Yes, that was our job, I was the training coordination for the District. However, I dont know what they did with our feedback, altho they send us a warm letter of thanks. Maybe they just shitcanned it, I dunno. It was new material at that time.
They used most of the same material next year, but that year I just sat thru the required training I didnt give feedback on it.
The names werent on the feedback sheets, just sex and race- which was optional. perhaps at the national Office they did that.
No, in both cases the men asked for someone in the company, it was clear they werent employees. However, to us the roles were obvious, but that doesn’t mean there were to everyone who saw the material.
Yeah, but the question, yes/no was for each vid/scenario “Do you think this was sexual harassment?” or something like that. There was a space at the end of all the questions for comments. Not many people gave any, except “boring” “a waster of time” or “nice course thank you” and similar pleasantries.
Video training with actors like that was somewhat new to us. thus the feedback and out role in deconstructing the material.
I mean as part of the training. You watch the videos, a trainer discusses with the group what people saw in the videos, whether it was harassment, etc.
Yes, and the trainer made notes but few people gave much FB. They just wanted to get to lunch.
One suggestion we made was to set aside some time to do this rather than “does anyone have any feedback or questions?”
You posted the information you thought was relevant. I’m trying to get the information I think is relevant. And I’m trying to understand what your point was/is in bringing it up, and reciting those limited facts.
The thing is, you appeared to be assuming that the sole reason more women thought the scenario with the salesman was harassment than the scenario with the deliveryman was because the deliveryman was more conventionally attractive. Here’s the quote:
We’ve been discussing other possible reasons; and as we don’t have enough information to tell whether those other possible reasons are plausible, we’ve been asking you whether you have such information. Apparently you don’t, and it’s not surprising that you don’t remember all the details of a video you saw 40 years ago or that the video itself isn’t available to link us to; but without additional information we really have no way to judge whether the difference in response had anything to do with what the two actors looked like.
I mean, is it really a groundbreaking observation that women are more likely to view attention from an attractive man favorably relative to an unattractive one?
I assume the same would be true in reverse.
Apparently eschrodinger & thorny_locust refuse to believe that is possible, that instead there must be something wrong with my memory.
To be fair that only reflected things in the early 1980s.
Again, I mean as part of the training, not as a request for feedback. Like, “did anyone think video two showed harassment? Yes? What did you see?” “What about video six? Anyone think that showed any sexual harassment? What did you see?”.
That might have been enlightening. It certainly helps in teaching a subject like this. And, it could potentially help shape policies and future trainings, particularly if women are picking up on something that was thought to not show harassment. It’s not unheard of for a non-diverse group to create something like this and not pick up on something that’s immediately obvious to others.
The training may well have not had a component like that built in, in which case, based on my experience, I would say it was very poorly designed. A training like that works best with some practice application of what you are trying to convey. And of course, only part of the message is “don’t sexually harass.” Part of the message is also “don’t sue us for stuff that’s not harassment.” So part of the training is usually recognition of situations that are not sexual harassment.
As i said, Yes, and the trainer made notes but few people gave much FB. They just wanted to get to lunch.
Let us drop this side tangent. Clearly you dont believe me, and that is your prerogative.
The OP is actually, to get us back on track- about why Hollywood shows mild stalking as romantic, when few women think it is?
DrDeth is the one that posed this question.
That’s why I’ve been asking what point he was trying to make.
I pointed out that a component of the definition of harassment is that the attention was unwanted, and how that connects. I’m not sure if DrDeth agrees that that explains it, since he’s been unresponsive to that question.
It seemed like he was making a point about women and, I don’t know? Hypocrisy? If not, I don’t see what the point was, hence my asking.
I’m actually a little surprised that anyone in the ‘80s thought that a non-employee asking an employee out was sexual harassment that the receptionist’s employer was responsible for preventing, I don’t recall getting training that included that definition until sometime in the mid-90s at least. I mean, the Supreme Court decision establishing that sexual harassment resulting in a hostile work environment but no economic harm was a form of discrimination didn’t happen until 1986 - and I would imagine it took a few more years before it was accepted that an employer might be liable for the behavior of non-employees. Because that’s what sexual harassment training is about in an employment context - making sure the employees all know what constitutes harassment and the company’s procedures to report it. Doesn’t mean the construction workers’ catcalls as I walk from the subway to my office aren’t sexual harassment in some sense- but my employer won’t be liable for them.
I don’t disbelieve you, I just wanted more detail, and to understand the point you were making. But if you are taking this thread all the way back to the OP question, I’ll bow out. I think that has been pretty well hashed out. I mean, maybe someone will come in and say something new that is interesting, but I will bow out until then.
I at least don’t want to be harassed by a pretty man any more than I want to be harassed by an ugly one. And if I’m approached in a fashion that’s not harassment by someone who I find unattractive (which might not be the same person who you find attractive, and might be for reasons having nothing to do with his natural looks): I’m going to turn him down. But I’m not going to call it harassment if it wasn’t harassment.
I like Earl Grey tea. I don’t like, say, Red Zinger tea. If somebody offers me tea, I’d probably accept it if it’s Earl Grey and not accept it if it’s Red Zinger. But if somebody throws tea in my face, I’m not going to like that just because it’s Earl Grey. And if they didn’t throw it in my face, I’m not going to say that they did just because it’s Red Zinger.
– I don’t see how it’s impugning @DrDeth’s memory to say specifically that it’s not surprising they can’t remember details of a video watched 40 years ago.
I certainly think that might be part of the difference. But you keep saying “the script is the same”, except also, that the men’s roles are actually different. And you suggested the viewers would have guessed the roles from how they were acted/dressed, even though the words were the same. And I know I would have felt more pressure to “accommodate” the salesman than I would the delivery guy. So if they said the same words, I would more likely feel harassed by the salesman. Because I can say “please let me get back to work” to the delivery guy if I want to.
So while I don’t think it’s weird that a pretty guy might be perceived as more welcome than an unattractive one, I suspect that’s not the whole answer.
The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill fiasco was in 1991. I don’t remember hearing the term “sexual harassment” before that.
Oh, thank goodness! I was trying to figure out how we impugned his memory by suggesting that something besides attractiveness played a role in judging one encounter as harassing, and another as not.
I wonder, if the same audience were presented with a male receptionist, and a young delivery woman, vs. an older, balding salesman, and the scripts were exactly the same, if the audience would judge that it was harassment in one scenario, and not the other, and it might be easier for some people to see why the perception of the receptionist matters.
Well, one guy was in a suit & tie with a briefcase, and the other guy in a ball cap, short sleeved brown shirt and shorts with a clipboard, so yeah.