Is the Definition of Sexual Harassment Too Narrow in Today's Workplace?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JOEBIALEK
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the definition and implications of sexual harassment in the workplace, particularly in light of recent allegations and perceptions of dress codes. Participants explore the nuances of behavior, responsibility, and societal norms regarding sexual conduct and attire in professional settings.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that sexual harassment is narrowly defined and question whether current definitions adequately address workplace dynamics.
  • Concerns are raised about women allegedly disregarding dress codes to attract attention, with some suggesting this behavior complicates the issue of harassment.
  • Others argue that regardless of attire, men should be responsible for their actions and not react inappropriately to women's clothing choices.
  • There are claims that women who dress provocatively and then complain about attention are acting foolishly, though this perspective is contested.
  • Some participants express a belief that the legal framework surrounding harassment favors women, while others argue that the law applies equally to all parties involved.
  • Several comments reflect a sentiment that men may feel hesitant to report harassment due to perceived biases in the legal system.
  • One participant shares a personal experience of feeling pressured by a female coworker, raising questions about gender dynamics in harassment claims.
  • There is a suggestion that societal attitudes towards sexual behavior in the workplace have shifted since the 1960s, with calls for a reevaluation of current norms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the definitions or implications of sexual harassment. Disagreement exists regarding the responsibilities of individuals based on their attire and the perceived biases in legal protections.

Contextual Notes

Some statements reflect personal experiences and opinions that may not be universally applicable. The discussion includes assumptions about gender behavior and societal expectations that are not explicitly supported by data.

  • #31
motai said:
It reminds me of when an honest guy compliments a girl on her dress and ends up being branded as a pervert.
You can say "nice dress" and have it sound complimentary or derogatory. A lot has to do with body language, tone of voice and facial expresions. Unfortunately, all of these things can be all too easily misinterpreted.

My former boss used to surprise me at work with flowers all of the time, buy me gifts, take me out to lunch, always commenting on how pretty I looked. My boss was female so no one thought anything of it, she just liked to make me and the others feel appreciated. If she had been male, the entire office would have talked about it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
JohnDubYa said:
Only if he's ugly or old. If it's Brad Pitt...
Sure, how would it work for you JohnDubYa?

But I don't think a guy should be sued unless he's gotten a clear message to stop and continues with his behaviour. I've known bordercases, where I didn't think to much of it, but a male colleague almost blew a fuse..

Some things are just not appropriate, it gets tricky when you want to define a boundary.
 
  • #33
Evo said:
You can say "nice dress" and have it sound complimentary or derogatory. A lot has to do with body language, tone of voice and facial expresions. Unfortunately, all of these things can be all too easily misinterpreted.

My former boss used to surprise me at work with flowers all of the time, buy me gifts, take me out to lunch, always commenting on how pretty I looked. My boss was female so no one thought anything of it, she just liked to make me and the others feel appreciated. If she had been male, the entire office would have talked about it.

Does she have a mullet? :eek:
 
  • #34
JohnDubYa said:
Only if he's ugly or old. If it's Brad Pitt...


Very true. If an attractive male made a passing comment then it would be taken as a compliment but if an ugly man did he would be a "pervert".

However it does work the other way. If I were hit on by an attractive co-worker, I would accept the compliments and enjoy the attention. But if I were hit on by an unnattractive co-worker... I'd probably just ignore her like I ignore the customers I hate.. :-p
 
  • #35
dduardo said:
Does she have a mullet? :eek:
:smile: :smile: No.
 
  • #36
jimmy p said:
Very true. If an attractive male made a passing comment then it would be taken as a compliment but if an ugly man did he would be a "pervert".

However it does work the other way. If I were hit on by an attractive co-worker, I would accept the compliments and enjoy the attention. But if I were hit on by an unnattractive co-worker... I'd probably just ignore her like I ignore the customers I hate.. :-p
That's terrible :mad: :eek:
and the worse is that you seem aware of it. If an unattractive girl compliment or be nice to me, I would be glad as well.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
I think he is admitting to reality.
 
  • #38
jimmy p said:
But if I were hit on by an unnattractive co-worker... I'd probably just ignore her like I ignore the customers I hate.. :-p

The point here, is that you surely wouldn't haul her ass to court.

Now, was that inappropriate language ?
 
  • #39
There is a difference between a compliment and sexual harassment..
 
  • #40
Monique said:
There is a difference between a compliment and sexual harassment..

There is? With so many court cases flying about it kinda makes me think twice before complimenting someone.

Or maybe I am exaggerating a little bit.
 
  • #41
Hey everyone

Just joined..

Thought this is a 'cut and dry' case, but isn't frm the looks of it. It's interesting how different gents and ladies see this topic. I agree SH is about body language, tone, etc. But it's also about CONSISTENCY. 'Harrassment' refers to unwanted behaviour from another party on an ongoing basis. If the behaviour is derogatory or defaming is irrelevant when applying it to everyone. It basically cmes down to whether or not the person 'reciprocates' - returns the behaviour - or does not. Interesting stuff. Weird how we need laws to handle such a basic human right - the right to behaviour and the right to refusal of that behaviour.
 
  • #42
donnie said:
I agree SH is about body language, tone, etc. But it's also about CONSISTENCY. 'Harrassment' refers to unwanted behaviour from another party on an ongoing basis.
good you joined donnie! :smile:

I think that is a good definition too, I really have no knowledge about the court cases.. a guy surely can't be sued for making a compliment, right? I know, some people have dollar signs in their eyes and will sue for about anything..
 
  • #43
It's unfair if someone is sued for any type of verbalisation, no matter how crude it is. And it's an even more unfair system of justice that will allow that case to take place. Just think, I can hall Brad Pitt into court for just saying a swear word to the camera in a movie I saw last week at the cinema! Or I can sue the taxi driver that swore at me when I cut in front of him yesterday...

But that's on the face of it. There's something called 'extenuating circumstances' (keys are slippery!). These circumstances are what the case is really based on. Like the cnsistency of the undesired behaviour and the effects of that behaviour on the receiving person.
 
  • #44
donnie said:
Hey everyone

I agree SH is about body language, tone, etc. But it's also about CONSISTENCY. 'Harrassment' refers to unwanted behaviour from another party on an ongoing basis. If the behaviour is derogatory or defaming is irrelevant when applying it to everyone.

this is a very valid point that so many of us overlooked! a comment that was well intended but mistook shouldn't be immediate consideration of sexual harrassment...
 
  • #45
JohnDubYa said:
Only if he's ugly or old. If it's Brad Pitt...

Heck, you don't even need to be Brad Pitt. I've hit on plenty of co-workers, and all of them went out with me at least once or twice. Only one was under my supervision, though. I'd say the best way is to just be as upfront as possible. Offer a ride home or a post-work drink, and then make your move. Don't do it at work.
 

Similar threads

News ROFLMAO happy new year from bill blum
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K