How has your understanding of sexual harassment changed over the years?
Posted at 5:00 AM on November 2, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(41 Comments)
Filed under: Race/Gender, Religion/Ethics
Herman Cain's presidential campaign has been dogged this week by allegations that he sexually harassed two women while head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s. The controversy comes 20 years after Senate hearings into sexual harassment charges against Clarence Thomas, then a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Today's Question: How has your understanding of sexual harassment changed over the years?
Comments (41)
That's an excellent point, Dave. Thanks for raising it. I've noticed that it's socially acceptable these days for women to demean men in ways that men would be pilloried for if they did it to women. It's an over-correction from the days when men's demeaning of women was tolerated.
@kimMN,
Who said anything about abortion?
Anyway, you wrote, in reference to Bill O'Reilly, "75% of viewers can't all be wrong." Are you saying the truth is a matter of public opinion or television ratings? How about if I say, "The majority of voters who voted for Obama can't all be wrong"?
You keep coming up with these off-topic rants about issues that have little or no connection to "Today's Question." Is someone paying you for each time you blast away at "liberal" ideas, regardless of how lame your argument is? And is that why you previously accused me of being a paid shill, to deflect suspicion from yourself? Ill take your silence on this question as an acknowledgement of it's truth.
Today’s conversation on sexual harassment once more focused on men as the sole perpetuators of oppression in the work force. Do I believe sexual harassment of women by men is common place? Absolutely, but the naivety of the host regarding women’s transgressions at work demonstrates the continued blind eye to the reality of sexual harassment. Female harassment of men is significant and I would argue common in the work place.
I work for a major fortune 500 company, in a mid level executive position and have witness and experienced sexual harassment by women and men. Most egregious was the behavior of two female coworkers and a male business director. To be sure, all three were perpetrators of unbelievable behavior. What made the entire experience so negative was the reaction of the women and the corporation, once a disgruntled husband, called our HR department. The women, who had been the instigators, cried harassment against the director. The director was terminated (which he deserved) the women not only were retained, but received sizeable settlements, to the tune of 2 times their annual salary.
Those of us, who were the real victims, were deposed by lawyers. We revealed the level of the sexual harassment and the behavior we had witnesses. I was told by lead council that they appreciated my truthfulness and notified that discussion of the deposition details to anyone outside of HR and legal would lead to my immediate termination. I felt, as a man, zero sympathy from the female HR director and female lead council. I felt gutted by the threat of termination. To cap it off, I had to listen to my two female coworkers play the victim card when every other man and women in the office new better.
Is this an isolated experience? Absolutely not. While in college, I had a summer factory job. Almost every day my male 20 year old coworker and I experienced sexual barbs intended to embarrass us. It was comp place to be groped from behind and even in the groin area. I wasn’t scared, I was upset, and I just considered the source and worked my day. In fact I get more upset now, when I listen to radio shows dispelling the myth that men are the sole perpetrators.
As a closing point I would like to share an experience my 20 year old son had about a month ago. He attended a college costume party and afterwards went to a local late night restaurant with some friends. Dressed as a Scottish Highlander wearing a kilt, he and his friends waited for a table.. In came a group of women in their 30’s. They were drunk and began to flirt with the boys. As my son stood there talking to his friends, one of the women pulled down his kilt and underwear. The boys and the women had a good laugh, the groups were seated separately and enjoyed a late night meal.
The next day my son called to tell me the story. He thought it was funny and I think he wanted to see if I would “tweek”. We talked about appropriate behavior and I used it as a very serious coaching moment. After the call I turned to my wife and asked. If our son had pulled down a women’s skirt in a restaurant what do you think would have happened. Her response. Our son would have been arrested for sexual assault. He would have been labeled as a sex offender and his future would have been changed forever. I asked her, what about this woman. Her response…..It’s a double standard.
@steve comment re: lemmings.
When ever a liberal gets stuck or refuses to address any divergent ideas or the facts of a matter, they resort to name calling just as they did to Palin, Bachmann, and others that are challenging their ideas.
Caine is the latest example_ they use verbal lynching...how tolerant the Progressives are, unless it is something they disagree with.
The Sexual harassment stance to a Progressive is like their stance with abortion , (their view of Right to Choose). ..if it fits their need not the victim's need.
Ask a liberal progressive_what exactly__ are they __choosing___ when they support abortion whether by a scissors to the spine , a suction clamp to the baby's head or a toxic chemical injected to burn the neuro networks to cause death. Choosing what? Choosing to kill a baby, 1st trimester or third trimester..makes no difference when CHOOSING to kill a help[less life because it is inconvenient to the mother to carry through the pregnancy? If those who support abortion had similar liked mothers, they wouldn't be here....thank your mother for the life you have.
Now go see KGOTV web site for the reported interviews on OWS....just a few bad apples eh? sickening crap supported by some of our top leaders and allowed to continue in oakland.
Right, kimMN. That many lemmings can't all be wrong, can they?
That is to say, natural is not a synonym for good.
@stevecynic.
Steve says, "It's not worthy of national news when someone takes advantage of a street protest to commit rape." Yes Steve, not when it is something that happened repeatedly at protests approved by the Progressives but when a rumor that someone spit at a black congressmen at a tea party event ( later proved never to have happened) but it was on national news media 14 times. the Caine story was on CNN today non stop. If it was a Democrat, it would have been once and short just like when Cooper Anderson today ends a discussion and ignores if anything is brought up about negative Sexual harassment issues with President Clinton's sexual deviance past.
Sexual harassment issues shows today that it all depends on who is complaining. Just as other issues were ignored if i didn't jive with the liberal view of their agenda and favorites.
For example: How many questions were brought by the main street media, including NPR, over Obama's pre 2008 involvement with an unrepentant terrorist named Bill Ayers? Just once . And that was after Fox News brought it up.
The media let it go after Obama said,
" Ayers?..oh, he's just a guy in the neighborhood..we live within a few blocks of each other_ you see lots of people walking down the street." Obama didn't mention he worked with Ayers on multiple Chicago projects or that Ayers did his coming out party in Ayer's living room. Ayers should be in prison for his weather underground radical attacks in the late 60's. ..and yet America never knew this and voted for him as a result of ignorance and the media's bais shown by what they _ don't_ report. No different than the filthy OWS protests. The main street media can't bad mouth them with factual reports after Obama and Pelosi and Reid supported them....no wonder The Bill O'Reilly Factor show on Fox remains the top rated watched show in 12 years running. 75% of viewers can't all be wrong.
@NOT lucy
You have a rosier opinion of human nature than I do. I don't believe in the myth of the noble savage. In my experience, greedy, self-centered hedonism seems to arise spontaneously in humans. It's generosity and mutual respect that has to be taught, or it won't be learned. The idea that all the good stuff in human nature is innate, while the bad stuff is learned, is mere superstition.
"Eventually they will all leave the workforce and this hopefully will become a rare issue."
Have you been to a Jr. High School lately? Kids don't have to learn to be harassers. They come by it naturally. "
I disagree with you here Steve Cynic. There is nothing natural about bullying another person. Sexual harrassment is just that, bullying. Kids certainly do learn this behavior and it starts at home.
On the contrary, kimMN, it's you who's confusing the issue by turning every single "Today's Question" into a flimsy excuse to rant against anything not as far right as you are. Sexual harassment is not a conservative or liberal issue. It's inappropriate no matter who does it. It's newsworthy when a public official or candidate for office does it. It's not newsworthy when a random miscreant does it. It's not worthy of national news when someone takes advantage of a street protest to commit rape.
As for the stuff about Obama that you complain was not covered before the election, I distinctly remember hearing about all those things. I heard equally bad things about McCain, too. I remain convinced that neither one is nearly as bad as the negative press made them out to be.
Anyway, kimMN, I hope you keep posting. You make a good example of the ridiculousness of the far right. The more you rant, the more folks can see how spurious your ideology is.
Maybe for some it's a serious issue, but the only experience I've had with it is when a female coworker filed a lawsuit on a company I used to work for AFTER she was laid off. I can say she dished it out and so got it back in kind. She made me feel uncomfortable because some of the stuff she said was not appropriate, and you never know who would take issue. It was better to just avoid the whole thing and her.
Anyway she sued, a few good people got fired, and she'll never work in this industry again. She got a short term monetary gain and now has to go back to school to find a new career, has no references for a couple years of her life, and is paying off student loans for her previous career.
She has a history if suing people, she even previously sued her boyfriend and won.
Today sexual harassment is so subjective that it can be used by literally any disgruntled female employee to get revenge on a co-worker or their employer. The only requirement is that one person needs to feel "uncomfortable"; that means someone telling an off color joke that everyone in the office thinks is funny except one person could literally mean sexually harassment happened to that one person. We need to go back to objective things that are inappropriate (such as actually touching someone) and charge men/women committing those acts with crimes rather than all of these lawsuits against large businesses just to pay out huge settlements. The only language that should be inappropriate in a business should be threatening someone with being fired or promoted based on sexual advances. Vulgar language is not sexual harassment (unless a direct threat is made upon you), there is a fine line between freedom of speech and where sexual harassment begins. If you feel something is inappropriate then go to the boss and if they are not helpful just find another job. If someone actually commits a crime against you just go to the police and report it...you should be looking for justice not a big cash payout.
I am in the mechanical engineering field and have worked hard to successfully be a trailblazer in a male dominated field that other women can aspire to. I believe my confidence was my key to success and it is extra important for women in male dominated industries to know their rights as employees and let no man or woman harass them on any level.
There was a time or two I did add to the question of the day. I did enjoy the thoughtful postings.
Now it looks like it is a ranting session for a few posters. I do love to read what others do post but now it looks like a personal vendetta against anything left of center.
As for the question of the day; Treating others with respect will get respect in return. My thoughts have changed greatly over the years on sexual harrasment. Yes now I do think before I say something that might be considered improper.
My understanding of Sexual Harassment views has changed greatly over the past years.
This article is a must read for anyone in search of the contrary views and how media shapes the discussion.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/1825/the-double-standard-making-false-accusations-for-publicity-and-profit/
Al Sharpton is probably the greatest offender of promoting false accusations.
Wouldn't it be fun to have MPR ask:
" Are there double standards applied as based upon which political side one is on?"
@david and steve the cynic__
david says...."NPR, MNBC, CBS and ABC refuse to air those stories of rape or sexual harassment" Because they are not in the habit of making up stories to promote a political agenda..."
Steve confuses the issue: The issue is that those media selectively refuse to air stories that may be negative toward their political_agenda.
They refused to air stories and refused to do the research for many issues about their big agenda item (Obama) in 2008. They refused to mention he had no career work of being responsible to other's paychecks, never ran a business, that he spoke often of having the unions with him every step of the way and would always make decisions with their input, the media refused to ask why he voted some 130 times as "present" refusing to take a stance on anything as a US Senator, or that he was directly involved with deals for Chicago property re-zoning and with his own home deal with Rezko the now convicted Chicago racketeer. They refused to acknowledge that he earlier promised to only use public campaign funds, then he changed and took more money from Wall Street than any other in history.
Toronto's OWS coverage reported the first rape, Oakland and NYC soon followed. The pics and Vids of protesters carrying their human waste in bags or defecating on police cars, smoking crack, throwing glass bottles and rocks at police in Oakland___ THOSE events are rarely reported because the OWS protest was already approved by the main street media and already approved by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Louis Farakahn. Farakhan is the worst anti-white, anti-american race baiting best friend of Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers , at least according to his public speeches. Then we also see the media ignores the list of OWS supporters such as the National Socialist Party, American Communist Party and the SEIU.
They ignore the vids of OWS protesters sitting around reading the Communist Manifesto...
yup, the media never reports things that fly in the face of their political agenda..and that even includes their looking the other way with events of rape and SH when it is at their "approved" social events.
What has changed with SH is that it is seemingly ok to look away as long as it is not by conservative Republicans. So where is the radical NOW group for speaking up about these issues at OWS or that they do not speak up to support women in Iran, Syria and Egypt?
"Eventually they will all leave the workforce and this hopefully will become a rare issue."
Have you been to a Jr. High School lately? Kids don't have to learn to be harassers. They come by it naturally. As long as adolescents have hormones, the effort to teach people that sexual harassment (indeed, harassment in general) is not appropriate will have to continue.
"that there are some women who go to specious lengths" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- lets just be honest ... there are some humans who go to specious lengths.... "
It hasn't changed much, because after rereading the official definition of sexual harassment it still sounds the same as when I first learned about it years ago.
I'm assuming that one intent of the question is to get responses from those who remember what it was like before such laws were established. The good ol' boy mentality may still be present in more than a few individuals. Eventually they will all leave the workforce and this hopefully will become a rare issue.
Some of the comments here echo my thoughts. That is, people should understand that the definition makes the distinction between just unwanted or inappropriate behavior and behavior that is "severe and pervasive" and "creates a hostile work environment". If it were broadened by just calling it "harassment" while keeping the same parameters, then a few former coworkers and bosses of mine could have faced a lawsuit.
"NPR, MNBC, CBS and ABC refuse to air those stories of rape or sexual harassment" Because they are not in the habit of making up stories to promote a political agenda like everyplace you turn to to get your news.
There you go again, kimMN, with your weak arguments. Are you saying that rape is part of the OWS protests? Or that rape typifies the movement? Or that sexual abuse is what OWS is really about?
Does Newt Gingrich's serial monogamy typify Republicans? Were Larry Craig's exploits in the men's room part of the Republican platform?
Since our schools system evidently failed to teach you critical thinking, why don't you try learning it on your own.
Sexual harassment seems to be ok or pardoned when it occurs from from a liberal Democrat or one of their movements, as shown by the lack of any statements from the National Organization of Women (NOW) speaking out about the multiple rapes that have occurred at the Occupy Wall Street camp-ins. Four reported rapes and the victims all say not one co-protester would intervene, or report it to the police. In fact, on taped news interviews there are protesters demanding another NOT to talk to the press as it , "will not be for the good of the group."
It is clear that NPR, MNBC, CBS and ABC refuse to air those stories of rape or sexual harassment because it doesn't fit with their preconceived enchantment with the OWS protests. They refuse to show the crime and filth and report on the rapes but if that was the TEA PARTY protests where they cleaned up after themselves and got permits and didn't camp out..can you imagine the news stories about that????? It would be on national news every hour.
Every woman , left or right, should demand the media to report fairly and not give cover for any SH or rapes regardless of where it occurs.
Maybe we will have to wait until the people fully realize that the OWS protests are really evil and are not a new hippie movement but in fact are supported by every anarchist and Marxist and communist group, including the radical CAIR for radical Muslims. Just sickening.
"I learned early on that you have to meet people as equals, learn about them and understand what they are- and live with them peacefully."
If everyone had that attitude, there'd be no need for things like sexual harassment rules.
"Dear GaryF - from the plethora of your postings here ...I don't you would be qualified to fill out the application ... let alone hold the office."
When you point your finger at someone, 3 more fingers are pointing back at you.
Posted by GaryF | November 2, 2011 9:14 AM "
Unless you get into the habit of pointing all five fingers at the culpable individual.
ANd I would agree with will Shapira that there are some women who go to specious lengths
to get what they want.
There are unscrupulous-back-stabbing women who will make false claims of harassment against men eithr to get their jobs or out of jealousy. I saw this happen in the workplace more than once.
These women know that in a he said/she said situation, she wins everytime and the company will do anything to avoid a public trial for fear of negative publicity.
"When you point your finger at someone, 3 more fingers are pointing back at you." ---------- > Gary, Gary, Gary, ..... you misunderstood.... It wasn't one finger ... it was ten, plus two arms! .... and you still haven't learned.
Ongoing cont-education through my vocation continues to lift up the issue, but the most difficult thing to experience in this time in my life is the unwanted attention and possible harrassment I see my 25-year old daughter experience in the workplace. She works for a progressive, Minnesota-based corporation with a public and practiced high standard for fairness and equality -- and still experiences men above her in the organization who attempt to contact her outside work hours when she has made it clear she is not interested. Helping her find the courage to take a stand over concern for how she will be perceived in the organization is my work now. For her, and for other women.
"Dear GaryF - from the plethora of your postings here ...I don't you would be qualified to fill out the application ... let alone hold the office."
When you point your finger at someone, 3 more fingers are pointing back at you.
[_] In one sense -the answer is Yes. I've worked for organizations public and private that have "implemented" various programs and trainings for what is and what is not acceptable. The org's did a very good job of running the dog and pony shows, assigning mandatory training-reading and requiring "sign here to agree you are fully aware of , and subject to, org policy on sexual harassment" . [_] In one sense -the answer is No. I learned early on that you have to meet people as equals, learn about them and understandwhat they are- and live with them peacefully. You don;t have to love 'em, you don't have to hate them.
No, not since the 1990s. Since the 1970s? yes, very much.
I've been thoroughly trained in SH since the very early 1990s by every employer. He knew.
Cain cannot have been in the dark about SH in the 1990s. Clearly some women at (whatever that national restaurant association was) thought that he crossed the line. Convenient for him that the settlement included a gag order.
Because they are gagged, he can bald-facedly deny it. But does that hold water? Why pay off and gag if there's no fire with that smoke? Doesn't pass the sniff test.
(And yes, such a judgment would apply to Clinton. I was out of the US during the Flowers affair, etc., so maybe I'm just ignorant about Clinton; but I don't remember a payoff in his case.)
So he is or at least was a boor. Maybe he took the lesson (from that accusation and settlement) and reformed his attitude and behavior (though it sure doesn't sound like it!)
Does that disqualify him for office? These days, in practical terms, it probably does. (Not that there aren't plenty of other good reasons to not supprot Cain; and I don't support him.)
Dear GaryF - from the plethora of your postings here ...I don't you would be qualified to fill out the application ... let alone hold the office.
And think of how different the world would be if the Senate had voted to oust Clinton, and Al Gore had been running as the incumbent 2000. Be careful what you wish for, GaryF.
I suppose it would, GaryF, but he's not running for anything. Besides, his accusers were all caught in lies and showed themselves not to be credible, with the exception of those (such as Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinski) for whom his advances were welcome. It was still bad (adultery, that is), but not what I was talking about.
Regarding Herman Cain, I don't know enough to have an opinion about whether the allegations against him are valid. People in high office tend to attract false allegations from political adversaries, and I would not be surprised to learn that these are either trumped up or exaggerated.
"Anyone with a track record of objectifying other human beings for their own pleasure should be considered unqualified for any office of public service."
Does that go for Bill Clinton too?
My understanding of sexual harassment has not changed since the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. I was disgusted then that someone who would treat subordinates so unjustly could be considered qualified to hold one of the highest offices in our justice system. Anyone with a track record of objectifying other human beings for their own pleasure should be considered unqualified for any office of public service.
Jaunita Broderick, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Deborah Mathis, Elizabeth Ward.............
Sure, sexual harassment has changed!
When its a liberal Democrat, that's OK.
But a conservative who also happens to be black, well that's different.
"Flirting is complicated. So long as NO coercion is involved there is no need to make it any more neurotic that it already is."
But if it's the boss who's doing it, there's always some implicit coersion. People can feel compelled to tolerate the boss's rude, disrespectful behavior to keep their jobs.
This will hurt Cain's chances to claim the White House no more than Newt Gingrich's treatment of his wife hurt his. Both their odds are firmly at zero.
Seriously, how hypocritical and neurotic can things get. Making someone else "feel uncomfortable" may not be courteous but it is not a crime and sometimes the ones that feel uncomfortable would have been very comfortable if the person they happened to like, had said the exact same thing. Flirting is complicated. So long as NO coercion is involved there is no need to make it any more neurotic that it already is.
Back in the day, sexual harrassment was defined as "any unwanted behavior" which meant anything anyone wanted. A rather flawed concept to say the least.. Things don't seem to have changed all that much. Still a flawed concept, and the accused is always presumed guilty. This seems to be true of all sexually-related accusations-just ask the Duke lacrosse team- if they are out of therapy yet.
My opinion has not changed on sexual harassment it's wrong for both black & white men regardless if they are running for president
| November 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock