, be completely confidential.

The complaint procedure should include both women and men, minorities and 
nonminorities, as contacts at some point in the process to ensure that 
different people feel free to come in.  It is also essential to establish a 
procedure for bypassing one's supervisor in a case where that person is the 
offender.  Finally, nonunion complaint procedures should be okayed by the 
CEO or someone else neara the top.

The power relationship

Employers may find it helps in dealing with sexual harassment problems to 
confront directly the general issue of sexual relationships in the 
supervisory context.

Many people feel strongly that the private lives of employees have nothing 
to do with company business.  However, sexual relationships in the context 
of supervision often present management with problems that affect company 
interests.  Thismay be true even in the case of mutually consenting 
relationships.

When a senior person makes sexual overtures, a junior person may experience 
and allege coercion, exploitation, intimidation, and blackmail, and may 
fear retribution.  Such reactions are common even when the senior person 
would be shocked to learn that the overtures were unwelcome.  Neither sex 
can know for sure what the other experiences, and each is likely to 
misinterpret the feelings of the other.

Also, consenting relationships frequently break up.  If the senior person 
then continues to make overtures, the junior person may complain of 
harassment.  Then the senior person may be outraged, especially if he or 
she believes that the junior person "started it."  The relationship may 
then disrupt the work environment.

Third parties sometimes complain bitterly about sexual relationships 
involving a supervisor.  Spouses may be outspoken complainants; employees 
may resent real or preceived favoritism; and the morale of the senior 
person's subordinates may drop sharply.  In consenting relationships that 
involve a junior person who is trading sexual favors for advancement, 
management's interests are jeopardized, especially if the junior person is 
not the employee most deserving of promotion.

Sexual relationships between supervisor and subordinate are frequently very 
distracting to these two.  Also, the existence of widely known consenting 
relationships sometimes encourages other supervisors to make unwelcome 
sexual overtures to other employees.

Some companies act on the principle that all sexual relationships between 
supervisors and their subordinates may conflict with company interests.  
Where genuine loving relationships do arise, the supervisor should be 
expected to take steps quickly to deal with the conflict of interest.  
Sometimes supervision of the junior employee can be transferred to another 
manager.  Or the senior member of the pair might discuss the situation with 
management.

This kind of policy may serve another purpose.  The supervisor who is a 
target of unwanted seduction attempts, as well as the employee who is 
unhappy at being propositioned, is often reluctant to hurt the other 
person's feelings.  And often it may not be clear whether unwelcome sexual 
overtures should be considered harassment.

It can help in such situations for the beleaguered party to have a company 
policy to fall back on so that it becomes unnecessary to define a 
proposition as harassment or to tell someone that he or she is not an 
attractive partner.  It is simpler to say, "We can't."

Finally, a company policy against sexual relationships in supervision may 
be critical to the success of mentoring programs for women.  It is 
absolutely vital to the success of women that they be seen to advance on 
the basis of the quality of their work and that they receive the same 
guidance and sponsorship that men receive.

Successful mentor alliances require men and women to work closely together. 
Thus men must feel free to encourage and criticize the performance of women 
without innuendo from others and without provoking suspicion.  Programs for 
advancement, for men as well as for women, can succeed only in an 
atmosphere where neither harassment nor the fear of it exists.

Ummm...

I see two different issues, here.  I don't think a "no" is required for
something to be harassment. I *do* think a "no" is required for something
to be *prosecuted* as harassment.

there are lots of assumptions in the basenote.  The primary one seems
to be that the woman didn't *want* to be whistled at. Clearly, if she
liked the whistle/flirting/come-on etc then it wasn't harassment.  So
since the issue is being discussed, I will assume that she didn't.

The harassment started at the whistle.  Whether she said no or just
ignored it, or EVEN if she smiled at him.  If the whistle made her
uncomfortable, then it was harassment.

You might think this puts unfair burden on the whistler to be able to
read the mind of the whistlee, but I disagree.  Some activities, such
as whistling at someone, are clearly INAPPROPRIATE AT WORK, as someone
said previously.  There are exceptions - such as when the whistler knows
for DAMN SURE that the whistlee is receptive, such as if they had
flirted in the past and she had enjoyed it.  Short of such exceptions,
it is clear to me that the whistler should know that that is inapporopriate,
therefore it is not unfair to label him a harasser, even if he didn't
know explicitly that she was unpleased with it.

[That would be sort of like a burglar saying - "hey, I didn't *know*
I wasn't supposed to rob this house! They didn't say I shouldn't."  some
activities are so clearly inappropriate that the victim shouldn't *have*
to object for the perp to know it's wrong.]

That is an entirely different issue of whether a charge of harasment
should hold.  I do think that, since anyone outside the situation can't
know for sure what the past relationship, etc, of the people involved
were, that in most cases a "Please stop" or some such should be required
to "convict" the perp of harassment.

The issue of whether there is enough evidence to convict and whether
an action was, indeed, harassment are separate.


D!

    George,
    
      You are right of course, I can choose not to read notes I find to
    be "noise" - But to the issue at hand - I find it hard as a rule to
    see women in the role of vicimizer in this one.  I *know* personally,
    many, many woman who have been harrassed to varying degrees throughout
    their careers, I am also one of them.  I know *no* men - Not, mind you
    that that situation does not exist, I'm sure there are examples of it,
    and I'm also sure I will now see them here.  But, the *majority* of
    these cases happen *to* a woman, perpetrated *by* a man or men.
    
      I get very tired, whenever we are discussing issues of this nature,
    to always be handed the "hey, we're victims too" argument.  Be that as
    it may, it is *not* what is being discussed here.
    
    -HA

    Re: .24
    
    If no harassment took place because the woman never said no, we are
    back at the much-discussed postulate that is so often used to defend
    the perp's actions in borderline rape cases, viz:
    
    	!no == yes
    
    I find that line of reasoning categorically unacceptable.
    
    Several people have pointed out that the only requirement for sexual
    harassment, by the EEOC rules, is that the whistlee be made to feel
    uncomfortable by the actions of the whistler.  The whistlee does not,
    by law, have to say *anything* to the whistler.
    
    -dick

    
    Well, here's a _personal_, blatent case of SH.  This happened *many*
    years ago in a former job where I was an assembler in a piece work
    factory.  I was very young but also bold for that time, 18+ years ago.
    This male worker and I were put on a job that required us to work 
    together on one floor of the old factory--without anyone else around.
    I started to do the job and hadn't been working more than 1/2 hour when
    he called to me from the other side of the room.  I turned to look at
    him, only to see him standing there with his hand on his crotch-rubbing
    and leering at me.  He said something to the effect-c'mon over, I got
    something *real* good for you!  I was disgusted, scared, and angry all
    at once.  Luckily the scared/angry response took over and I said to him
    something like--no thanks, not interested!  and walked *quickly* out of 
    the room, afraid that I might be grabbed and raped.  I went right to
    the supervisor who was on the next floor up and told him of the
    incident.  He laughed it off, saying I was probably overreacting!
    
    Not getting satisfaction from him, I went to the vice-president of the
    union who did believe me.  He asked if I knew if any of the other women 
    had been bothered by him, I said I didn't know.  He asked that I not
    say anything to anyone else as he was going to check with some of the
    other women.  This was about 8 am.  The interviews with all the other 
    women in the department lasted most of the day.  What they found out
    was that this man had made advances to *almost all* of them, but none
    had the courage to come forward about it--thinking that nothing would
    be done about it.  By 3 pm the harrasser was fired and walked out the 
    door.  I felt great about that---but, leaving that afternoon was scary,
    I didn't know if he would be waiting out side the gates for reprisal.
    And for weeks after that I lived in fear coming and going to work,
    beacuase I thought that he might try it again sometime when I was
    totally alone.  I made sure that I didn't go *anywhere* alone for the
    next month or so.  Amazing, isn't it, how one person and one incident
    can make such a profound impact on one's life.
    
    *That* is what Sexual Harrassment is.  No matter what form it takes.
    
    
    Debbi

    re.33 Your note seems to indicate that harassment is intrinsic in
    the behaviour, regardless of the perceptions of the persons involved.
    That seems to be opposite waht has been said, elsewhere, that it is 
    harassment if a person 'feels' harassed. The scenario clearly gives 
    _no_ indication of what the woman feels. She may be playing coy, or she
    may be too terrified to speak. I'm not saying the actions are _not_
    harassment, nor are they appropriate for the workplace, but until we 
    have at least a _clue_ as to what she feels, we can not judge.
    My main problem with this scenario is that it is incomplete. 
    
    Maybe it's just a communications problem, where some see her silence
    as a negative response, and other see it as a positive response. 
    Heaven knows, non-verbal communications is so damn easy to
    misinterpret. (Does this 'nothing = no' - 'nothing = maybe' difference
    break down along gender lines? hmmm.)
    

    Dana,
    
    The word "coy" in this instance is a personal hot button.  As a women
    ignoring a crude approach is the "safest" way to say no.  It avoids
    fights with "Don't you find me attractive?" or the "Fridgid B*tch!"
    accusations.  Remember women have been cultured to avoid confict at all
    costs.  
    
    I would say that the second the shistle didn't get a response that the
    "man" involved should have backed off.  If he was really trying to get
    her to notice him as someone she could be interested in, dropping by
    her desk and inviting her to lunch (My personal favorite safe date),
    would have been a much better approach.  IMNSHO all this "man" was
    doing was trying to prove that he has more testicles than sense and
    trying to intimidate the woman.  This showed no more interest in her
    as an interesting person than a potenntial rapist would have.
    
    Meg

    "more testicles than sense"....
    
    I love it Meg!
    
    E Grace

good for you Debbi!  that was both brave (personnally, and job-wise) and
principled.  I'm proud for you!

Sara

More food for thought...

Someone in another notesfile (SOAPBOX?) pointed out that SH also depends
on the attractiveness of the perpatrator... if the guy is the office hunk
and the events in .0 occurs then some would say "He's just being cute"
but if a short, portly, bald guy with thick glasses does the same then
it becomes "Sexual Harrasment".

Lee

    Bull,
    
    This behavior as listed in the base note is crude, unprofesional, and
    threatening, no matter who the messenger is.  Note that this is not a
    bantering exchange, this is responded to by silence, which to me is an
    expression of at minimum indifferenc, at max fear of the person being
    leaned on.  In this case I wouldn't care if the "man" involved looked
    like michaelangelo's David, it is still harrasement.
    
    Meg

Lee, what Boxers assert as fack, and reality, are most often very different
things.

    Actually I'd be slightly more inclinded to give a shy nerdy guy the
    benefit of the doubt, he could just be suffering from 'geekiness' and
    total lack of social skills. On the other hand I'd assume the handsome
    guy knows the social ropes and knows exactly what he's doing. Which
    I admit could well be a sort of prejudging.
    
    Bonnie

    re.33 Your note seems to indicate that harassment is intrinsic in
    the behaviour, regardless of the perceptions of the persons involved.

No, I'm not.  Harassment is defined by how the harassee *feels*.  
However, if the harasser is doing something that *is* acceptable/expected/
appropriate to the work place, and the harasee doesn't indicate
hir discomfort, then one can hardly blame the harasser. I was
discussing the moral responsibility of the harasser - in the case
where s/he should damn well know that something is inappropriate,
then it is not required that the harassee indicate hir discomfort
for it to be harassment; the harasser should not be doing it,
period.  Even if the harasee doesn't respond negatively.

Dana, your are making the logical fallacy that just because I said
that inappropriate behavior always constitutes harassment (except in
rare exceptions), that that implies that behavior that is not
"inappropriate" is therefore not harassment.

D!

    One of the most attractive men in this building entered my office, 
    ran a finger up the side of my leg and said "No nylons today?"
    Gorgeous or no, I found his behavior extremely offensive, and told
    him so.  It NEVER happened again, but if it did, believe me, I would
    not have hesitated to report him regardless of how "cute" he is.
    
    About ten years ago, when working for a local moving company as
    receptionist, alone in the office during the lunch hour, one of the
    mechanics came in from the garage, and upon learning nobody else was
    around, proceeded  literally chase me around the desk and back me into
    a corner.  He was unattractive, and filthy with grease and dirt.  I did
    not hesitate to threaten a certain part of his anatomy if he did not
    cease his behavior.  I told my boss later, and he found it amusing.  I
    was 19 years old, and felt somehow responsible, because as my boss
    said, "Matt can't help it, the way you are dressed with that figure of
    yours."  I was wearing a dress and heels.  
    
    The point is, I had no problem interpreting the behaviour in both cases
    as inappropriate, regardless of what the men looked like.
    
    Kim

    
    There was a young woman in my shop in high school - she was two grades
    behind me but that was still a while ago when women didn't often major
    in electronics.
    
    The teacher blamed HER for distracting his students when she complained
    they were prodding, touching, and tapping (light slap on the rear) her.
    
    She did NOT dress sexily, although she was attractive.
    
    *sigh*
    
    -Jody

    I haven't gone through the entire string, but I find one thing 
    disturbing.
    
    People are saying it wasn't harassment because she didn't say it.  In
    my opinion, it was harassment if she felt harassed.  She could not
    successfully file charges unless she objected, but it would still be
    harassment if she *felt* harassed.
    
    I've experienced sexual harassment here at DEC.  I was so astounded
    and dumbstruck by the experience that I was unable to respond.  I was 
    fortunate that, due to changing job situations, I was no longer in
    contact with the person.
    
    Responding is not that easy.  I believe I would be able to respond if
    there were multiple instances, not as described in the .0 scenario, 
    since that is one prolonged instance.   But harassment is so shocking
    and disturbing that I find it hard to respond, although I can think
    of *plenty* of responses after the fact.  It reminded me of times
    in my past when I was completely powerless, and made me feel that way
    again.  
    
    The default should not be that any behaviour is acceptable unless 
    someone objects.  People should be made more sensitive to what is,
    in general, unacceptable.
    
    Cheryl

    Cheryl,
    
    I understand so well about the being too shocked to respond
    immediately.  The "well if he was attractive it would be different" 
    discussion in the other conference was sparked by my entry of my
    experience with someone who was harrassing. 
    
    Basically I was lured under a false pretense into a situation where I
    would be alone with this creep.  People assumed he did this because he
    was a nerd and didn't know how to interact properly.   I think it was
    because he was brought up in a middle eastern country where things like
    this are acceptable and he just hasn't learned that style of behavior
    just doesn't cut it here.
    
    When I realized the trap I couldn't believe what was happening.  And it
    DOES take a few seconds/minutes for the situation to sink in if it's
    the first time it happens.  My reaction was to excuse myself and just
    go as far away from the creep as poossible.  If this type of thing
    would happen again with someone, I would be much more vocal before I
    stormed off.
    
    And as for the "cute" aspect, I don't care what he looks like.  A creep
    is a creep, and you can't hide that behind looks.
    
    Lisa

    Maybe this belongs in another topic, but how many others out there
    who have been sexually harassed, experienced abuse or rape or other
    abuses of sexual power, feel as uncomfortable as I do with all
    the discussions around the Thomas nomination and sexual harassment
    in general?
    
    Some people are debating the topics as almost academic points, but
    to me they're very real, and personal, and frightening.  The responses
    I've seen around me to what's going on certainly don't make me feel
    very comfortable about talking about my experiences.
    
    People seem to be discussing harassing actions and victim's responses
    as though harassment were an intellectual interaction, where one
    can carefully consider one's response and formulate an appropriate
    response.  
    
    If you could feel how *I've* felt, maybe you wouldn't be so quick
    to judge how a victim might respond.
    
    cheryl

    Cheryl,
    
    I agree with you.  This isn't an intellectual discussion.  When the
    harassment starts/continue, each instance comes as a shock to the
    system.  You don't easily get over the shame and humiliation.  And what
    about the rage that eventually surfaces?  How does one appropriately
    deal with the rage?  My first encounter with sexual harassment occured
    when I was about 29 years olds.  I wasn't naive, but I was still
    totally unprepared to deal with the situation.  No one had ever handed
    me a guide or given me the kind of advice that Mary P. Rowe offers.  
    
    I told the man that I wanted things to stay strictly on a professional
    level, that I didn't want to discuss *anything* else with him outside
    the business at hand.   This did not stop his comments.  I had been the
    company 3 months and felt like a damn fool that this was happening. 
    And I didn't have a clue what to do about.  I was so devastated by the
    harassment that I couldn't even bring myself to tell my spouse what was
    happening at work.  So, of course it would be a piece of cake for me to
    go to my manager (who I really didn't know that well yet), or go to
    someone in personnel (I was so new to the company that I didn't even
    know which personnel person was assigned to our group) and tell them
    about all the "lovely compliments" that this man was giving me.  
    
    No, this isn't some academic point...this is about people's feelings
    and about people being frightened...
    
    A small nit that the majority of these *people* happen to be women.
    
    It was a hideous experience the first time, and it was a hideous
    experience when it happened again.  Unlike the first time, I now knew
    what to do.  I took action and got positive results.
    
    Laura

    There is a man at DEC in the GMA that has been sexually harassing women
    for over close to six years.  He is still working for the company.  
    
    And some people wonder why women don't speak up.

1. Sexual harrassment of any type (and I'm not just including on-the-job
   harrassment) comes out of the blue.  It's a blindsiding, shocking thing.
   It's not something one is ready to deal with at all times.  

2. Focussing on "What should the woman have done?" is the wrong question.
   The question should be "WHY DID THE GUY DO THAT?"  Let's shift the blame
   from the victim to the perpetrator!  WHY DID HE THINK HE COULD GET AWAY
   WITH THAT?

3. If so many women experience harrassment in various ways, ranging from 
   sexist comments to gang rape, what is going on with men?"

   Why do so many men commit so many sex crimes? 
   Why do so many men rape?  (If 1 out of 3 women are raped in their lives,
   who are all the guys doing it?)  Why do so many men commit incest with their
   daughters/stepdaughters/nieces/granddaughters?  Why do so many men read
   porn that depicts violence against women (or it wouldn't account for so
   many sales)?  

   Let's stop focussing on "why didn't she say something" and wonder
   "Why do some men think they can use the intimate parts of random people 
   with whom they have no personal relationship to satisfy their generalized
   sexual urges regardless of time, place, or appropriateness?"   What's wrong
   with our socialization of boys?  

   (Nice men do turn out from this same system, but there must be 
   something going on or the statistics on rape wouldn't be what they are.)

4. As for .0, whatever you might or might not think about the verbal 
   interchange between these two people, barring the door is certainly  
   harrassment (in common sense, if not in a court of law).  The man is 
   threatening the woman with force.  She certainly has the right to come
   and go through doors in her workplace regardless of whether she says "Please
   stop" or not!  

5. Many of us, some men included, do not feel comfortable with confrontations
   whether they are verbal or physical.  

   I recommend martial arts training for the impact it has on
   one's ability to yell, to fight back, to speak up.  It made a huge difference
   in my life, then lived in New York City where I was subjected to the
   chance of sexual harrassment just about every time I went out.

6. To many women, sexual matters are already intimate and personal.  It's not 
   easy to fight back when intimate and personal space is invaded by a stranger.
   It leaves intimate and personal scars.  I agree with the previous
   two notes that "this is about people's feelings
    and about people being frightened..."


nina

 

I guess I got carried away.  I just want to say this:

Why do people focus on the victim's response to determine whether or not
a crime occurred?

	Why did that murder victim let himself be shot?

	Why did the store owner let himself be robbed?

	Why did the bank let its employees embezzle funds?

	Why did that car let itself be sideswiped?

	Why did the pedestrian let herself be hit by the driver running a red
	light?

Sound kind of strange?  Now...let's look at sexual cases.  Where do people
focus?  Why?

 

    Nina, I don't think you got carried away at all!  
    
    I just want to borrow a Bobbittism and shout HUZZAH! for your note .53
    
    E Grace

    Great Note Nina!  You didn't get carried away at all - You said so
    much of what I've been feeling over all of this....Thank you!
    
    Cheryl, your note was wonderful too.
    
    Throughout this whole process I have been feeling constantly bombarded
    with the "blame the victim" attitude.  From the "whaddya think, she 
    lying" comments, to the "well, she *must* be lying, no one else has
    said anything bad about the guy".  Never mind that other people *did*
    come forward (just weren't willing to be so public, gee, I wonder
    why!), never mind that people did say they weren't surprised given 
    his behavior towards other black women.....Sigh...
    
    This all just plays into my feelings of guilt and shame over my own
    issues - the old "maybe if I'd just" tendencies.  Just once in my
    lifetime, I'd like to see a situation like this handled as if it were
    *any other accusation*, no what did you do to deserve it, just, well,
    you were wronged, let's see what we can do to make it right.  The 
    violence against women in so many aspects of our society is so
    pervasive and scary.  I wonder how much longer before we finally are
    able to all get together and actually work to *fix* it rather than
    just get it paid lip service by the section of the population least
    affected (and with most the power).....
    
    Sorry to have rambled!
    
    bright blessings,
    heather

    The following is being entered from a noter who prefers to remain
    anonymous.

    					Ann B.
    					Co-moderator

    ========================================================================
    Sexual harassment [SH] from another perspective:

    I am a 35-year-old man who has twice been subjected to SH by women
    above me in the corporate hierarchy.

    Simultaneously infuriating and ludicrous, all I could do in both cases
    was try to avoid the woman.

    This became impossible in the second situation, when the woman (my new
    boss) declared it necessary that I move from my cubicle in the general
    worker-bee area to the cubicle next to hers in a separate room. I quit
    several days later.

    What did the SH amount to?

    In the first case, which involved a VP from another department,
    the SH consisted of suggestive remarks, pats and pinches, and
    "teasing" leers. It was degrading in the extreme,
    especially when I got comments from witnesses to a remark or a touch.
    This woman's sexual aggressiveness was widely known in the company,
    and it was generally explained along these lines:

    "Imagine the garbage she's had to put up with to get where she is.
    She's just giving men some payback."

    This seemed to make it OK for most people, women as well as men. I was
    two levels below her in the hierarchy, and there was nothing I could
    do. The VP of Human Resources would have been out of a job had he
    tried to do anything. It was that kind of company.

    In the second situation, SH amounted to constant remarks about my
    "sexiness," "appeal," "masculinity," etc. This woman could not seem to
    keep her hands off me. She punctuated every sentence with a squeeze of
    my arm, a stroke of my hand, or a playful punch on my shoulder. This
    situation ended a week after it began, when I moved on.

    What seemed (and still seems) so bizarre about it all was that I am
    not in any way a "good looking" man, nor in any way a submissive or
    flirtatious one. My appearance is average.

    Something about me triggered SH behavior in both of these women, and
    to this day I have not figured it out. (Not that I think about it
    much...this topic reminded me of it.)

    Point of all this?

    Men are not the only ones guilty of SH.

    I can remember situations that have happened to me in the past, at
    work, at DEC, that I now think many women would consider to be sexual
    harrassment but the truth is that, at the time, I thought it was sort
    of funny. (?)  It didn't occur to me at the time that I was in any
    danger, or under any threat.  I just thought the guys were joking
    around.  Now I wonder if I should have been outraged.  It's very
    confusing and I don't know why these situations didn't bother me more
    than they did.  
    
    I do know, Bonnie, that you can't always trust homely little, fat, bald
    men, either, though.  I remember an incident several years ago where my
    then boss (no longer at DEC), who was short, overweight, bald, homely,
    hunchbaked and wore glasses, (hey, what can I say?  that's how he
    looked) was being kidded by a taller mgr. that he was the same height
    as his secretary - me, 5'1".  So, the tall guy told us to stand back to
    back so he could see who was really taller.  I turned around, facing
    the other way, and when I did, my boss, instead of putting his back
    against my back, turned around and faced my back and pressed himself
    against me! and said, "Okay, whose taller?" in a singsongy voice.
    I jumped away and the tall guy said, "No, that way you dirty bastard,
    back to back!"  But, we all laughed.  I thought it was funny at the
    time.  I didn't think it was sexual harrassment.  Was it?
    (I certainly didn't find him attractive, but I found him amusing in a
    pitiful way, and it didn't really bother me.)
    
    There was another mgr. around the same time who repeatedly kept trying
    to get me to give him a "birthday kiss."  Finally, he kept after me so
    long that I finally did go into his office and I very quickly gave him
    a quick kiss on the lips, and he said, "That's it?  My Aunt Tillie can
    do better than that!" and I said, "Then go kiss your Aunt Tillie" and
    walked away.  That incident annoyed me a little more because he kept
    asking me over and over all day long for his stupid birthday kiss.
    But, I didn't really think he was doing anything wrong, and basically I
    really liked this guy, too.  He was, in most ways, an extremely nice
    person.  So, who knows.  (He's no longer with DEC either.)
    
    I now realize, though, that the above behavior was certainly
    unprofessional whether it bothered me at the time or not.
    
    Lorna
    
    

    To the anonymous noter in .57
    
    Sexual harassment isn't about attraction between people or who is cute
    and who isn't cute.  Sexual harassment is about mis-use of power that
    gets expressed in a form that is particularly humiliating to the person
    being offended.
    
    In the article written by Mary Rowe, she refers to the behavior as
    "disturbed behavior."  I agree with her assessment.  It doesn't really
    matter if you categorize this behavior as as sickness of the mind or
    spirit, the behavior indicates that you're not dealing with a
    well-adjusted, healthy adult.
    
    People who are offended deserve real support from company management. 
    People who are offenders should have access to psychological help.
    
    Unfortunately, your experience in at your company is more the norm of
    what happens in the case of sexual harassment.  
    
    Laura
    

    From the Boston Globe 10-16-91 excerpts w/o permission. By Joseph P.
    Kahn and Carol Stocker of the Globe Staff. 
    
    The NEW Rules of the Game (The sexual Harassment debate puts the focus
    on workplace etiquette)
    
    After a couple of paragraphs (I'm no typist so I can't put them in) of
    lead in info referencing the Thomas/Hill accusations etc. the authors 
    researched material with male and female experts in the field of SH and
    some common sense rules for both sides was given:
    
    - Physical Contact - Andrea Bairdon (More Than Friends) maintains that
    physical contact from a woman's standpoint "an arm or shoulder is the
    only safe area' to touch. Warren Farrell (Why Men Are The Way They Are)
    gives a three stage rule. 1) if a woman feels uncomfortable with
    someone, put it in writing and give a copy to the harasser immediately,
    but keep it private unless it persists. 2) If the issue involves more
    than one person, call a meeting and "air it out" in a win/win final
    agreement for everyone. Everyone abides by the agreement. Finally, if 
    the agreement is considered broken, and the women continue to feel
    harassed then elavation of the issue is waranted with a civil suit if
    necessary.   Others state such comments as personal compliments and the
    like have to be taken on individual merit and that a conservative
    approach should be taken in these areas. The difficult things to assess
    are compliments on a change in hairstyle, compliments on weight loss,
    compliments on the complimentee's taste in a new wardrobe. Trading
    personal compliments in front of others in the workplace is not good. 
    
    - Clothing - The most explosive issue. Blaming a man or woman for
    somehow inviting suggestive remarks is the old "blame the victim" dodge
    that had some 'old boy' senators squirming. It's blantantly sexist to
    harass someone for their form of dress. The key is dressing like your
    going to the office and not on a date. That means no cleavage, no
    micro-mini skirts, and no glitter. For some this may be a bit
    restrictive. There is a such thing as provocative clothing and women
    must recognize this. Bottom Line: Good taste and common sense go a long
    way to diffusing a potential problem situation. 
    
    -Interoffice Dating - Boss and employee is a no-no. It puts undo
    pressure on the relationship and if it breaks up, there could be major
    problems above and beyond harassment. Policies should suggest that this
    type of relationship is frowned upon, but cannot forbid it explicitly.
    General dating cannot be stopped, but any contact of any kind in the
    workplace must be forbidden. 
    
    -Talking About Sex- Talk of sex is everywhere. TV, Movies, books etc.
    You MUST guage your audience and make every attempt to keep sex out of
    any conversation. 
    
    	What this all comes down to is that any activity or speech that is
    not directly related to work can be construed as SH by either a man or
    a woman. Off hand remarks and unnecessary contact are unacceptable.
    ========================================================================
    
    	As a former supervisor and manager, I found that other companies
    I've worked for have been way ahead of an enlightened DEC. In the early
    eighties all male supervisors/managers were instructed to take a female
    supervisor/manager into any 1x1 with them. The Female manager was NOT
    allowed to speak for either side, she was there to make sure any
    subordinate female employee was not made to feel intimidated in any
    way. Males were instructed to walk into a conference room first and to
    sit facining the door and instructing any female to sit nearest the
    door. Males were not allowed to sit between females and the doors,
    trying to keep woman at ease in these situations, especially if they
    were disciplinary.
    	As far as dress goes this is tough. I agree that no one should be
    harassed for their dress, but there has to be some understanding on
    both sides. An extremely shapely and well endowed young women at the
    same company as the previous paragraph was a major problem for me. She
    would wear atheletic shorts slit to the hip w/o underwear, and cutoff
    tee shirts w/o a bra on the weekend when there was a relaxed manner in
    the plant. She was the talk of the office. She always found something
    she had climb on a desk for, crawl under, and she was extremely clumsy
    because men were always picking up things she dropped. During the week,
    she wore skirts with hems at "the hair line", slacks that were so tight
    that it was amazing  she could get them on. She wore blouses that were
    always open to her mid chest and 99% of the time she was braless. The
    problem was that I had unwanted vistors 8 hours a day in the area and
    work was constantly disrupted. It caused trouble with other women and
    with a couple of husband/wife relationships. Finally, a couple of the
    women took her aside and spoke with her. I never found out what they
    said, but she did tone down. She claimed that other women were jealous
    of her and that she liked being fawned over by men. The problem was
    that other women don't always feel the same way and this woman's dress,
    behavior and body language were sending men a bad message and they
    suffered for it. Question: Did anyone have the right to tell her that
    she was wrong??? By puling her aside, was she being harassed??? There
    are women working for DEC today who are very much like this young woman
    and they play cat and mouse games at work.
    
    	Personally, I think DEC should have some informative seminars for
    men and women where guidelines can be developed and understanding can
    be fostered. Otherwise, this issue could lead to monumental problems
    for employees, managers, and customers.
    
    Ken
         

    	This morning our group had a (seminar? discussion?) on sexual
    harrassment, led by our group manager (a vp) and our personnel
    rep.  Our personnel rep handed out some scenarios, and we talked
    about whether or not they were considered harrassment and some of
    the issues surrounded them.  Then we got into a discussion about
    policies and procedures.

    	I think it went really well - many people turned up for this
    and actually participated in the discussions.

    	Afterwards, someone else in my group and I talked to personnel
    about not making this a one-shot deal, but continuing forums like
    this and expanding them to sexism and general valuing diversity
    issues.  (I even brought up what had happened with all the hullabaloo
    surrounding last Friday's event in MRO.)

    	I felt good that our manager felt it important enough to
    arrange something like this, and that people really participated.
    Perhaps I'm just lucky to be in this group, but I hope the
    positive work will continue and that we can really get heard.

    	Is this happening in other groups as well?

    	amy

I find the tactics used in -.1 somewhat extreme. The men having to sit in
certain places and a female always having to be present in a one on one. In a
place with a deffinite problem this may be appropriate but as a general rule
I don't like it. It puts us back in the position of having to be protected.

I understand sexual harassment. A professor literally ruined my feshman year
at college by harassing me for dates. But some of the actions suggested here
are just too much for me. I like to kid around and often enjoy flirting. I'd
rather have an atmosphere where people are told when they step too far and are
taught to stop rather than trying to stop everything just in case.

As far dress, I know we are not supposed to blame the victim, but some people
really push it to the limit. I know someone at work who wears *really* short
and very tight skirts, my best friend (female) claims she feels sexually
harassed by this and if she wanted to see women like this she'd read Playboy.
I occasionally wear short skirts or leggings, maybe I'm over the line too. 

liesl

    Re .62: That's a new one on me - someone feeling harrassed because of
    what someone _else_ is wearing! I haven't felt that since grade school,
    when I felt very much harrassed because the boys could wear pants to
    school and the girls couldn't.
    
    While I'll admit that some styles of clothing [thong bathing suits come
    to mind ;-)] are not really appropriate for most work settings, I'd
    rather see such situations addressed by discplining the people who let
    their work suffer so they can ogle the undressee, than by enforcing a
    dress code. (Speaking to the undressee about the "fashion statement"
    s/he is making is fine, too, but I don't see "look at those _legs_!" as
    justification for people to swarm around his/her office.)
    
    There do seem to be plenty of people who play games, though - doing
    something to get attention and then objecting to the attention once
    it's been gotten. I suppose one would have to handle such cases
    individually; if Person A always objects to personal remarks, no matter
    how outrageous a pair of earrings he's wearing today, why, stop making
    personal remarks to Person A. (If he then gets annoyed because you
    complimented Person B on _his_ new earrings, that's his problem. And,
    of course, "Hubba, hubba - how I'd like to lick them lobes!" is out
    under all circumstances, or at least until you meet at the bar after
    work.)
    
    -blue witch

    I don't know why people wear amazingly sexy clothes to work, but you
    know what?  i dont care.  If *I* can keep my libido in check enough to
    not only treat those women with respect but to get my work done, so can
    any man.
    
    D!

Yeah, well, we also all know the "smellers" -- some (sorry, but usually) guy
who is so busy coding up a storm he doesn't seem to be able to change his
clothes or take a shower.  It's not so common in the industry now as it used
to be, but I've had to work with some guys whose physical presence was VERY
distracting.  I wanted to RUN...but I controlled  myself!  

So I guess if someone's disciplining the sexy, they should also discipline
the stinky!

 nina

    I would hope that a byproduct of the Thomas-Hill hearing would 
    be that corporations would aknowledge that harassment does exist 
    and develop policies and processes to define, identify, counsel
    and treat (punish) accordingly those guilty of harassment.
    I for one intend to take the time to talk to my personnel organization
    to encourage them to put an effective process in place for Digital.
       

>treat (punish)

 :-)

    There is a dream I have:
    
    On the lighter side, I imagine that when he blocked the door, she
    should pick up the stapler, smack him in the head or groin with it,
    and meet him in personnelle (I know they couldn't side track that.)
    which would insure that she at least had an audience, and there was
    some form of retribution for his actions.  However, in reality, I
    know she would probably wind up being fired, but I can dream.
    
    At one time, I believed that just telling someone was enough.
    However, I don't believe that any more.
    
    A letter does help sometimes.
    However, that doesn't always work forever.
    It may halt the behavior for a while, but it doesn't make
    the hurt, helplessness, and eventual hate go away.
    I wish it did.
    
    I wish there was a way to get folks to keep their hand's to themselves,
    but there are no guarantees.Nothing the woman does will stop
    it once a man decides he is going to start.  Nothing she does,
    INCLUDING the clothes she wears, or the way she presents herself
    can prevent it if that is what he is going to do.
    
    JMO,
    Cindi
    
    P.S.- People spend an AWFULL lot of time explaining away why guys
    do stuff that they "didn't mean", or "didn't understand".  How could
    a group so unskilled and unaware of more than half of the populace
    have so much control over that populace?
    

This is a point that has bothered me in all the discussions following
the Thomas confirmation hearings.  There is this idea floating around
that "some guys don't KNOW when they are harrassing a woman."  

I think that a lot of guys DO KNOW exactly that!  They know they are
harrassing someone and they enjoy the harrassment--seeing the woman
lose control, seeing her flustered, enjoying their power.

There are a lot of situations in which people are innocently friendly
and make sexual jokes or touch in a friendly way--these are not necessarily
harrassment.  These could be just human, friendly, awkward, whatever.

But someone who baits a woman with talk of porn movies when she's 
obviously made uncomfortable by the discussion, someone who persists
in asking someone out after she's refused, someone who blocks a door.... 
they know exactly what they are doing and the anger expressed in .68 is
a pretty normal response.

n.

                      <<< Note 1065.69 by MTVIEW::SILK >>>

>There is this idea floating around
>that "some guys don't KNOW when they are harrassing a woman."  

	Believe me, based on my own confusion on this issue, it's
	more than just an idea. It's a reality.

>I think that a lot of guys DO KNOW exactly that!  They know they are
>harrassing someone and they enjoy the harrassment--seeing the woman
>lose control, seeing her flustered, enjoying their power.

	There is no doubt that this type of person exists. But they are
	not the folks that brought up the dicsussion about "How do I 
	know?". These jerks DO know. 

>There are a lot of situations in which people are innocently friendly
>and make sexual jokes or touch in a friendly way--these are not necessarily
>harrassment.  

	But then this begs the question, "Where is the line drawn?"

>These could be just human, friendly, awkward, whatever.

	Or it COULD be harrassment. 

	The answer seems to be "It depends....". For someone that is truly
	interested in not exhibiting unacceptable behavior, this just doesn't
	seem to be an acceptable definition.

Jim

    
    I have some confusion (and perrhaps a touch of cynicism) on this.
    
    In this or another note there seemed to be some consensus as to MY
    responsibility speak up.... the message being (as I heard it) that if I
    didn't, then of course the person offending me wouldn't know they were
    being offensive.
    
    But so often, I've listened in teeth clenching silence to ethnic or
    or sexist jokes, and thought.... WAITAMINUTE!  why don't
    these people have a responsibility - to understand what may be
    considered offensive???!  
    
    (and when I have spoken up, the usual reaction is What a wet blanket!
    Geez - you have NO sense of humor!)
    
    
    Anybody else have this reaction to the idea that the responsibility is
    theirs to speak up?
    
    Jamd

    re.71
    
    I don't have _exactly_ the same reaction.  But it's there with a few
    shades of difference.
    
    I believe the wide-eyed claims that 'of course the [offender] wouldn't
    know they were being offensive' are near-complete bunk. But, yes, there
    are ambiguous cases and these need to be called out.
    
    I believe that if a person is offended, that they have a responsibility
    to speak up.  [This does an end-run around the wide-eyed-sap defense.]
    But I strongly agree that not speaking up doesn't absolve the offender.
    
    I find '<x> wasn't offended so what's your problem?' responses pretty
    useless.  No matter who has what problem, an 'I am offended' or 'I find
    that harrassing' remark isn't stuffed with a lot of fuzzy intent.
    
    I acknowledge that even reasonable adults cannot always speak up.
    Mitigating circumstances do exist.  Sad but true.
    
    I have very little patience for people who purport to speak for
    the offense that someone else has endured.  Especially when I'm that
    'someone else.'
    
    As an example:  Today a male co-worker of mine tossed an arm up around
    behind me and shook me by the head [just a little].  This is not a
    normal occurence between us.  In the two years I've known this man
    he's touched me exactly four times.  I knew that this action was one of
    affectionate encouragement [for want of better words].  I confess that
    if I'd seen this from the outside, that I might have wondered what was
    going on.  Well, hell.  Darned if someone else who witnessed this
    inter-play didn't do more than wonder.  Within two hours I was in a
    manager's office being sensitively asked if I felt safe [seriously].
    I was able to put any concerns to rest, and I _strongly_ voiced my
    opinion that the man who touched me not be confronted with it.
    
    Sheesh.  Sexual harrassment is _real_ enough. I've been a victim.  I
    know how to speak up.  I'll do whatever I can to help someone speak up
    for hirself.  At the same time, there are things that don't harrass me
    that _would_ harrass others [and vice versa].  We really do need to
    give our feelings voice.
    
      Annie
    

I have a very easy answer for those who question whether some action taken by
them could be seen as harassment. If you have a question, then *don't do it*.

"It depends" is valid. There are some men in the office who can touch me, or
tease me and swap off color remarks with me. This is not to be interpreted
that *any* man can do these things. If you don't know if you're one of those
men then *don't assume* you are. I've know most of them for years, we have a
relationship that is buddies/workmates. Someone new walking in has not earned
the same social rights. liesl

p.s. When I say touch I mean non-sexual touch. There is no one in the office,
either man or woman whom I allow to touch me sexually. It is not appropriate
in the workplace.

    Ok.
    I know that if she bashed him one, they probably would not
    stop at personelle, they would take her directly to her finely
    fashioned limo with the men in the white coats. However, consider
    the following.
    
    1- In heterosexual cases, if a man performed the described actions
    on another man, it would be FULLY JUSTIFIED for the propositioned
    man to ring the whistlers bells.  It wouldn't even get past the
    original whistle.  Forget the comments.  That would be grounds
    for a major league backside realignment.  If we are trying to truly be 
    equals, application of the same standards would be good.  Either don't 
    whistle, or let her clock you one if you do.
    
    2- If she does bloody his nose, all of those questions about "did
    she adequately inform him that his behavior was offensive" could be
    clipped at the scrotum. There would be none of this "maybe he
    didn't understand what you wer trying to tell him."  Provided
    the stapler didn't miss, there is no way he could even pretend
    to claim he missed the point.
    
    3- She would definately be considered unstable were she to tag him
    one. However, since she runs a serious risk of being considered
    unstable or to be "living in a fantasy world" anyway, she may
    as well go for it.  At least she gets to pick the way she goes
    out. Also, she gets some tangible retribution.
    
    None of this would ever really work.  It is still just a dream.
    However, consider the possibilites.
    
    Cindi

    
    Cindi - hitting another employee is a fireable offense.
    
    Sigh - in SH cases, it *really* is a case of - damned if you
    do, damned if you don't.  Under ordinary social circumstances
    or the situation of strangers harassing me off-site, I would
    have no qualms about decking someone if I felt it was an
    appropriate tactic.
    
    I have to think double-hard about doing so in the workplace.
    

    
    Query:
    
    If you felt you were being treated differently from your workgroup
    in a way that made you uncomfortable - reports being
    extra-scruitinised, being criticised in front of your peer-group,
    behaviour that others exhibit being considered unacceptable if
    shown by you - AND you are a minority female in that group....
    
    ....is that discrimination? Gender-based harassment? Any kind of
    harassment?
    
    'gail
    

    Re .75-
    
    Aw C'mon!
    I know that.
    
    Maybe I should take it to the f tank to entertain this flight of fancy.
    However, harrassment is SUPPOSED to be a fireable offense as well.
    
    However, we all know it doesn't always happen that way.
    I was just imagining, for a brief moment, that they suspended 
    the rules towards retaliation with the same frequency and
    deft understanding as they suspend/dismiss/munge away harassment
    stuff.  Especially if they realize how apt the provocation was.
    
    As I said, it is a dream.
      I can dream can't I?
    
    Cindi
    

    re .71  Jamd,
    
    If a person does not "speak up" and voice their offense or disapproval
    with certain remarks or behavior, then one implicitly condones them,
    imho.  This doesn't mean one has to voice their displeasure rudely; it
    doesn't even mean one has to be in the particular group targeted for
    the offensive remark.
    
    I always speak up--in one way or another--no matter what group is the
    object of the offensive remarks.  Yes, I've been told to "lighten up"
    and that I should "get a sense of humor" but I don't give a flying
    you-know-what.  I've also seen the looks on some people's faces when
    "light dawns" and they realize how their thoughtless remarks can hurt
    other people.  To me, it's worth it.
    

    Just speaking up IMO, is not enough.
    
    Some men just don't get it.
    
    I'm not sure if it is out of ignorace, or deliberate cruelty.
    However, they just don't get it.
    
    And then, it apparently becomes our job to HELP them get it.
    We must professionaly and kindly inform them of their errant
    ways. 
    
    I wonder why it doesn't strike anyone that they were RUDE in 
    the first place?  Why is it so essential that we answer rudeness
    and extreeme discomfort with reasoned, double spaced, declarations
    of distaste.  
    
    If this world were mine, we could answer it with what we felt.
    We could trade pain for pain. We could trade discomfort for
    discomfort (anybody got a vice or an apple press?)
    
    However, it isn't my world.  So, we must keep the logs, and write
    the letters. We must also turn the other cheek, and hope he
    doesn't pinch that one too.  
    
    I'm not exactly sure what we are supposed to do with the hostility 
    and/or pain.  No one tells you that.  They just say deal with it
    and welcome to the real world.
                               
    Cindi

    Yes, some men just don't get it.  And I don't really understand why
    not.
    
    >We must also turn the other cheek, and hope he doesn't pinch that one
    >too.
    	Beautifully phrased!
    
    
    (But what if... when he blocked the door, she grabbed the telephone in the
    copy room, called security, and told them that she was being held against
    her will?
    
    I guess he might get it... or she might get it...
    
    Hmm.  How good is DEC's security dept. at dealing with such things,
    anyway?  I've never had to find out.)
    
    Bob
    

    
    Bob--
    
    	Depends on wether the gaurd is male or female...
    
    
    
    debbi

    Well, the male guards I've met would like nothing better than to be
    the knight in shining armor to a damsel in distress; I don't think
    the female ones would be any `worse'.
    
    						Ann B.

    When I read the basenote I thought "trick question -- of course the
    whistle is harrassment."  Then I read some of the replies ... and today
    I read the note in ::DIGITAL where an otherwise seemingly rational male
    noter said "Well maybe he meant it as a complement when he said 'Jeez
    what a pair of tits!' to you" -- stuff like this is really
    discouraging.
    
    Random comments:
    
    I once decked an employee here for squeezing my behind.  He didn't
    go to Personnel -- as someone commented, he (or I) would have had to
    explain what provoked it.  I'm 5'9" and learned how to punch from my
    brother; this might not work for someone shorter.  But I think
    the shock factor had a lot to do with him treating me with nothing but
    professional courtesy from then on.  (By the way I didn't think about
    it, it was an instinctive reaction; the last time that had happened to
    me was in elementary school and that's how I reacted then.)
    
    On feeling harrassed by how others dress:
    
    There was a woman here who went from being a secretary to a Software
    Specialist III in a period of 5 years based on her miniskirts, lowcut
    blouses, perfume, sexy voice, and her ability to choose male managers
    who would react accordingly.  She's gone from the company now.  Why? 
    Because in a reorg, she got a female manager who discovered that
    somewhere along the line, all her male mangers had "forgotten" to send
    her to CSST when they promoted her, and the work she was doing was
    actually admin stuff.  Some of us knew that all along but we were
    dismissed as "jealous b*tches" who hated to see another woman get
    ahead.  The men who complained (mostly the SWS I's & II's) were Male
    Chauvinist Pigs who hated to see a woman get ahead of them.  BTW, most
    of the managers who promoted her are gone too (except one - he got
    promoted).  I personally felt harrassed because I felt the message was,
    if you spend less time learning stuff and more time acting like a
    brainless vamp, you too can get ahead.
    
    The whistle - maybe she was being coy?  Maybe they were dating?  If I
    was dating someone at work and he did something like that I probably
    wouldn't say anything on the spot but you can believe he would catch
    hell at 5:01.  This is still harrassment -- it's trivializing
    someone to make yourself appear more macho (or whatever).  Like a dog
    marking his territory.
    
    Ginny

    Some years ago, I saw a male Digital employee walk through a crowded
    Digital lobby making very flamboyant faces at the rear end of a female
    employee whom he was following by less than a foot - (he was walking in
    step with her and grimacing at her butt in front of a lot of other
    employees, in other words.)
    
    Later the same day, I saw him elsewhere in the building.  He was
    walking towards a woman in the hallway, and when she passed, he WHIRLED
    AROUND and bent over to get a close look at her butt before she'd walked
    3 feet past him.
    
    I spoke to a female colleague of his (I was on a training trip) and
    requested that she read the riot act to this person.  She spoke to him
    but reported to me that he didn't have the slightest idea what he'd 
    done wrong - so I approached him myself.
    
    He was very defensive about it - he said, "Hey, there is NOTHING WRONG
    with looking!!"  I responded, "You did more than look.  You mocked them
    - FELLOW DIGITAL EMPLOYEES - by making overt gestures behind their backs
    about your assessment of their rear ends."
    
    This happened in Massachusetts, by the way.  Aside from what this person
    did, I think I was most appalled that he had so much trouble understanding
    how it could be wrong to make faces at a woman's butt at Digital in front
    of a room (or hallway) filled with people.
    
    I think he got the message by the time we finished talking, though.

    Well, I thought about the possibilities of calling security.
    It gnawed at me for a while.  I think I have figured out why.
    
    It still requires that we get someone else to take care of
    the situation for us.  It could work.  However, in the event
    that security can not send someone up, we are stuck in a room
    with a potentially displeased, obviously confused male.  The
    time delay for assistance is frightening. The fact that it
    is still a passive resistance is unsatisfying.
    
    I have the same difficulty with letters.  You have to go
    through the problem, feel all of the feelings, and then the
    best shot you have is to have a third party (personelle,
    the threat of personelle, or your own pain splayed out on
    paper for the offender to see) EVENTUALLY stop, or at
    least slow down the frequency of the activity. YOU are stuck
    carrying it all around, giving it form, and transferring it
    from what was given you to the personelle acceptable forms
    for harassment.
    
    The blockage person gets to walk around, doing as they please,
    and pretending ignorance (or just being ignorant).
    
    However, with a smack in the head, he would be busy dealing with
    his pain too.  It somehow seems fairer to me.
    
    I know, once again, that the rules do not work that way.
    
    I STILL however, have occasion to wish that they did.
    
    Cindi-
    P.S.- My Mom explained something to me once.  Perhaps that modifies
    my perspective. She had difficulty with a man that used to pat
    her back side when she walked by.  She stopped the behavior
    by eventually patting him back on the backside... Of course, HER
    pat was on his tail bone (coccyx)...and it was more of a
    judo type stiff arm chop with the heel of her hand than a pat.
    He walked strangely for a while after that, but he didn't "pat"
    her again.  I think he got a clearer idea of what it may have
    felt like to her, in terms he could understand.
    
    There was no personelle involvement. Once again, he would have
    had to preface the charge with "well I was patting her on her
    but and suddenly she got all unreasonable."  
    
    Her innocent eyed, lash flashing, 125 lb., lilting answer, of course, 
    would have been "I'm sorry, I didn't REALIZE I had patted you back so HARD.
    Did I hurt you? Poor man." 
    

    
    re .0
    
    when the embryo divided... men are evil and hararassers by definition.

    
    when the embryo divided... men are evil and hararassers by definition.
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^

   ...and they can't spell, either  ;-)

    re .86, I'm glad you realize that.  Self-knowledge is such a healthy
    thing!
    

    .86-
    
    Nah! Don't be so hard on yourself!
    
    There are some good men out there.
    
    In fact, some of my best friends are men.
    
    Cindi
    

    >In fact, some of my best friends are men.
    
    Yeah, well, some of my best friends are Americans.
    
    I'm SOOO open-minded! :-)
    
    D!

    Re .90-
    
    :-):-):-):-):-)
    That caused an out right guffaw!
    Very crude, very AMERICAN, but real good for the cockles.
    
    Man that clears the brain cells.
    
    Thank you,
    It was much needed.
    
    Mrs. Prosper ALVIN Bates-

    Ok...
    For the guys out there who may still feel threatened and confused
    because you can't figure out where the harassment began.
    
    Pick the point up to which you would INTENSELY desire a strange 
    construction  worker to do to your Mother or daughter. That step can be 
    considered your personal version of harassment. Stop somewhere
    before then.  Exception: Those with an oedipal thing... don't even look
    at her.
    
    Maybe that will help with your perspectives.
    
    Cindi  

    I have to agree with one reply which said that (paraphrased) its  not
    fair that the harrassed have to act respectful in following through a
    request for the harasser to stop. It DOES seem that way. I have been
    harrassed here at DEC and I had to do everything by the book. I really
    would have liked to shove that book up the managers *AND* the personnel
    persons behind! Neither helped or could really see what was happening.
    
    Harressment (sp) is like being in a dysfunctional family.
    	- it happens
    	- the target feels
    		- that didn't REALLY happen, did it?
    		- Oh, *I'm* so embarressed, what did I do to deserve that?
    	and then the system goes on to ask her 'what DID you do?'
    	- the perpetrator continues his behavior
    And if you come from a dysfunctional family, you may have learned
    different survival techniques-- IGNORING it is one. SO just because I
    try to ignore it does NOT condon it, GET IT?
    I used to ignore it, then I took it to personnel, but today I know of
    many ways to deal with it, and I will if/when it happens again.
    
    
    Like people have said, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    
    And I'm tired of everyone lately preferacing their stupid comments with
    "oh, maybe I shouldn't say this with all the talk of haressment these
    days, BUT....." Its not funny and I wish people who are haressing
    others would just stop it and not preface what they do with the
    disclaimer: 'I KNOW this is haressment but Ijust can't help myself!'
    
    I guess this is a REAL hot button for me....
    
    Hannah