I work at a TV station, and my previous boss was a woman- she used to make sexual comments about the “hunks” on the daytime soaps to female co-workers. Some of the guys would make exaggerated “eww” gestures, but I along with most of the guys took it as being all in fun. Conservatives would have us believe guys are afraid to act the same way at work, but I haven’t seen it- there is a pretty obvious line between joking and sexual harassment, and only those with no social skills are worried about crossing it.
For me the difference is:
Nekkid centrefold inside man’s locker - no problem
Nekkid centrefold pinned on front of man’s locker - big problem
It’s not just the objectification of women/female employees feeling uncomfortable, it’s also that there’s a place and a time for nekkid pics, and in full view of everyone in a public workplace is not it.
Any system of belief that gets pegged as an “ism” is easily depicted as a caricature of itself.
Consider the wisdom of Ferris Bueller:
Ferris: “It’s not that I condone fascism…or any “ism” for that matter. “Isms” in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an “ism”, they should believe in themself. I quote John Lennon, “I don’t believe in Beatles…I just believe in me.” A good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus, I’d still have to bum rides off of people!”
Stoid - you missed it - the ‘stalking’ started with sexual harassment on the job, that when unchecked. Because of peculiarities involved in that specific instance (which would be difficult to replicate), no, I did not sue. However, I was not only uncomfortable on the job, but off the job and afraid of that guy. (in addition to his other ‘charms’ he regaled us w/tales of things he did to other people who pissed him off, everything from putting pubic hairs in their coffee cups to stuff being sent to their homes, etc etc.). He was transferred to another part of the state and ultimately fired.
However, I absolutely believe in the right of an employee to sue for workplace issues especially when the situation has been unaddressed and allowed to fester.
It bothers me that the stance here seems to be the old school of ‘buck up and don’t take things so seriously’. A work place is not your home. What you may feel comfortable with or desire in your home is not the same as where you must work to earn your living.
I remember the ‘good old days’ when it was standard to have ‘my girl call your girl’, and slaps on the ass were acceptable behavior. This was also the time of racially charged humor being acceptable. And I applaud the fact that these things are not so generally accepted today.
and there is no way that I would demand of women (or anyone else) to put up with sexual, racial etc harassment from their supervisors or co workers.
Why hello there, Anita Hill. Didn’t know you were a member of the SDMB. 
Well, you aren’t suggesting that unchecked sexual harassment leads to stalking, are you?
So do I, depending on what kind of “situation” we’re talking about.
I agree completely. But that’s not what I’m advocating. I said right at the top that some things are inappropriate for most workplaces. But there is a big spectrum starting at “inappropriate” and going to “sexual harassment”.
**
[/quote]
I remember the ‘good old days’ when it was standard to have ‘my girl call your girl’, and slaps on the ass were acceptable behavior. This was also the time of racially charged humor being acceptable. And I applaud the fact that these things are not so generally accepted today.
and there is no way that I would demand of women (or anyone else) to put up with sexual, racial etc harassment from their supervisors or co workers. **
[/QUOTE]
Neither would I. But we’re back to definitions, which would be my point to begin with.
stoid
Does sexual harassment cause stalking? of course not. However you’d be foolish to assume that unchecked sexual harassment would always end w/just harassment.
can things get to an absurd degree? of course they can. Have they at present? Not only have I not seen evidence of that, I continue to see evidence of unwarrented, repeatedly rejected advances, hostile work environments, sexual and racial harassment.
There has been some movement towards equality in the pay area (but we’re still not there), and to suggest at this point that somehow feminism is responsible for perpetuating stereotypes, and that the pendulum has swung too far to the other side has not been supported, and isn’t true at all, from my experience (which, of course, includes the experiences of my clients who talk to me about work place issues).
Well, you aren’t suggesting that unchecked sexual harassment leads to stalking, are you?
So do I, depending on what kind of “situation” we’re talking about.
I agree completely. But that’s not what I’m advocating. I said right at the top that some things are inappropriate for most workplaces. But there is a big spectrum starting at “inappropriate” and going to “sexual harassment”.
**
[/quote]
I remember the ‘good old days’ when it was standard to have ‘my girl call your girl’, and slaps on the ass were acceptable behavior. This was also the time of racially charged humor being acceptable. And I applaud the fact that these things are not so generally accepted today.
and there is no way that I would demand of women (or anyone else) to put up with sexual, racial etc harassment from their supervisors or co workers. **
[/QUOTE]
Neither would I. But we’re back to definitions, which would be my point to begin with.
stoid
Ooops. That’s what I get for going swimming with a reply window on my screen.
(eighty laps…3/4 of a mile! I ROCK!)
I think that used to be seen as a basic rule of civilized conduct. I refer you to The Philadelphia Story.
Stoid, re your point about the man being drunk, too. I think in this situation, the suspicion often is that the man set out to get the woman drunk. Naturally, he’d be drinking too, but if this was a scheme on his part, he’d be careful to stay sober enough to acomplish his goal. OTOH, if he had no such plot in mind, they’d probably both get about equally drunk; by the time she was too drunk to resist, he’d be too drunk to perform.
IMHO, that is a double standard.
Do you feel that way because you really believe in your heart that 16 year old girls and 16 year old boys are on the same page sexually, or some other reason? Because I’ve never known a man who remembers being 16, or a boy of 16, who would not or did not welcome wholeheartedly the attentions of a much older woman. Women and girls? Much dicier.
I find this to be a double standard, too, unless the boy in question was perfectly happy with the situation and was going “Whoohoo! I scored!” in which case I would tend to find “ride 'em, cowboy” a more appropriate response. I think there have definitely been cases in which older women have had abusive/manipulative sexual relationships with younger men–it’s not just limited to older men and younger women. I do not think that it is fair to assume that all teenage boys always want sex all the time in all situations: yes, young guys tend to be horny, but to say “of course he wanted to sleep with her, he’s a sixteen-year-old guy!” is too close to “she’s a hot chick, of course she wants it” for my comfort.
I don’t see the comparison at all! “She’s a hot chick” is a statement about how others might want her, not what she wants… “Of course he’s horny, he’s 16” is about his condition of wanting it. Completely different.
Stoid, great post .
I don’t know about the seeing a penis or playboy pinup issue though…everyone has a different tolerance for sexual content.
The other day my (male) coworker asked me to shut down a bunch of porn popups (not his fault, another guy had changed his homepage as a joke, so he started the computer and got a bunch of “lolita” style pictures.) Now this guy is a very devout Baptist and was genuinely disturbed and upset by this. It was a sucky thing to do. I didn’t feel harassed at all, actually I was happy to help. He undoubtedly did–he was hideously embarassed and very upset, even though we are good friends and he knows that I’m relatively unshockable. (I have to admit I don’t understand why a woman would be shocked by seeing a pics of, well, a nekkid women…)
There’s no reason for people (at my workplace anyway) to put sexual material up at all even if no-one would be shocked. Even if everyone likes it, for most of us work isn’t where we should be getting off. And I’d rather not be wondering what the guy in the next cubicle is making those squeaky noises for either, it would be distracting…
Other than that, I’m not at all suprised you’re another rational feminist. (and isn’t it annoying when someone has to preface some perfectly great feminist viewpoint with “I’m not a feminist, but…” because they want to avoid being seen as some man hater? I know a lot of feminist who’d be insulted if I called them that, and they’re the best sort ;))
I think that stoid is absolutely suggesting that women ‘buck up and don’t take things so seriously’ (my charge on page one), that since she personally doesn’t find pornography offensive in any way, that no woman should. And that she denies that repeated exposure to such items in the workplace could constitute sexual harassment, since although she agrees that it ‘shouldn’t be in most workplaces’ that it doesn’t consitute a hostile work environment.
INteresting, too, that she holds a double standard re: underaged sexual contacts, again, judging how the world should react by her own personal observations amongst her personal friends and acquaintences. Apparently, it’s perfectly ok for the female of the species to be a ‘nervous nellie’ sexually when underaged, but incomprehensible that a male (while being able to respond physically) might not feel absolutely ok about it. Of course, the 16/17 year old males who complained of being molested by priests would most probably disagree.
Interesting thread.
I have three comments. One is pro Stoid’s position, one is agin, and one’s about a tangent. Y’all can decide where I stand, 'cause I ain’t sure. 
Point the first. Stoid, I think you miss a big point about sexual harassment laws - predictability. I think that everyone, including you, agree that at some point, sexual misconduct in the workplace gets to a point where it adversely affects a person’s (male or female) ability to operate effectively in that workplace, to the detriment of promotion opportunities, job performance, etc. And I also submit (and I think that you agree), that that point is somewhere prior to “suck my dick or you’re fired.”
The question, of course, is “where is that line?” And there’s the rub. Personally, I find it deeply irritating that I have to behave differently with my work female friends then my other female friends and (perhaps even more irritatingly) I can’t develop the sort of relationships I have with my work friends that I do with my non-work friends because of sexual harrassment concerns. OTOH, what is very, very, very important is that people be able to predict the legal ramifications of their behavior. And to that end, it’s a good idea to set the bar pretty low. Jews call this (in another context, obviously) putting a “fence around the Torah.” It’s why observant Jews don’t eat chicken and cheese together, even though this, strictly speaking, would not violate kashrut laws. And it’s why putting Miss June up on the wall is a stupid idea.
Point the Second. I believe that it’s wrong, both personally and philisophically, that sex is considered a special category. I’m not quite sure why Miss June is actionable (or, in a nod to minty’s valid points, at least offensive), while a photo of the baseball squirting through Buckner’s legs, in an office filled with Red Sox fans, isn’t.
Point the Third
Hazel, I have a lot of respect for you, but this is asinine, on so many different levels.
First, it leads us back into “women are helpless.” Even assuming that the Big Bad Man is really trying to get the woman drunk, the woman is the person putting the glass to her lips and drinking the evil brew. Barring GHB or Roofies, which I don’t think is the point of the discussion here, the BBM can’t make the woman get drunk. So, the whole suspicion, even if true, is premised on a belief that men are in control. Patently untrue, even if I can only speak anecdotally.
Second, the scenario only works under “ideal” conditions. The BBM, among other things, has to know the “vitcim’s” tolerance, has to monitor and control her drinking, etc. It’s just silly. I’m sure that it does sometimes happen, but to assume that the BBM is working this scenario on a poor woman is ridiculous. 99% of the time, that just ain’t what’s going on.
Third, this “if he was just drinking without a plan; otherwise he’d be too drunk to perform” is ludicrous. First, my general impression is that the majority of males who are “too drunk to perform” are the same ones who are “too drunk to do anything but lie in the corner and vomit on themselves.” Even men who are stupid, seeing double drunk can very often still have sex. Second, there are innocent explanations for why a man wouldn’t be as drunk as the women in question. Third, “not as drunk” doesn’t mean “sober even to accurately discern the woman’s mental state.”
Quite frankly, the whole idea, at least taken as a natural suspicion, strikes me as paranoia.
Sua
Well, you can think you know alot of stuff, doesn’t mean you do. I’m telling you (and did in the OP) that I can understand being offended by sexual material in the workplace, and I think you have the right to complain, and that it usually not appropriate to have it there in the first place. However, I also said, and am saying again, that concluding that it constitutes sexual harassment against you personally is narcissistic AND counterproductive to what I always understood the ultimate goal of feminism to be: for men and women to be treated as equals: both mature, competent and capable as adults. Part of this is not fainting at the site of a naked woman OR man. As has been shown by many of the responses in this thread from both men and women, mature adults generally don’t fall apart at exposure to naked women.
If your co-workers are making it a point to post fuck pictures in your cubicle every morning and hiding dildos in your lunch sack because they think it’s funny to watch you spin out about it, THAT is sexual harassment. But I don’t think it needs the “sexual” modifier, it’s just harassment.
If you are the only female working in, for instance, an auto mechanic’s, and the guys have a few Penthouse Pets on the walls, I think that yeah, you should get over it or go work someplace a little less testosterone-laden.
Clear enough?
Well, we weren’t talking about boys being raped by men, were we? We were talking about boys being seduced by women. Rather a different thing altogether in MY book, don’t know about yours.
Again, I said in the OP, men and women are equal, not the same. And boys and girls even more so.
But as long as we’re on the subject, as a general rule I don’t get my nose too out of joint about any 16+ having sex with just about anyone, so long as they aren’t forced. I remember being 16, and having 16 year old friends, and by 16 most people are making their sexual choices freely. Perhaps badly, but freely.
** Sua **, I really have no argument to anything you’ve said… I just think that lowering the bar to accomodate the most offendable among us is wrong. Nor do I think it should be raised to the level of the least offendable. But I think it really has gone too far and the effect has been chilling in a very sad way.
After all, how many happy relationships have come from workplace romances? Hell, where the hell else ya gonna meet someone these days?
And back to my original point, I think lowering the bar to protect the most offendable just reinforces negative opinions about women…that they are weak, whiny, complaining, spineless and a big fat pain in the ass to have around, no one can have any fun, and we’re all a buncha schoolmarms.
It’s like we can’t break out of the roles no matter what we do…since forever women have been one of three things: nuns, mothers and whores. If we can laugh at the dirty jokes with the boys we’re just whores, and if not, treat us like nuns and moms.