No worries; just pointing out that not everyone in this thread is using the past tense.
Exactly, females rated that versions higher on “sexual harassment”.
And this thread has been quite good. General agreement, only disagreement is if a women sez “Not tonight” can a guy ask one more time. We pretty all agree that third time is right out.
And even tho i am out of the dating pool, I think some SDMBers who are not have maybe learned a little.
I still wonder whether that was appearance or body language and/or tone. The script, in the sense of the words, may be exactly the same, but the presentation may be significantly different. Is there a link to the video itself?
Also, it’s possible that the difference in the workplace roles of the two men could affect perceptions of them:
A white-collar salesman chatting up a receptionist does give off a somewhat different vibe from the UPS guy chatting up a receptionist. If the video had made both the handsome guy and the un-handsome guy working-class deliveryman types, or made both of them suited salesman types, and the audience assessments still differed, I’d be more inclined to think that the handsome guy was indeed getting more of a pass on harassing behavior just because of his looks.
That’s why I asked some questions that DrDeth seems to have missed, a few posts up. For the audience to know he’s a salesman, it’s seems like there would have to be a difference in the scripts. But maybe I’m missing something. Also, it’s really important to know what definition of harassment was being used.
A high caste person looses caste just by seeing a low caste person, more so by being spoken to by a low caste person, and even more so by being asked out by a low caste person. It’s something a lot of people learn fairly early. Loosing caste affects your other relationships, and requires ritual purification.
Where it falls down is with people who are never treated with respect. They don’t learn to differentiate between people of their own class and people who are out of their class.
I don’t know exactly which video DrDeth is talking about, but for the audience to know he’s a salesman only requires a minor change in the script. The UPs guy doesn’t need to tell the receptionist why he’s there but the salesman needs to say something like " I’m Joe from Acme paper company and I’m here to see Frank."
Sure, that doesn’t work if the man is a salesman who is supposed to work for the same company as the receptionist - but in my experience of these videos, there is always a section about how sexual harassment policies apply to third parties like vendors , clients, customers etc. and it makes more sense to swap out the salesman for the delivery driver when the are both non-employees as far as the receptionist’s company is concerned.
She has a much stronger job obligation to be nice to the salesman than to be nice to the UPS guy. The salesman has a choice of where to take his business, and what deal to offer. The UPS guy doesn’t. Just that is a real difference.
The word “younger” just now jumped out at me. The age of the salesman relative to the receptionist makes a difference as well.
For example, if the salesman is attractive, but obviously significantly older than the receptionist, and the delivery driver is not especially attractive, but about the same age as the receptionist, you might get the same results-- in other words, the fact that the salesman is older might have a big influence on whether his attention is seen as harassing. And actual bad behavior is sometimes excused in the very young. We don’t know how young the driver was. If it was merely young relative to the salesman, that’s one thing, but if he was objectively young, like under 24, there may have been a tendency to brush of something questionable he did as him not knowing better.
That is a very good point.
True; in part because age can influence a power differential, and is very likely to influence the perception of a power differential.
And we’ve already got the good point that the receptionist is likely to have equal or greater power than the delivery person, while the salesman may have power over the receptionist.
I wonder why the people who designed the course didn’t make appearance the only difference, instead of also changing age and position. Maybe the point they were trying to make was the reverse of the one that seems to have been taken – they were trying to point out that it’s still harassment despite differences in both appearance and power differential, the exact reverse of trying to say that whether it’s harassment depends on looks, and not even the same thing as trying to say that whether it’s harassment doesn’t depend on looks.
But whether it’s harassment can actually depend on whether there’s power differential – if the person being approached can’t say no without worrying about repercussions, then no approach is acceptable (even if the person doing the approaching doesn’t actually intend any retaliation for a no, because the person being approached can’t be sure of that.) If the people are clearly on the same level of power or the asker is a bit lower, then although a workplace approach is always tricky there are some versions of approach in which one ask is OK. (Though I would definitely not consider OK a cold ask to a stranger on the grounds that the receptionist smiled at you.)
Coming back to jump off from this:
I think very often, also, people only notice the women who liked that particular set of answers.
Say there’s ten women at a party. Four of them are clustered around Mr. Suave. That’s pretty obvious. What’s a whole lot less obvious is the other six women, who aren’t. Those women aren’t looking for Mr. Suave; they’re looking for somebody else – quite possibly six different somebody elses. And at least a couple of them are probably actively turned off by Mr. Suave.
The script said 'salesman" and for the other guy “deliveryman” and they looked the part. The viewers could perceive them as something else, of course.
This was after the federal sexual harassment class was given, and that was in the early 1980s.
I still don’t understand what task you were doing. What script? Were you reading a script, in addition to watching the videos? Did all of the people watching have a copy of the script?
Were the people who were judging whether something was harassment provided with a definition of that term? What was the definition? What’s your definition?
It sounded like you were saying you had some meta role in this, not just watching it. Can you explain?
It just seems fairly pointless to discuss your very brief subjective account of some videos based on memory. And I’d still like to know what your answer to your own question is. What conclusion are you drawing from your account this exercise?
We had the videos and the script for the vids.
No, they just watched the vids.
Yes, as I said before they had rcvd the full federal sexual harassment training, this was during the end parts of the class. Each class was shown several vids and judged them on whether or not they thought that was sexual harassment (some very very clearly harassment, the vid I am talking about was supposed to be one which generally wasnt supposed to be harassment) . Besides the ones I mentioned there were like five more for a total of six. The vids varied but each class got one version of the receptionist vid.
Yes, the team that I was on was going over the results sometime after the training to how the training went.
You either trust my memory or you dont on something like this. You are free to totally ignore it.
However, most posters here seem to think that what i noted would be logical, but for varied reasons.
If you’re including me in that: what I’m saying is that it might be logical, but without actually seeing the video it’s impossible to tell.
Since the video was apparently shown some time during the 80’s, it might be hard to get ahold of, or gone altogether.
Do I understand you correctly that the people who designed and showed the video thought at the time that what it was depicting wasn’t harassment, and were surprised to find that despite the instruction some of the women who saw it thought that it was?
Mildly surprised since we emphasized that Harrassment isnt a black/white thing. We thought that a few would call it, we were surprised at the number.
So you helped design the training?
The brief summary of a subjective memory just lends itself to things like saying it’s a salesman, but then later adding the fact that the audience wouldn’t know he was a salesman – just an older, balding guy in a suit, right?
You still haven’t told me what definition of sexual harassment was being used. If this is from the 80s, I’m not sure what the training would likely have said. Both the law and society have changed since then.
I don’t understand this. Are you saying that her body language doesn’t matter? Or that it doesn’t trump the, you always get to ask twice unless she gave a hard no rule? How does body language come into play, and how does one’s ability to read social cues come into play? If one knows one is bad at that, should one try to learn to do it better?
Finally, how come the woman “sez” something, but the man “says” something?
Did you provide that feedback up through channels and/or to other people providing training in the subject? I wouldn’t be surprised if in the 80’s even the people providing training didn’t recognize some versions of harassment as such.
Since it apparently only occured to plural-you at the time that the “attractiveness” might make a difference, and not that power issues might be making the difference, the feedback would have been incomplete; but it would have been something.
I wonder if there were follow-up discussions about why people thought harassment was depicted. I was a corporate trainer in the early 90s, and I can’t really imagine reviewing scenarios like that with employees and not discussing their thoughts about them.
I also think almost any single scene like that, with one person asking another out on a date, would fall into a “not enough information” category. Some people will answer based on assumptions, and then part of the training might be to ferret out the different assumptions people are making. Like possibly reading an older man as the receptionist’s boss, or superior in the organization. During the 80s, if it was a young, female receptionist, it might have been a very common assumption that the older man did or might “outrank” her. A delivery person has a more clear role in relation to hers.
I’ll just throw out there, under current standards, part of determining if something is sexual harassment is whether it is unwanted sexualized attention or conduct. Does anyone think that, in asking people to judge a scenario where a man asks out a woman, some people might guess at whether it was unwanted based on the man’s perceived attractiveness, as well as other cues? Is that more wrong than assuming the attention was wanted?
As I said above, based on the information given, I think the scenarios as described would just not have enough information to tell. But maybe there was more to the videos.
No, I was vetting if after it was done for future usages. Our feedback likely changed a few things, but the films and materials were standard Federal fare.
Like I said, there is nothing subjective - the script was there and he was called 'salesman". Does it really matter?
The definition the Federal government used for it’s training in the early 1980s’ Look it up if you want.
Why is this so important, why are you getting in ny face over tiny details?