Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I think the whole thing about sexual harassment is bogus.  Especially
    when you start talking about the Thomas situation.  So what if he asked
    a woman out and he showed up at her apartment unannounced.  I would
    welcome the opportunity.  This is just an attempt by the women's
    movement to control our behaviour.  As men we should file a sexual
    harassment complaint everytime a woman makes a comment to us that is
    not directly work related.
    

    Re .1: Excuse me? Do you mean to say that you think that employees
    should have no recourse if their employers tell them, "Sleep with me or
    lose your job/that promotion/that high-profile new project"? When
    employees who don't permit their bosses to fondle them at will suddenly
    find themselves in a dead-end job or no job at all?
    
    Verbal harrassment is, I'll agree, a much harder area to define, since
    everyone's level of tolerance is different. I don't go along with the
    "never compliment anyone" or "no personal remarks at all" theories,
    mainly because it would make life at the office incredibly dull (and
    probably wouldn't restrain the really nasty harrassers anyway);
    however, if employees ask bosses (or other employees) to refrain from
    certain types of comments, or to please not discuss pornographic movies
    in their presence, I would hope these requests would be honored - and
    that no employee should have to fear losing a job just for asking for a
    little respect.
    
    Unfortunately, interpersonal communication being what it is, it's all
    too easy for both sides to feel misunderstood and oppressed. "But what
    did I say???" cries the accused harrasser, who may honestly believe
    s/he hasn't said anything that s/he wouldn't welcome if said back.
    "And why didn't you tell me you didn't like it?"
    
    "But how could I?" says the accuser. "My actions should have indicated
    to you that I didn't like it, and I was afraid to say anything more
    because I thought you might not give me that contract. Besides, you
    should have known that was unprofessional behavior!"
    
    Ideally, people _could_ speak up. Ideally, those to whom they speak
    would not then harbor bad feelings towards them. Failing that, it would
    appear that the courts will have to deal with it.
    
    [Note: I have no idea where on my personal "harrassment severity index"
    the Thomas situation lies, and I'm not trying to map it into any of the
    above examples.]
    
    -b

    
    
    
    
    
    I don't know anything about the case to which you're referring,
    but this comment struck me...
    
    > 64% of men would not be offended if someone made a sexual approach to
>them in the work place, 64% of women said they WOULD be offended.  Now as a
>man and a Digital employee I has been asked out and I was not offended in
>the least.... 
    
    Is asking someone out necessarily a sexual approach?
    
    It seems we're trying to differentiate between :- 
    a) "normal" social interaction between people
    b) "getting to know someone better" - someone you happen to work with
    c) sexual propositioning
    
    I guess some would say that "normal" social interaction trivialises
    women anyway - and that's a big issue that reaches beyond the
    workplace.
    
    Asking someone out surely isn't necessarily a problem - as long as
    a NO is taken as a no and people's egos can handle that. After all,
    many people "wedded to their jobs" only get to meet prospective
    partners at work...
    
    Sexual propositioning is in a different class, I would suggest, and is
    offensive to all. Or are men seriously saying that a woman repeatedly
    making sexually explicit comments and suggestions to them *honestly* would
    not offend them?
    
    >but what this seems to be saying is that women cannot take care
>of these situations and they need the help of Personell and/or the judicial
>system to make them 'equal' to men.  That would seem to negate any
>empowerment.         
    
Because of the overall unequal status of women in our society it is hard
    to act from a position of power. This may need additional
    reinforcement. I don't think this disempowers the individual at all, 
    but rather just puts some power behind her to bring her up (temporarily) 
    to an equal power level with the man (presumably?) who may be harassing her
    . 
    
 'gail

    The following note has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.
    
    I received this as a request for a separate topic, but as one had
    already been created for this subject, I put it here.

				Steve






   By initial appearance, Clarence Thomas is a man who has
worked very hard to get to where he is today.  It appears
that the allegations against him will destroy not only his
appointment to the bench, but most likely his career as well.
How can this happen?  I have not heard that there was any
formal complaint lodged against Thomas back when the harrass-
ment allegedly took place.  So why would this suddenly become
an issue?  Perhaps these women are motivated by the fact that
they are immediately thrust into the limelight.  Just look at
Donna Rice and Jessica Hahn.  Perhaps there were some advances
made by Thomas, not harrassment in nature, but a genuine attempt
to show these women that he had a romantic interest in them.
I have seen it right here at Digital.  There was a woman in my
group who fully enjoyed the men looking at her, flirting with her
and making comments about their desire to have sex with her.  Then
the day came that a comment came from someone whom she did not
care to hear it from and the sexual harrassment charges were filed.
What can be done to stop these kind of allegations from destroying
men in the case where they are false?  How can a man let a woman
know he is interested in her at the workplace without having the
fear that he will be brought to Personnel?
   For the purpose of discussion and to avoid this turning into a
discussion of whether or not Clarence is guilty of harrassment,
let's assume that Thomas did have a romantic interest in these women,
but did not sexually harrass them.

To introduce some facts into this debate:

Thomas was not merely accused of making "appreciative" remarks to Anita Hill
(currently a respected professor of law) when she worked for Thomas at the
EEOC; she has said that he repeatedly would discuss in front of her, in great
detail, the pornographic movies which he had recently seen.  Thomas was the
head of the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) at the time; if Hill
had filed charges, they would have been filed with, you guessed it, the EEOC!
She apparently decided that preserving her job was more important at the time.

Hill has nothing to gain and everything to lose by going public with this
accusation.  She had filed the complaint with the Senate committee over a month
ago but they basically ignored it.  Hill is a conservative Republican and is
not in this for the publicity or because she wants to sabotage Thomas.  She has
valid concerns about Thomas' character, which is apparently the only redeeming
attribute he supposedly has, according to his supporters.  She is already being
hounded by the press and has received threatening phone calls.

The question should not be "how serious was the harassment", but "did it happen
or didn't it?"  If it happened substantially as Hill charges, Thomas is not
fit for the Supreme Court.

I find it offensive to have Anita Hill likened to Jessica Hahn.

Sen. Warren Rudman has already stuck his foot firmly into his mouth by saying
that it was "just a conversation between a man and a woman".

Sexual harassment happens - often.  Women are told to put up with it or lose
their jobs.  I don't think this is right.

				Steve

    re .6
    
    >   She had filed the complaint with the Senate committee over a month
    >   ago but they basically ignored it
    
     This implies she initiated the charge. In fact, she did not. She was
    contacted by a member of Senator Metzenbaum's staff asking whether she
    could confirm or deny rumors of sexual harassment of EEOC staff by
    Thomas. Hill still not make the charge (I'm not sure of exactly what
    she responded but I think she denied the general allegation). The next
    day a Kennedy staffer called, apparently making the same rounds. She
    again did not come forward with the charge. But the following day she
    called the Metzenbaum staffer to make her charge. She refused to go
    public, however, and therefore Senator Biden refused to make it public,
    and the matter was handled privately among members of the committee.
    They did not think it serious enough to pursue, at least under the
    condition of anonynimity that she sought.
    
    You can read her actions two ways: she got two calls on this and saw
    her chance to lie to bring down Thomas, or she got two calls and
    finally got up the courage to overcome her humiliation (past at his
    hands, future as her reputation was sure to be attacked by his
    defenders) and finally spoke out.
    
    I incline toward the latter. It fits with common sense and what many
    women can attest to -- they have to ignore this adolescent-style
    behavior in men, even to the point of internalizing blame, because they
    haven't really had a choice. It takes immense courage to spit in the
    face of the elevator fondler, as one woman described in the Boston
    Globe yesterday. The result of that, or of more bureaucratic
    approaches, is too often loss of advancement, if not job.
    
    And what could Hill possibly gain from this? She was secure, respected,
    conservative -- and now her whole life is at risk. No wonder she kept
    her mouth shut.
    
    Kit

    I will not comment on the Thomas issue because we, the public, do not
    know the facts. But let's do a few "What If" scenarios. Let's assume
    that there was a certain unwelcome raunchiness in the dialogue between
    these two adults. Did Hill feel threatened in her job tenure ? Or was
    it the type of exchange that, had he been "cuter", would have been a
    prelude to seduction ? How can we deal rationally with these type of
    issues when they are so subjective in nature ? 
    Attempting to compare this to an "elevator fondler" is patently absurd.
    However, the initial concern of the basenoter about how different men
    and women are in terms of sexual bantering sensitivity is a very valid
    one. The potential for unfairness is enormous. I flat don't see a woman
    complaining about a man she is strongly attracted to. I do see her
    complaining about comments by men she does not like. 
    Tattle tale behavior by girls when we were children was one of the
    first indications that girls and boys are different or they are raised
    different or both. Perhaps because of that I am extra careful in my
    conversations with women at work. But one of the most exciting moments
    in my life was when a woman co-worker looked me straight in the eye and
    said: "You really turn me on". It happened 15 years ago and I remember
    it as if it was yesterday. 
    
    I guess men and women are very different in this context and losing the
    possibility of generating some excitement in the already bland, cubicle
    oriented, impersonal work atmosphere we have is, sad. Really sad.

    

	The tone of <.1> unless I'm reading between the lines incorrectly
	is full of anger and frustration at alot more than this issue. 

>.1  ...........................................   So what if he asked
>    a woman out and he showed up at her apartment unannounced.  I would
>    welcome the opportunity.  .......................................

	I don't understand the last sentence but I think that the 'So what'
	of the first has to be interpreted in perspective to the events.
	Hill was frightened of Thomas, by his power, position, and his
	advances at her. She had told him she was not interested in a non-work
	relationship. She felt a threat to her position and future
	employment. I have not read that Thomas made any actual threats
	to Hill. My thoughts are that Thomas was functioning from the 
	unseeing/unthinking/denial position of a person in power. Did he 
	ignore her fear and persist on to harrass her or was he insensitive 
	to her fear and the effects of his aggression ?
	Unfortunately I don't think we'll get an answer to this question.

	I don't think there is an forum today especially for politicians, 
	for the discussion of personal growth and change. What would happen
	if Thomas were to say point-blank, 'I remember these incidents. I did
	say and do these things as Hill has stated and in the context of what
	I have learned and heard over the last 10 years, I now believe that 
	my behavior was out of line and should be considered harrassment'.
	My belief is that he would be judged on the events 10 years ago and
	passed over irrelevant of the knowledge and experience he possesses
	now. What mistakes can we as a people, condone in the past lives
	of people seeking to represent us ? 

	Part of the problem here, I think, is that there seems to have been
	a concerted effort by senators to hide this information. Which 
	suggests that the man is guilty of something...

>.4     I can think of a similar situation and it does cause all sorts
	of mental confusion in defining how individuals should procede in 
	trying to form relationships especially at work but I think they're
	like drips in a big pond. Maybe I'm wrong there. I think you've
	illustrated an example of behavior such that Person A responds 
	very favorably to some questionable action by Person B but not to the
	same action from Person C. I think it's easy to lose sight of the
	fact that the behavior is questionable within the environment in
	which it occurs and causes problems for all other individuals that
	now have to deal with the same behavior from Persons B and C.
    

	From Friday's Boston Globe, Page 84
		      National Briefs

	EX-WORKER KILLS BOSS, THREE OTHERS IN N.J.

	Ridgwood, N.J. - A man fired from the post office for harassing
		his female boss donned combat fatigues and a ninja-style
		hood, armed himself with two submachine guns and a 
	        samurai sword and then killed the woman and three other
		people, authorities said yesterday.
		.
		.
		When he gave up,Harris,35,was armed with the sword, two
		submachine guns and a handful of grenades and was wearing
		a paramilitary uniform, including combat boots, fatigues,
		a bulletproof vest, a ninja-style black hood and a 
		gas mask, Fahy (Bergen County Prosecutor) said.(Reuters)
		
	------------------------------------------------------------------

	I feel that at some level, consciously or unconsciously, people
	bring the horror of events like this into their collective 
	knowledge and act out of the fear that it engenders. Much more
	so for women. I haven't recently read about any woman, disgruntled
	or insane, being armed with hand grenades and submachine guns and
	killing someone.
    
    	Ray
    


    

re: .11
	I feel that at some level, consciously or unconsciously, people
	bring the horror of events like this into their collective 
	knowledge and act out of the fear that it engenders. Much more
	so for women. I haven't recently read about any woman, disgruntled
	or insane, being armed with hand grenades and submachine guns and
	killing someone.
    
    	Ray
    
Ray, I don't think I understand what you're trying to say.  Are you saying
that female managers live in fear of this type of reciprocal behavior?  Are
you saying that women SHOULD arm themselves if they are harassed?  Please
explain.

Patrick

    

    
    	What I was noting, was that I believe that this type of incident
    	fuels a fear of retaliation. Perhaps it isn't named as such but I
    	think it exists. I don't advocate armed conflict under any 
    	circumstances. 
    	
    	I try not to use male/female tenses when noting
    	because most circumstances are applicable to all human interaction but
    	personal violence seems to be predominately male against female. My 
        own observation reading the paper today though lately kids seem be 
    	getting it pretty badly too.
    
    	Hope I've clarified my noting...
    
    	Ray
    
    
    

    A few weeks ago a 15 year-old girl shot and killed a boy in the school
    cafeteria because "he had called her names". This happened here in
    Houston, where a few months ago a woman contracted a killer to murder
    the mother of a cheerleader who had beat her daughter for that
    position. 
    
    Wake up and smell the roses, Ray. Violence by women is not uncommon.
    And we, men, don't need extra bad publicity from the likes of you.
    
    

Close ranks against who, Bustamante-san?

Against my mother?

Against my sisters?

Against my lovers?

Against my wife?

	I think not.

Men closing ranks against things like this is part of the problem.
Denying that such things happen, and are usually perpetrated by
MEN, is a large part of the problem. No not all men, and not only
men, but usually men. Why do you deny this? I am not a harasser,
I will fight harassers, if you would solve this problem pull your
head out of the sand and stand with me.

Yes - let's close ranks. Men and women against harassers and
harassment.

	-- Charles

    Charles, 
    
    I could not agree with you more! Sexual horrasment is never needed in a
    tuff enough work place. But, what I think .14 is saying to us is that
    if folks are doing such, stop. For we, men, are not looking good for
    it. Even though we can count many times on both sets of hands and feet
    the people we have known who climb their way to the top via the
    "Hollywood Method". For those of you who are naieve of such, that is
    sleeping your way to the top. 
    
    	Both are deplorable, both cheet not only 
    yourselves, the company, and your co-workers. But cheet the nation
    as a whole for it places people who are not capable of preforming a
    task in a position that can ruin all of the above.
    

 That's the kind of closing ranks that needs to occur to solve the problem of
harassment.

 Men's problems will require a different solution.

    Re. .15
    Charles,
    
    I am happy to see that you have both lovers and wife. That should keep
    you busy instead of attacking men. There are criminals who are men and
    there are criminals who are women. Now, w.r.t. harrassment, the picture
    is muddy. Women harrass men too, the difference is that we call it
    "seductive behavior" rather than harrassment. The harrassment
    associated with power and dependency (boss-employee) we all find
    despicable regardless of the sex of the parties. I've also heard of
    lesbians harrassing women so it can happen in many ways, see ?
    

    I am not a personal friend of either of these two people but I'm very
    suspicious of a woman who seemed to have some kind of a relationship
    with a man who then in turn just after the alleged incident took place
    married some other women.  Take it for what it's worth but it is awful
    gray.  Ten years after the fact, no witnesses.  Let's be realistic. 
    This woman has already said she put her career before her person.  I
    thought that is was especially surprising when the panel of 4 which
    were her friends could not make a decision about whether or not to
    confirm him after all of the testimony.  They obviously had some doubt
    about her testimony and his (not to seem one sided).
    

>                    <<< Note 659.18 by HSOMAI::BUSTAMANTE >>>
    ...
>    you busy instead of attacking men. There are criminals who are men and
>    there are criminals who are women. Now, w.r.t. harrassment, the picture
    
    I just re-read Charles's note and was relieved to find that my memory
    wasn't failing. He asked that men and women join together against
    sexual harassment instead of making it a "men vs. women" issue. Hard to
    see how that's an attack on men.
    
    Ray

>   I am happy to see that you have both lovers and wife.

I'm happy that makes you happy.

> That should keep you busy instead of attacking men.

Eh? Either you've got a REALLY bad case of "us versus them" or I missed your
point entirely.

> [lots of reasonable things about harassment deleted]

> so it can happen in many ways, see ?

Yes indeed. That was my point, and thus my question. When you said:

	"LET'S CLOSE RANKS, GUYS!"

	...

    Wake up and smell the roses, Ray. Violence by women is not uncommon.
    And we, men, don't need extra bad publicity from the likes of you.

I interpreted it as a rallying cry to men to support each other in the face of
harassment charges, in the name of male solidarity and against women.

Was I mistaken?

	-- Charles

    RE. .21
    Yes, you are still mistaken: #1: I was addressing violence, not
    harassment. And so were you in your previous statement
    
    #2: I am saying that it's time for men, as a genre, to close ranks
    against unfair attacks by either men or women who confuse criminals with
    a certain genre, because there are criminals of either sex.
    
    #3: If you haven't realized that some strident feminists like Andrea
    Dworkin are even saying (and writing!) that men should castrate
    themselves and that all intercourse is rape, it's about time you wake
    up and realize that we, as a genre, are under attack and that seeing a
    male play into the "protector" role at this time is tantamount to
    treason. Women don't need you to protect them, they are doing just
    fine, thank you. I am married, have three daughters in college right
    now and I can assure you that they will not take any s**t from anyone!
    But that doesn't excuse militant women from the hatred they show
    against men as a "class"! And whenever they find someone like you who
    is so intent on syndicating men as an especially violent group, they
    increase their hold on their extremist positions.
    
    These are the same people who are for censorship, by the way.

    RE. .20
    Ray, 
    Please read .13 & .14. Rgds.,
    

   >re: 659.14
   >Wake up and smell the roses, Ray. Violence by women is not uncommon.
   >And we, men, don't need extra bad publicity from the likes of you.

	The autumn roses smell wonderful and the 'likes of me' enjoys
	them. You're correct that violence by women is in the media
	along with violence by men but when I look inside my own feelings
	I don't find a feeling I can label 'fear of violence from women' or
	'fear of violence from militant women' but many women I know 
	acknowledge 'fear of violence from men'. How can we, together as men 
	and partners with other men and women, change that and also see how 
	it has impacted the work environment around the issue of harassment? 

	A call to close ranks implies that this is some kind of battle with an 
	eventual winner and loser; a dualistic conflict  between right and 
	wrong in which at this time you feel threatened. That is understandable 
	because I created a link between an act of violence and being male. I 
	intended this link only to raise discussion about this 'fear of 
	violence' not as a condemnation of men as a 'class' or as a link to
	every man. Andrea Dworkin writes from her own experiences and the 
	experiences of many women. Her solution to bring about safety for
	women is radical and not acceptable to me but she said alot of things 
	about pornography and harassment that make a great deal of sense.
	Women do not need protection in the political arena. They have a 
	strong voice of their own, radical and moderate, but my guess is that 
	your daughters don't walk home alone at night and if they do because 
	you've taught them not to take any sh*t, I think you're the one who 	
	needs to take a hard look at reality.
	
  	In retrospect, I think that the inclusion of the details of this 
	specific act of	violence didn't stimulate the discussion I hoped
	especially around the issue 'What mistakes can we as a people, 
	condone in the past lives of people seeking to represent us ?' from
	a previous note and the question I raised above. 

	Ray Hayes 
                                  

> I am saying that it's time for men, as a genre, to close ranks against unfair
> attacks by either men or women who confuse criminals with a certain genre,
> because there are criminals of either sex.

This is known formally as a "straw man" argument, unless you are claiming that
all sexual harassment charges are, prima facie, unfair. I will be happy to
close ranks against unfair charges, I would expect to be joined by women in
this closing of ranks. Where then does your "c'mon guys" come from? I get the
feeling that you see women as "the enemy." I don't.
    
> If you haven't realized that some strident feminists like Andrea Dworkin are
> even saying (and writing!) that men should castrate themselves and that all
> intercourse is rape, it's about time you wake up

I've READ Dworkin. How about you? Have you learned what you know about her from
her detractors? For what it's worth I disagree with her, but because I feel
she is anti-sex, rather than because she is anti-men.

> and realize that we, as a genre, 

Ugh. I can't take it any more. Why do you keep referring to men as a "genre?"
Men are a sex or, if you must, a gender, but not a genre unless you believe
that men are only painted or written about and not "real."

> [men] are under attack and that seeing a male play into the "protector" role
> at this time is tantamount to treason.

Oooh. I'm a traitor to my sex. Where have I heard THAT before?

> Women don't need you to protect them, they are doing just fine, thank you.
> I am married, have three daughters in college right now and I can assure you
> that they will not take any s**t from anyone!

I'm not "protecting" women, I'm standing up for fundamental truths that I
believe in and live by. I don't need your permission either.

> But that doesn't excuse militant women from the hatred they show against men
> as a "class"!

Big jump there. I missed it. Sounds like you have a particular axe to grind and
see every male-female interaction in terms of it. By the way, it's not just
militant *women* you sexist pig.

> And whenever they find someone like you who is so intent on syndicating men
> as an especially violent group, they increase their hold on their extremist
> positions.

That's OUR extremist posititions. Men ARE an especially violent group, it's one
of those "basic biological differences" that people try to use to justify
sexism. The self evident fact that there are also violent women in no way
refutes that basic fact. That doesn't mean that *I'm* necessarily violent, or
that *you* are, but in fact men as a sex are more violent than women. In fact
it's only been very recently that anyone saw any problem at all with that fact.
    
> These are the same people who are for censorship, by the way.

Dworkin is, but so what? I disagree with her.

	-- Charles

    Re.: .25
    Charles, 
    
    Four comments: 1) I don't recall calling you names and yet you do in an
    argument where you jumped to illogical conclusions to justify your
    anger.
    
    2) Your "mea culpas" for the aggressiveness in the male sex make me
    puke
    
    3) Sorry if I misspelled "gender"
    
    4) There's nothing you or I can do to solve the problem you perceive.
    

> Title:  YOU LOST YOUR COOL, FELLAH!

Eh? Are you playing some silly game? I do sometimes "lose my cool" I'm sorry if
you think that's unmanly. I care deeply about many things and many people and
get passionate in their defense.

> Four comments: 1) I don't recall calling you names and yet you do in an
> argument where you jumped to illogical conclusions to justify your
> anger.

Show me where I called you names. Are you talking about my line "By the way,
it's not just militant *women* you sexist pig."? If so, I suggest you take up
remedial irony.

Show me where my conclusions are illogical. Saying so doesn't make it so.
    
> 2) Your "mea culpas" for the aggressiveness in the male sex make me puke

Use a bucket. I am not guilty of causing the agressiveness of males (look up
"mea culpa") you seem to want to deny that men ARE agressive, more agressive
in general than women.
    
> 3) Sorry if I misspelled "gender"

You did. [Subtle jokes on the usage of the subjunctive are probably lost on this
crowd...]
    
> 4) There's nothing you or I can do to solve the problem you perceive.
    
What problem do you think I percieve? I have NO evidence you understand what
I'm saying, much less evidence you might have a "solution." The only problem
I see here is that you seem to want to get "men as a class" to close ranks
against "agressive/militant women." You are trying to derail an argument about
sexual harassment into a diatribe against man haters. That dog don't hunt.
Sexual harassment DOES exist, it's depressingly common, and it's usually by men
against women. Those are FACTS man, we don't have to like them (I don't) we
shouldn't see them as an attack on "men as a class" (I don't) and I, at least,
view those facts as a call to action by MEN to recognize the scope of the
problem and to join in helping solve it.

Denying that the problem exists in no way helps solve it.

	-- Charles

    Copied with permission
    
    
            <<< HUMANE::HUMANE$DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 1636.1         Sexual Harassment: How To Defend Yourself             1 of 1
32FAR::LERVIN "Roots & Wings"                       360 lines  17-OCT-1991 13:04
              -< Dealing with Sexual Harassment, by Mary P. Rowe >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I suggest that every person print this off and keep it on hand.
    ***************************************************************
    
                   Dealing with Sexual Harassment

                      by Mary P. Rowe

Reprinted w/o permission from Harvard Business Review
Reprint #81339

Mary P. Rowe, a labor economist, is special assistant to the president of 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Since 1973, she has worked as a 
mediator with hundreds of cases from MIT and from other universities and 
corporations.


As the recent attention in the press and on television attests, managers 
are encountering sexual harassment problems more and more frequently. 
Although by now many corporations have investigated the legal side of these 
issues and have adopted appropriate policies, reaching an easy resolution 
in such cases is difficult for the following reasons:

o People cannot agree about how to define the problem.  In sexual 
harassment cases, managers will find the widest divergence of perceptions 
that they ever encounter.

o There is usually little evidence to substantiate anyone's allegations.  
The employer often feels that something ought to be done but can think of 
no action to take that does not infringe on the rights of one side or the 
other.

o Although third-party intervention often heals other kinds of disputes, 
such action in a sexual harassment case usually triggers wider disagreement 
between the original actors, who then persuade bystanders to take sides.

o No matter how carefull worded the corporate policy concerning sexual 
harassment is, new kinds of cases arise, and in such variety as to prevent 
any precise anticipation of problems.

o Those offended may be unwilling to report sexual harassment if they think 
that public exposure of the situation and mandatory punishment of the 
offender will follow.  Often they will talk with the manager only under an 
agreement that no public action will be taken.  (It is rate, in my 
experience, for a complainant to ask for any kind of retribution; nearly 
always this person simply wants the harassment to stop).

o The most serious aspect of almost all reported cases is the power 
relationship between the alleged offender and the offended person.  (I 
believe that most sexual agressiveness that occurs *outside* a power 
relationship is simply ignored or adequately dealt with by the offended 
party.)  In any case, reports of harassment usually involve fear of 
retribution because of the supposed power of a particular group of 
coworkers or of a supervisor.  In fact, most reported cases do involve a 
supervisor-subordinate relationship; hence, productivity is threatened.

Some practical approaches

I offer three recommendations for addressing these problems.  First, 
complainants can be helped to help themselves.  Second, such conflicts can 
usually be resolved most effectively through procedures designed to deal 
with all kinds of complaints, not just sexual harassment.  Third, 
corporation should confront the issue of power differences in the troubled 
relationship.

An employer must give unmistakable signals that action will be taken 
against proved offenders, if the complainant will agree, and also that 
proved targets of harassment will be protected from retaliation.  But those 
who deal with offended employees should first explore the possibilities of 
helping them to help themselves when there is no proof, and, of course, 
when the complainants prefer this method.

The sections that follow may be of special interest to offended persons 
whose companies do not yet have policies and structures to support them.

What can the individual do?

Complainants must be willing to take action themselves in a rational and 
responsible way.  To many people this may seem unjust since it appears to 
put a double burden on the offended person.  This concern makes sense.  But 
I recommend such action because it works and because nothing else really 
works as well.

Moreover, it helps offended persons to focus their anger outside themselves 
instead of becoming sick or depressed, which often happens otherwise.  
Finally, such measures may be the only way to obtain evidence for 
management (or the courts) to act on.

The aims of individual action are:

> To give the offended and offender a chance, usually for the first time, 
to see things the same way.  Since neither person may have any 
understanding of how the other sees the problem, discussion may help.  
Entry of a third party at this stage usually further polarizes the views of 
the opposing persons.

> To give those who are wrongly accused the chance to defend themselves.

> To give those who are correctly, or to some extent correctly, accused the 
chance to make amends. (This may not be possible in serious cases.)

> To provide some evidence of the offense, since usually there is no 
substantive evidence at all.  This step is vital if management or the 
courts must later take action.

> To give aggressors who do not understand what they were doing a fair 
warning, if this is appropriate.

> To provide the offended employee a chance to get the harassment stopped 
without provoking public counterattack, experiencing public embarrassment, 
harming third parties, damaging the company's reputation, or causing the 
aggressor to lose face.  In my experience, these points are almost always 
considered important by the aggrieved person.

> To provide offended persons a way to demonstrate that they tried all 
reasonable means to get the offender to stop.  This step may be convincing 
later to supervisors, spouses, and others who have become involved.

> To encourage ambivalent complainants, as well as those who have 
inadvertently given misunderstood signals, to present a consistent and 
clear message.

Writing a letter:  One method that works quite consistenly, even when many 
verbal requests have failed, is for the offended person to write a letter 
to the accused.  I usually recommend a polite, low-key letter (which may 
necessitate many drafts).

The letter I recommend has three parts.  The first part should be a 
detailed statement of facts as the writer sees them: "This is what I think 
happened..."  I encourage a precise rendition of all facts and dates 
relevant to the alleged harassment.  This section is sometimes very long.

In the second part of the letter, writers should describe their feelings 
and what damage they think has been done.  This is where opinions belong.  
"Your actions made me feel terrible"; "I am deeply embarrassed and worried 
that my parents will hear about this"; "You have caused me to ask for a 
transfer (change my career objectives; drop out of the training course; 
take excessive time off; or whatever)."  The writer should mention any 
perceived or actual costs and damages, along with feelings of dismay, 
distrust, revulsion, misery, and so on.

Finally, I recommend a short statement of what the accuser would like to 
have happen next.  Since most persons only want the harassment to end, the 
letter might finish by saying so: "I ask that our relationship from now on 
be on a purely professional basis."  

Someone who knows that he or she contributed to the problem does well to 
say so: "Although we once were happy dating, it is important to me that we 
now reestablish a formal and professional relationship, and I ask you to do 
so."

If the letter writer believes some remedy or recompense is in order, this 
is the place to say so:  "Please withdraw my last evaluation until we can 
work out a fair one"; "I will need a written answer as to the reference you 
will provide from now on"; and statements of that type.

What happens next:  The complainant should, if possible, deliver the letter 
in person to know that it arrived and when it arrived.  When necessary, a 
plainclothes police officer, security person, or some other protector 
and/or witness should accompany the writer or be present when the letter is 
delivered.  The writer of the letter should keep a copy.

Usually the recipient simply accepts the letter, says nothing, and reforms 
his or her  behavior.  Sometimes there is an apology, an astounded opening 
of discussion, or a denial.  Rarely will the recipient reply in writing to 
"set the record straight."  Nearly always, the alleged harassment stops.

Obviously, it is now more dangerous for the recipient of such a letter to 
harass the employee.  The letter constitutes an attempt to settle the 
problem peaceably.

A good letter is useful if the complainant later feels the need to appeal 
to high-level management, especially if the writer can prove it was 
delivered.  It can also, if necessary, constitute invaluable legal 
evidence.  Such letters are usually enough to stop a mildly disturbed 
aggressor--for example, someone who importunes with sexual inuendo and 
suggestions for sexual activity.

Even if a written order or request to stop harassment does not succeed, in 
my experience the complainant is always better off for having tried tostop 
the offense in a direct and unambiguous way.

Finally, and possibly most important, taking action in this or similar ways 
often has a powerful effect on all participants.  Taut nerves relax as 
victims learn they can protect themselves.  Insomniacs get needed sleep.  
Productivity improves.

Both persons are likely to feel better about themselves.  Aggressors 
sometimes turn for help, through which their self-esteem may rise.  They 
may also stop harassing people, thus sparing those who could have become 
victims; this often matter greatly to the person who takes action.

For all these reasons I strongly encourage persons who feel harassed to 
take action themselves if possible.

Employer's role

By what I have said so far I do not mean to imply that employers should 
place all the burden on those who are offended.  Employers can and should 
encourage employees to take the measures already discussed.  They may need 
to protect their employees from retaliation from a group of coworkers or a 
supervisor and also to offer strong emotional support.

If significant evidence of wrong-doing is available, the employer may also 
wish to reprimand the offender, deny a promotion or raise, require 
attendance at a training program, or transfer, demote, or fire the 
offender.

What about persons who are too bewildered, frightened, or unsure even to 
write a letter?  Obviously it helps them to talk things over, in 
confidence, with one or two responsible and supportive people.

If, as frequently happens, an offended employee is suffering physical 
consequences, such as anorexia, sleeplessness, or anxiety-induced pain, he 
or she may need medical help.  Some victims will want to talk things out 
with a social worker, psychologist, psychiatrist, Employee Assistance 
person, or other company counselor, if such people are known to be discreet 
and supportive.

Special measures

It often helps the offended person to keep a diary, a careful log of events 
and feelings.  This can serve to affirm the sanity of the writer, who 
otherwise may begin to doubt the reality of the situation, especially if 
coworkers are unaware or unsympathetic.

Writing in a diary will help to turn anger outward and will provide clues 
for responsible action by the offended person and by management.  It can 
provide legal evidence as well.  Keeping a diary may also resolve 
ambivalence ("Am I interested in him/her?") or demonstrate later one's lack 
of ambivalence to a doubting observer.  A careful diary is always useful 
later if it seems wise to write a letter of the sort I described earlier.

Persons who feel victimized should do whatever they can to get together 
with others who will understand.  Women's networks can help a great deal.  
If the company has no such structure, a woman should try to form one with 
the knowledge and approval of management.  Management stands to gain from 
such groups since in-house women's networks usually give strong support to 
orderly and responsible change.  Outside the workplace, there are 
compassionate and responsible organizations like the Alliance Against 
Sexual Coercion, the Working Women's Institute, and the National Commission 
on Working Women.

Cases of sexual harassment in which the complainant is a man are rare but 
especially painful.  The typcial offender is also male, and a male target 
often feels alone because he is too embarrassed to discuss his problem.  As 
with most female victims, the principal problems for men may be to overcome 
bewilderment and the immobilizing effect of violent fantasies.  They, too, 
need to muster courage to take action.

Here again, there is no substitute for discussing the problem with 
discreet, sympathetic, and responsible people.  The man who feels sexually 
harassed should make every effort to find help.  (Senior supervisors and 
commissions against discrimination are often helpful.)  In the meantime, a 
male who feels harassed should keep a diary and consider writing a letter.

Effective complaint procedures

Sexual harassment problems have illuminated the general need for better 
complaint procedures.  Union grievance procedures should be reviewed to see 
if they really work with respect to this class of complaints.

Companies should also have explicit general complaint procedures for 
employees not in unions.  To deal adequately with sexual harassment, 
non-union complaint procedures must apply to employees and managers at 
every level.  In my experience, the degree of sexual harassment is about 
the same at every level of employment. Studies show that many top managers 
are poorly informed about sexual harassment: usually people do not 
misbehave in front of the boss.  It is not true, however, tht sexual 
harassment is relatively rare near the top.

Nonunion complaint procedures should be as general as possible, admitting 
every kind of employee and every kind of concern.  Sexual harassment cases 
will represent only a small percentage of the problems brought in, but the 
grievance procedure will enjoy a better and wider reputation and will 
operate more effectively if it works well with every kind of employee 
concern.  In such procedures, it should be unnecessary to give a label to 
every problem, especially a very controversial problem, before management 
can help.

With poorly defined and controversial problems like sexual harassment, 
mediation-oriented procedures work best, at least in the first stages; 
usually the first hope is to help people help themselves.  Initial contact 
with the procedure must, of course, be completely confidential.

The complaint procedure should include both women and men, minorities and 
nonminorities, as contacts at some point in the process to ensure that 
different people feel free to come in.  It is also essential to establish a 
procedure for bypassing one's supervisor in a case where that person is the 
offender.  Finally, nonunion complaint procedures should be okayed by the 
CEO or someone else neara the top.

The power relationship

Employers may find it helps in dealing with sexual harassment problems to 
confront directly the general issue of sexual relationships in the 
supervisory context.

Many people feel strongly that the private lives of employees have nothing 
to do with company business.  However, sexual relationships in the context 
of supervision often present management with problems that affect company 
interests.  Thismay be true even in the case of mutually consenting 
relationships.

When a senior person makes sexual overtures, a junior person may experience 
and allege coercion, exploitation, intimidation, and blackmail, and may 
fear retribution.  Such reactions are common even when the senior person 
would be shocked to learn that the overtures were unwelcome.  Neither sex 
can know for sure what the other experiences, and each is likely to 
misinterpret the feelings of the other.

Also, consenting relationships frequently break up.  If the senior person 
then continues to make overtures, the junior person may complain of 
harassment.  Then the senior person may be outraged, especially if he or 
she believes that the junior person "started it."  The relationship may 
then disrupt the work environment.

Third parties sometimes complain bitterly about sexual relationships 
involving a supervisor.  Spouses may be outspoken complainants; employees 
may resent real or preceived favoritism; and the morale of the senior 
person's subordinates may drop sharply.  In consenting relationships that 
involve a junior person who is trading sexual favors for advancement, 
management's interests are jeopardized, especially if the junior person is 
not the employee most deserving of promotion.

Sexual relationships between supervisor and subordinate are frequently very 
distracting to these two.  Also, the existence of widely known consenting 
relationships sometimes encourages other supervisors to make unwelcome 
sexual overtures to other employees.

Some companies act on the principle that all sexual relationships between 
supervisors and their subordinates may conflict with company interests.  
Where genuine loving relationships do arise, the supervisor should be 
expected to take steps quickly to deal with the conflict of interest.  
Sometimes supervision of the junior employee can be transferred to another 
manager.  Or the senior member of the pair might discuss the situation with 
management.

This kind of policy may serve another purpose.  The supervisor who is a 
target of unwanted seduction attempts, as well as the employee who is 
unhappy at being propositioned, is often reluctant to hurt the other 
person's feelings.  And often it may not be clear whether unwelcome sexual 
overtures should be considered harassment.

It can help in such situations for the beleaguered party to have a company 
policy to fall back on so that it becomes unnecessary to define a 
proposition as harassment or to tell someone that he or she is not an 
attractive partner.  It is simpler to say, "We can't."

Finally, a company policy against sexual relationships in supervision may 
be critical to the success of mentoring programs for women.  It is 
absolutely vital to the success of women that they be seen to advance on 
the basis of the quality of their work and that they receive the same 
guidance and sponsorship that men receive.

Successful mentor alliances require men and women to work closely together. 
Thus men must feel free to encourage and criticize the performance of women 
without innuendo from others and without provoking suspicion.  Programs for 
advancement, for men as well as for women, can succeed only in an 
atmosphere where neither harassment nor the fear of it exists.