Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    My reaction is almost identical to yours, Meigs:  she was cowardly
    and immature, maybe even stupid.  Certainly despicably thoughtless.
                                                  
    						=maggie

    perhaps the student behaved irresponsibly, but is it fair to expect
    every young person to exercise mature judgement at all times? it
    sounds to me like the university failed. from what meigs is saying,
    they used the student's complaint as an excuse to get rid of someone
    they didn't want working for them. 

        Re: foregoing,
        
        In a  way  like NOTES, perhaps - in an atmosphere of imbalanced
        sexual discrimination, a  man  who  speaks his mind (rightly or
        wrongly) can be complained against  and  disciplined for saying
        what he thinks, regardless of the  fact  that  he  is a boor, a
        sexist clown with an outdated attitude -  but  is  it worth his
        livelihood to score a point? I don't think so.
        
        Andy
        

    in re .0
    
    About six years ago I was sitting in on a class with my 'special
    needs' son to see if he was properly placed.  While the chidren
    were at lunch a little boy came up to me and told me that his
    'friend' hurt wanted me to pull down his pants to look at his
    penis  becuase he said it was bleeding. I instead took him to the
    nurses's office. About a year later I saw the same little boy in
    a local store and greeted him, since he recognized me and also said
    hello to his mother...she then proceeded to tell me (once I had
    told her how I knew her son) that she had taken him out of the
    school because he had been touched on the privates by the teachers
    there. 
    
    Given my previous encounter with her son, I found myself seriously
    doubting that there was anything at all wrong with the situation,
    but that it was rather a case of total failure of miscommunication.
    
    I think the situation with the professor is of a similar nature.
    Being myself a touchy huggy sort of person...and having a father
    who is the same...I think that we have come to a time when a person
    with a generous an affectionate heart can get in trouble for just
    being warm and reaching out to someone...if that someone is already
    troubled.
    
    I would agree with the previous answers that the University failed
    in its responsiblities in handling this case.
    
    Bonnie

    re .0 That sends a lousy message to those of us who are 
    working at becoming *more* physically expressive. 
    
    Sounds like the prof was just a person at ease with his own
    need for touch. Although he probably was a bit insensitive
    to the (in)appropriateness of expressing that need, I think that
    he could have been told to "cool it" in a non-hurtful way.

    A bad over-reaction by many.
    
    dana

    
    
    I agree with Liz.  I think the University used this complaint
    as an excuse to "retire" this administrator.  If the student
    was uncomfortable with being touched, she had every right to complain.
    We all have different levels of comfort around touching and being
    touched.  I think it should have been possible for the University
    to make a fair judgement in this case.  I'll also add that from
    the short story presented, I can't be sure that *didn't* happen.
    I suspect that in many cases of sexual harassment, there are
    character witnesses for the defense who will say, "he's a swell
    guy.  he's just affectionate."  I'm certainly not willing to
    blame a young woman for "ruining a career" when all she did (as far
    as I know) was to make her feelings known to the appropriate
    school officials.
    
    Justine

    Similar stories already abound at DEC:
    
    - Men having charges brought against them for asking a woman
      if she wants to out for lunch
    
    - Men having charges brought against them for stopping to have
      a chat with a woman
    
    - Men having charges brought against them for bringing flowers
      in to the women working in their groups (but not to women in other
      groups) -----> DISCRIMINATION CHARGES
    
    And the beat goes on............
    
    I understand the Corporation (under its present policies) must 
    investigate ALL charges of harassment/discrimination - and take
    action - if justified, in order not to leave itself open to
    lawsuits from alleged harassees.
    
    However, if the Policies do not become more clearly defined, the
    Corporation just might find itself on the receiving end of more
    and more lawsuits from alleged (but-later-exonerated) harassers.
    
      Alan

    
    RE: .6
    
    I've often wondered if a woman who complains about being touched on
    the arm or a shoulder by a man - and who bring sexual harassment
    charges against him - would do so if she had been touched in the
    same places by another woman?
    
      Alan

	RE: .7

	On the other hand, sexual harrasment does exist at DEC, and
	you can't make a judgement based on what little information
	you gave in .7.  Thank goodness all complaints are looked
	into instead of just dismissed as trivial.

	I never complained the time I went to a business lunch with
	a colleague and he asked me to have an affair with him.  I
	don't know whether I should have or not.  I'll never forget,
	though, having to go back to work with him (he drove), and
	crossing my fingers that he wouldn't try to touch me before
	I could get back to my office.  And then he asked me to give
	him a kiss anyways, and keep the offer in mind!!

	RE: .0

        I've been in situations where men I barely know stand too close
        to me and I think I would have been very upset if they had
        touched me even if it was just on the arm.  And I'm not paranoid
        (I notice they don't stand as close when I'm with another man.)
        I don't blame the woman in .0 for going to others to complain
        instead of directly confronting the man.  It takes a lot of self
        confidence to confront someone, especially someone in authority. 
	I agree that the school had to make the decision (and how do
	we know that others hadn't complained?).  From what I read in
	.0, it sounds like the school misused the situation.

	I think it's sad that people aren't more warm and touch each
	other more casually.  But I know I don't want that from a
	stranger (let's at least wait until we start to become friends).

	...Karen

	on a tagent:  You ever notice how women are obligated to kiss
	and hug others, but men can just shake hands?  I wish women
	would shake hands more.

    I believe that we as a society (not women in particular) depend
    on 'authorities' to resolve minor issues.
    
    The student should have spoke to the professor first.  And then
    escalated the issue if she felt uncomfortable with the situation
    and the issue was important to her.
    
    It seems like there is a lot of 'reporting' and 'complaining' on
    every level.  Things like city ordinances for trash removal for
    example.  The slightest infraction has neighbors on the phone
    complaining to the authorities.  Often times the situation is resolved
    before the authorities get there...and the result is resentment
    between neighbors.
    
    Sexual harassment...is so loosely defined that it can be used as
    a weapon by disgruntled people.  And when this happens it dilutes
    the serious cases and true offenders are not punished for their
    behavior.
    
    I do not believe it is possible to have an environment free of sexual
    harassment.  I think we have to take responsibility for the behavior
    we expect from others.  If we use every strategy we have and we
    still feel there is a problem, then go to the authorities.
    
    
    

    Ummm, some of the incidents being mentioned here (as ~I heard
    about~'s) sound like they could be, well, not really true.  Now,
    it's a lot to ask, and I don't really expect anyone to do it,
    but I would recommend that people read one or more of Jan Brunvand's
    books on Urban Legends before passing on any more ~I heard about~'s.
    _The_Vanishing_Hitchhiker_ is the first, and perhaps the best; the
    others (so far) are _The_Choking_Doberman_ and _The_Mexican_Pet_.
    (You remember the recipe for Mrs. Fields' Chocolate Chip Cookies
    passing around the next last spring?  The story with it was an updated
    version of the Red Velvet Cake urban legend.)
    
    From the Personnel Policies and Procedures, Section 6.03:
    
    "In determining whether alleged conduct is sexual harassment, the
    nature of the sexual advances and the context in which they
    supposedly occurred must be examined."
    
    (Words like "alleged", "supposedly", and "context" should allay any
    unfounded fears that might be sprouting out there.)
    
    							Ann B.

    1. Thanks, Ann
    
    2. The situation was FUBAR from the beginning. OK, maybe the student
    was uncomfortable with asking the man not to touch her. Well, then
    *move* 6 feet or so! WEll, OK maybe she wasn't comfortable with
    *that*, either - next step tell someone in the administration. NOW:
    it's the administration's responsibility to handle the situation
    properly. What did they do? They said "Wow! An opportunity to get
    rid of Old Fred"  
    
    For all its ivy-covered reputation, the "education biz" at any level
    can be VERY cutthroat. I think this guy had a "contract" out on
    him, and the administration saw this as "their chance".
    
    3. Dana, I couldn't agree more. I think the world *needs* more
    touching, not less. (Non-sexual type touching. But then, we have
    a lot of work to do to get our act together in that area) It's equally
    difficult for men and women. I refrain from touching males, for
    example, for fear that it will be taken as an "invitation" to something
    I didn't mean. I can see where men with perfectly honorable "friend"
    intentions refrain because a woman might think the intention is
    otherwise - because, of course, it most often *is*. And let's not
    forget how touch can communicate a power mismatch, too. (This issue
    might indeed have affected the situation in .0. What the young woman
    might have been feeling was a "power-touch" which is so easy to
    confuse with a "sexual touch" from a man. And maybe it does come
    down to the same thing, anyway.)
    
    4. RE: The same touch from a woman. Certainly the situation is very
    different. The sexuality/power-play combination is not at work.
    Any "danger" from such a touch is almost non-existent if it's from
    another powerless person, like another woman or a child.
    
    
    --DE
    

RE: .12

>                I can see where men with perfectly honorable "friend"
>  intentions refrain because a woman might think the intention is        
>  otherwise - because, of course, it most often *is*.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
Nothing like an insulting, sweeping generalization to not prove a point.
    
        
>  4. RE: The same touch from a woman. Certainly the situation is very
>  different. The sexuality/power-play combination is not at work.

Are you intimating that there's never a female-to-female power
play, or that one woman's touching another on the arm or shoulder
should never be construed as being, perhaps, sexual?

  Alan 

    If the University authorities had been acting responsibly, I think
    they should have given the guy a written warning (first offense,
    not to go in his file) which basically said "Look Joe, we have known
    you a long time and we suspect it is groundless.  Nevertheless,
    we have to protect our students.  Would you please think very carefully
    about what you are doing with your hands and protect yourself and
    us by behaving circumspectly."  If it happened again, I think he
    should get another letter.  A third time would be grounds for
    firing.
    
    If he had done something demonstrably sexual (exposed himself, forced
    her to kiss him, 'felt her up',) then this course of action would
    be way too tame.  But where there is reasonable doubt, I think that
    a warning or two are appropriate.
    
    I think women should be encouraged to express their feelings directly
    to the person involved if they can and to express them to an authority
    if they cannot confront the person.
    
    There are men I could confront, and men whom I wouldn't try to
    confront, and I'm nearly "twice 18".  It's very hard to do, and
    the woman involved is often treated as though she is imagining things
    even when she is not.                               
                        
    When I was teaching, we were encouraged to withold affection even
    from young children, especially if we were alone in the room with
    them.  When a five year old skins her knee, and is crying, I think
    everyone's instinct is to pull the child onto your lap and comfort
    her.   It's very stressful situation not to be able to do that.
    It's one of the reasons I'm no longer teaching.
    
    Male teachers, unfortunately, had to be much more careful than female
    teachers.   Either way, the kids are the losers.
    
    aaarrrggghhh!
  

    The last reply I tried didn't fully transmit...here's one more try!
    
    Personally, it does sound as though the university acted a little
    too hastily....however, we don't know all the facts.  It seems quite
    possible to me that this professor could have been previously
    warned...especially considering the fact that EVERYone was familiar
    with his tendency to "touch" while conversing.  I find it difficult
    to believe that this would be the first complaint.
    
    Yeah....maybe she should have said something to him...but often
    we find ourselves without the "proper" response at the time it is
    needed.  Considering her age.....this is believable (I'm about twice
    her age..happens to me all the time!)
    
    I honestly feel she did the right thing and don't believe the blame
    should be put upon this girl!  What courage it must have taken to
    make this complaint....I'm sure she's since thought and wished she
    herself had said something!!  In fact..it would have been easier
    for all concerned!!
    
    Maybe she doesn't like just ANYone touching her ANYwhere while
    conversing, no less a stranger known for 5 whole minutes.
    
    Personally I HATE IT WHEN ANYONE TOUCHes ME WHILE
    CONVERSING..ESPECIALLY A STRANGER!!  When my husband touches my
    shoulder and then moves to my upper arm...IT FEELS LIKE A CARESS!
    Not everyone is entitled to that!
    
    No, I am not a person who likes that sort of contact...never have
    been...never will be...not all my relatives are like that either,
    it's not something that's necessarily learned!  Its just the way
    I AM...and that's ok!
    
    Did anyone in this discussion ever consider that maybe this girl
    has gone thru some other type of dramatic assault?? Or someone close
    to her??  She's entitled to her feelings.....
    
    I certainly hope my daughter has the kind of courage it took this
    girl to report this professor....especially since it seems so trivial
    to some.  Seems to me this was not the first of such complaints.
    
    Kathy (LOOK at me when you talk to me! please...)

Whoops. I was obviously too vague in the .0.  The college indeed "had 
a contract" on the admin, and was looking for a reason to force him off 
staff.  Let me make it plainer. They wanted to get rid of the guy; 
they used the complaint as their 'public' reason, and the were gleeful 
when the complaint feel into their laps.

> RE: .7  I never complained the time I went to a business lunch with
> a colleague and he asked me to have an affair with him.  I don't know 
> whether I should have or not.  

I think you acted properly.  His behavior sure sounds boorish and stupid,
but it doesn't stike me as sexual harassment.  If he tried some kind of
nasty strategy -- let's do this or I'll ruin you in this department --
that's harassment.  Or if he asked every third working day for a long time.
But a co-worker saying let's date or let's have an affair doesn't strike me
as harassment. 

> You ever notice how women are obligated to kiss and hug others, but 
>  men can just shake hands?  I wish women would shake hands more.

Yeah! Cheek touching is not too much trauma. Starting the handshake motion
four feet away also works well. I like shaking hands. 

RE: 12  "a powerless person like a woman or a child."

I do not regard myself as powerless, I am not powerless, and since you 
write clearly and well in a widely-read public forum such as this, I 
can assume you are pretty damn far from powerless yourself.  Meigs

       re .10:
       
       Huzzah!  
       
       (I could relate a boring story about a DECcie who complained to
       personnel for having been called a 'weenie' in a notes conference,
       but since Joyce's note says it all so well I won't bother.)
       
       --Mr Topaz 

    
    	I know I'm always aware that my actions may not be taken
    	in the same manner that I display them as, thus I live
    	by a simple rule.. "I touch no one and no one touches
    	me!!". If by chance someone does try to get too close
    	and touchy, a simple COLD stare will usually pass on
    	my intent very quickly.
    
    	 I was not however aware that if a male co-worker asked
    	a woman out it could be taken as such. Does this hold
    	true for the woman also?  What a sick world it is when
    	you can't even talk to another without risking you job!!
    
    	G_B

    	RE: .20
    
    	Don't panic, George.  That sounds very much like an Urban Legend
    	to me (and I don't know a soul in DEC who would run to Personnel
    	over a simple date request.)
    
    	If it turned to daily badgering, that is another story.
    
    	Meanwhile, let's not get tooooo carried away.  :-)
    

    re: .21
    
    Sorry to wreck your faith in human nature and DEC, Suzanne, but
    asking for a date frequently is harrassment.
    
    If the man doing the asking is married, or in a position of
    authority over the woman who's being asked, it's likely to
    be considered an open and shut case.  After all, if he's her
    boss, she may well not feel free to turn him down.
    
    When my group took the sexual-harrassment seminar a couple
    of years ago, the personnel person delivering the film explicitly
    warned the men in the group that requests for dates were off
    limits unless you were both single and on the same level, and
    even then it was risky.
    
    --bonnie

RE:. 17

> Whoops. I was obviously too vague in the .0.  The college indeed "had 
> a contract" on the admin, and was looking for a reason to force him off 
> staff.  Let me make it plainer. They wanted to get rid of the guy; 
> they used the complaint as their 'public' reason, and the were gleeful 
> when the complaint feel into their laps.

Maybe it's just my Machiavellian mind at work (or possibly, just watching
too much TV), but could it be possible that the college, wanting to get
rid of this guy - and knowing his mannerisms - just happened to suggest to
this student that she engage this administrator in a conversation, with an
understanding that "future considerations" might be granted her, in return
for her filing a complaint.

Nahhhhhhhhhhhh. That's too far-fetched. 

Couldn't happen in real life.

  Alan

    	RE: .22
    
    	Yes, I did forget about manager-employee relationships (and
    	the dangers involved in trying to start one...)
    
    	Never realized how touchy it was for a peer to ask another
    	peer out on a date in DEC.  (Considering how many employees
    	end up getting together at some facilities, there must be a
    	lot of folks not bothering to complain about being asked
    	out -- either that or there are a lot of women doing the
    	asking...)  :-)
    
    	Hmmm... Maybe that's why a number of men became somewhat rabid
    	awhile back (in another conference) on the subject of wanting 
    	women to ask them out.
    	
    	Just kidding!  :-)

    The thing that bothers me is when a woman is an all an out flirt,
    leads the men on in the group by buying into the crude remarks and
    laughs and thinks there funny and then turns around and runs to
    personnel when things get out of hand.  This has happened in a group
    that I have worked.  The woman should of in the beginning stood
    her ground on what is acceptable behavior and I'm sure the men would
    respected that right, they did for me.  But when a man (or woman) has 
    been made to feel its o'k to act this way they will continue.
    
    This kind of behavior makes other woman who are professional in
    the work environment look bad.   

    
    	So I guess I was correct to assume that sexual harassment
    	really only applies to males here in DEC-land?  If this
    	is so, does anyone know the basis for it?
    
    	On a side note, life must sure be a bear for someone like
    	Dr. Leo B (whatever his name is). Now there is a person
    	that lives to touch!!! 
    
    	G_B
    
    	P.S.  Hi Suzanne!! 

    re: .27 --
    
    Leo Buscaglia.  Yeah, he'd have a real hard time in an
    equal-employment opportunity environment.  Maybe that's why he's a
    speaker and consultant instead. 
    
    Actually I do know of one case where a woman was dragged up for
    sexual harrassment of a man; she kept propositioning him even
    after he told her he was otherwise attached.  She's not with the
    company any more but I don't know if she left because of that. 
    
    It makes me feel very sad to think that warm-hearted and
    sympathetic men like George and Eagle are scared out of reaching
    out to get to know people better by the threat of possibile
    punitive action. 
    
    This whole business of calling in personnel (DEC, university, or
    whatever) to deal sort out our dealings with men bothers me.  It
    seems too much like running home in tears to Daddy expecting him
    to make those big mean boys leave us alone.
    
    I'm not talking about situations where a man is using his position
    of power to get a woman, or where he's withholding promotions
    or whatever; those are legitimate concerns.  I'm talking about
    things like backing away from a touch or declining a proposition.
    
    If we can't even handle an unwanted proposition from a co-worker,
    how are we going to handle equal rights?  It seems we're crying
    for equal rights and responsibilities but we turn around and
    expect to be protected by the same laws.  I don't see how we can
    have it both ways.  Either we're equal, or we're protected. 
     
    --bonnie

    Well, Alan, we may actually agree on something. I wouldn't necessarily
    put it past the college admin. to set the guy up if they wanted
    to get rid of him badly enuff.
    
    RE: Women touching other women. Certainly such a touch *could* be
    sexual, however it is less likely , unless the two women already
    knew each other and/or were in a less professional environment.
    In ANY case, the touch would NOT have had the "one-up" power
    implications.
    
    RE: Women as powerless
    
    1) How powerful/less *I* am personally is irrelevant, as is power
    in NOTES-land.
    
    2) Of the two peple involved in the incident, the young
    woman was the less powerful because she was First: female, Second:
    younger than the prof. THird: a student. His touching her communicated
    his *power* to do so. Another woman, even if a prof herself would
    be much less powerful than the man. A female student would've been
    on the same footing, ie., equal in power.
    
    3) The potential physical violence involved when a more powerful
    man touches a less powerful woman does not exist when a woman touches
    another woman. 
    
    NOTE: Now, just because I said "potential" doesn't mean I said
    "actual". And just because I said there was not potential violence
    on a woman's part doesn't mean there haven't been incidents of such
    violence. There are, however, no such incidents between strangers
    of this type (as opposed to street gangs, etc.) that I've ever seen
    documented.
    
    RE: Asking a woman for a date
    
    Seems like we're back to the old power issue again. IF the man has
    some kind of employment-power over the woman, the issue becomes
    much more complicated. Between peer employees, I really don't see
    any problem unless the rejected party begins some kind of bothersome
    "campaign" - can't take "no" for an answer, type of thing.
    
    --DE
     

    Oh yeah, one more thing. How could a man feel so free to touch the
    young woman, when another woman would feel less free? (Assuming
    any sexual intent in such touch, which is problematic at least)
    
    Because it's still much more acceptable to be a lech than a lesbian.
    
    If the old boy were liked by the college admin AND were a
    well-documented lech, they would've protected him all the way. "Oh,
    he's a harmless old guy....you're over-reacting..." etc. 
    
    The guy's days were definitely numbered.
    
    --DE
    

    	RE: .25
    
    	> leads the men on in the group by buying into the crude remarks
    	> and laughs and thinks there funny and then turns around and
    	> runs to personnel when things get out of hand...
    
    	Sounds like the old argument that women "INVITE" rape by dressing
    	in a certain manner (or traveling alone in certain places.)
    
    	Do you think that women should strictly refrain from joining
    	in with peers when they kid around (or else be responsible if
    	one of her co-workers thinks she is "hot" because of it and
    	makes a pass or whatever?)
    
    	Perhaps the reason why harrassment rules are so strict (at the moment)
    	is because DEC realizes that there are going to be a lot of gray
    	areas between male and female employees while women are in
    	the process of becoming peers with men in greater numbers.
    
    	Telling women that we must *never* kid around with men (and
    	must, instead, lay down the law to them about what behavior
    	we will *allow* in our presence) is just as restricting (MORE
    	SO, in fact) than telling men that they'd best not ask their
    	women co-workers out on dates.

    	Such demands on women would limit our ability to function
    	as equal peers at work (and would be much more limiting to us
    	in our WORK than it would be for men who are merely being
    	asked to find potential dates elsewhere.)
    
    	I'm not saying that men *should* be discouraged from asking
    	women for dates at work.  Just trying to find some sort of
    	perspective here.

    	RE: .34 is still being written
    
    	Ooops.  Your note got lost on the net somewhere.
    
    	Just wanted to add a couple of thoughts here.  While I may agree
    	that some kinds of humor are not appropriate for the workplace
    	(and I may be personally against such humor for philosophical
    	and/or political reasons,) what bothered me about what you said
    	is the implication that if women buy into certain kinds of humor
    	at work, then they have no right to complain if they are sexually
    	harrassed later because of it.
    
    	Like I said before, there are a great many gray areas involving
    	relations between men and women at work, but my basic feeling
    	is that I dislike the idea that a woman can be considered guilty
    	of inciting sexual harrassment if she is anything less than
    	"100% pure" at work (i.e., never allows herself to engage in any
    	sort of humor that could be considered to have put her in a
    	"compromising situation" where men are concerned.)
    
    	Others can explain this far better than I can, but what I'm
    	trying to say is that a person who "loses control" at work
    	(and sexually harrasses another) is responsible for his or
    	her own actions.  If a man sexually harrasses a woman at work
    	because a group of peers engaged in crude humor (and the woman
    	peer just happened to laugh along with everyone else,) HE is
    	still responsible for his actions.  When a woman laughs at a
    	dirty joke (or whatever,) that doesn't mean that she INVITES
    	and DESERVES sexual advances (especially at the office.)
    
    	I have no problem with discouraging crude humor because it is
    	boring, tasteless, sexist/racist or downright offensive, but
    	I dislike the idea of being made to feel that women should
    	discourage it out of fear of being sexually harrassed (and having
    	no recourse because they are thought to have *invited* it by
    	appearing to "accept" the crude remarks.)

    	By the way, I do agree that false charges of sexual harrassment
    	are wrong (and serve to trivialize the *real* instances of
    	harrassment that make corporate policy about such things important
    	and necessary,) but I wanted to make a distinction between "false"
	(frivolous) charges of harrassment and *justified* charges that
    	come out of having engaged in behavior that is common among
    	some/many men and culturally discouraged for women (such as
    	laughing at crude humor.)

    re: .35
    
    You bring up a good point, Suzanne, and one that I hadn't thought
    of before.
    
    And I probably should have, since I'm known to enjoy some very
    raunchy jokes (I buy Playboy for the cartoons . . . )  I certainly
    don't think I'm asking for sexual harrassment!  
    
    Although I have become much more circumspect at work in the last
    couple of years.  I don't joke around as much about anything, I
    don't send stuff to my friends over the network, I don't stand
    around in the halls in the afternoon chattering.  The whole
    climate at DEC is much more restrictive and much less fun.
    
    Fun, it seems, has become a dangerous thing.
    
    And I sometimes wonder if the things we are gaining by restricting
    everything people say really make up for the things we are losing.
    Again, I'm not talking about the real harrassment when men in
    power threaten the women under their control, but about this
    need to restrict our speech and behavior to that level of
    innocuousness that will please the least common denominator.
    
    This bothers me.  The constitutional provisions for free speech
    weren't designed to protect people who were saying things that
    nobody objected to.  It's supposed to protect the unpopular,
    the stupid, the radical, and the downright weird.  
    
    Ah, well.  A necessary evil, I suppose.
    
    --bonnie

          This is not in response to any particular note here, but to
    	the general fear that someone may get charged without knowing
    	they have done anything wrong.  The Employee handbook says 
    	"Individuals who believe that they have been subjected to 
    	harrassment are expected to make it clear that such behavior 
    	is offensive to them...".  I interpret this like the social
    	honor code they had at my college:  you are expected to
    	take up a complaint with the person in question before going
    	to the "authorities".  Maybe personel is not following this.
    	  Part of the problem is that the individual likely to be brought
    	up for sexual harrassment is also the individual least likely
    	to see what is wrong with it, hence the reaction "What'd I do?".
     	  I don't see how you can get in trouble if you treat work like
    	a sexless environment in what you say and do, if not in what
    	you think.  Some people feel that would make things very boring, 
    	but I am willing to put up with a few less laughs.
    	   Linda

       Some years ago I was teaching: shortly after I got the job I
       joined the appropriate union (else I wouldn't have kept the
       job...) and got a pile of leaflets from the union rep. One of
       these dealt with avoiding charges of sexual harassment.

       It stated very clearly (in red ink if I recall correctly) that
       staff members of academic establishments should amongst other
       things avoid totally *any* physical contact with students.

       /. Ian .\

Re: .35,  I don't feel you are being fair when it comes to sexual
    harrasment, what you are talking about is not harrasment (actually
    it is for anyone who is the receipant of such charges).  Hey,
    walk a way from the  situation, if you don't like it.  I myself can get
    pretty explicit if its with someone who I can trust (men and woman
    alike). If you say o'k, you can talk like that in front
    of me, NO PROBLEM.  How the hell, are they suppose to know when
    you change your mind.  Until suddenly they brought into the bosses
    office being explained they have been charged with sexual harrassment.
    
    Give me a break!

    Re: .35
    
    >When a woman laughs at a dirty joke (or whatever,) that doesn't
    >mean that she INVITES and DESERVES sexual advances
    
    True.  But I can see that it might be confusing for her coworkers
    if she doesn't make it clear what she does and does not find
    acceptable.  Unless you're told, you have to cross a boundary at
    least once to find out where it is.  One of the steps of getting
    acquainted is moving the boundaries from "social" to "personal"
    range.  Most people have a pretty good idea of where the social
    boundary is (even if they choose to ignore it), but personal boundaries
    are usually mapped by trial and error.

    	RE: .39
    
    	>  I don't feel you are being fair when it comes to sexual
    	>  harrasment, what you are talking about is not harrasment
    	> (actually it is for anyone who is the receipant of such
    	> charges).
    
    	How do you know what exact behavior I was talking about when
    	I used the words "sexual advances"?  (You didn't state explicitly
    	what behavior *you* were talking about, and neither did I.)
    
    	I don't think of a dirty joke as a "sexual advance" (and I would
    	imagine that a woman who has been laughing at "crude humor"
    	would not consider it as such either.)
    
    	You said "when things get out of hand" (so I assumed that the
    	behavior went, at some point, well PAST the stage of crude humor
    	and on to something more personal.)
    
    	All I was trying to say was that if a man commits what we would
    	AGREE is "sexual harrassment" towards a woman, it shouldn't
    	matter whether or not she had been willing to laugh at crude
    	humor along with the rest of her group at some point.
    
    	> Hey, walk a way from the situation, if you don't like it...
    	> How the hell, are they suppose to know when you change your
    	> mind.
    
    	I'd appreciate it if you would not change your personal pronouns
    	like that (to make it sound as if you are speaking to ME about
    	something that I do personally.)  We were talking about a
    	theoretical situation involving a theoretical woman (not me.)
    
    	I'm hoping you understand by now that I am in no way condoning
    	a harrassment complaint made by someone who accepts "certain
    	behavior" one minute, and then refuses to accept the SAME "certain
    	behavior" the next minute (and goes to Personnel.)  Like I said
    	earlier -- you originally said "when things get out of hand"
    	(which I took to mean that things had gone BEYOND the orginal
    	"crude humor" stage.)
    
    	If "when things get out of hand" translates to mean REAL SEXUAL
 	HARRASSMENT, the woman's earlier enjoyment of crude humor should
    	not be taken as an INVITATION for someone to harrass the woman
    	sexually.

    	That's all I was trying to say.

    	RE: .40
    
    	> ... But I can see that it might be confusing for her coworkers
    	> if she doesn't make it clear what she does and does not find
    	> acceptable.  Unless you're told, you have to cross a boundary
    	> at least once to find out where it is.
    
    	The workplace is not the smartest place to experiment with
    	limits on acceptable human/sexual behavior (if you catch my
    	drift.)
    
    	When in doubt about the location of boundaries of unacceptable
    	behavior at the workplace, it is far wiser to fall well SHORT
    	of those boundaries than to find them by crossing over them.

    Re: .42
    
    >The workplace is not the smartest place to experiment with limits
    >on acceptable human/sexual behavior
    
    It is, however, a place to make friends.  Experimenting - deliberately
    trying something to see what will happen - is stupid.  When working
    on friendship, it's the process of finding common ground that can
    lead to crossing boundaries.
    
    >it is far wiser to fall well SHORT of those boundaries
    
    Fortunately, most people do.  Pushing the limits is a good way to
    kill off a burgeoning friendship.  I suspect the people who cross
    boundaries most often are the more self-centered ones, who expect
    (consciously or not) people to adapt to their own tastes.

        One of the many conflicts involved in women attaining the
        equality that they have every right to is the impression that
        many men get that women want to join the game, but don't want to
        play by the rules. Not all men get this impression nor do they
        get it about all women, nor is it entirely justified, but it is
        a real effect and a real road block, and we all of us, mena nd
        women alike need to know about it and overcome it.
        
        It semms to me that it's sort of at the heart of the complaint
        that some women join in in the hijinx and then without warning
        call in the authorities. 
        
        Men, because of the stereotypes and expectations we set up in
        this culture, are used to getting away with acting badly towards
        each other in the name of good clean (or not so clean) fun. It's
        something that carries over from being kids on the playground.
        It's like all the crap you put up with to be initiated into a
        fraternity. If you're one of the guys, then the other guys are
        gonna "kid you around" and some of that "kidding" can appear
        cruel from the outside, some of it can actually be cruel, but
        "real men" don't go to the authorities any more than "real boys"
        would go crying to Mommy.
        
        Once you're part of the gang you are expected to go along with a
        certain amount of off-color behavior. If it is really offensive,
        you're supposed to let the others know in a way such that they
        can honorably back down. You don't publicly challenge them in a
        way that it would be too cowardly to back down or where they
        would have to acknowledge being intentionally mean. You don't
        bring in outside forces except as a last resort.
        
        Now the problem with all of this is that it doesn't really make
        sense, and there's no simple way to learn where the boundaries
        are and what the rules are, and when you should challenge
        someone and when to call in outsiders. Many men only barely
        learn the rules. Some never master them and some think the whole
        game is stupid. Women who were brought up as girls and not as
        boys have an even harder time learning the rules.
        
        This means that women breaking into groups that have
        traditionally been all male don't know the rules and even if
        they do, are likely to recognize them as both arbitrary and
        stupid and not something that someone sensible would want to put
        up with. As a result, they are liable to be criticized at one
        moment for lacking the gumption to stand up to someone who is
        out of line and then at the very next for over-reacting.
        
        Most men tend to think of themselves as powerful, or at the very
        least are unwilling to admit that they aren't. This means that
        they are often not threatened by things which would be very
        threatening if they happened between people of different levels
        of power. Many women breaking into male environments quite
        reasonably feel that their power is still rather provisional,
        and thus feel threatened by things that the men around them
        might not. Also, because women have really been less powerful
        and because there is a whole additional dimension upon which
        they may interact--sexually--the situations may really be more
        threatening in an objective sense.
        
        Due to all of this, the women don't act as the men expect them
        to act, and the men often don't understand why the women are
        doing what they do, and vice versa. A lot of misunderstandings
        ensue. It isn't at all clear what the right solution is. There
        probably isn't one, but rather many that all have to happen at
        once.
        
        Women need to learn the rules of the game. Men need to
        understand that women don't understand them, but ought to be
        able to play anyway. The rules need to change because they
        aren't necessarily appropriate. New rules have to replace the
        old so that there always rules and they are always known. We
        need to learn to assume that "wrong" actions don't always mean
        bad motives, but may just reflect a different understanding of
        the rules of the game.
        
        JimB.

RE: .44

Nicely put, Jim. I think your note explains the theoretical 
perspective of how we all - men and women - got into the morass 
in which we find ourselves today.

Would you be willing to try to translate some of the issues you
raised, to some of the "nuts-and-bolts" events that have been
related within this 'string'?

  Alan 

    
    	RE: .44
    
    	  I don't know if I buy that Jim, some of the things that
    	some of the men think they can get away with in dealing
    	with women is not something I was ever told was proper.
    	Sure we had "rules" to be part of the group, but in no
    	way did that ever imply you had crate blanc to do/say
    	what demeaning thing you felt like to women. It just 
    	seems to be too easy to just shrug off this sort of crap
    	as "normal mens behaviour". Well, it's not in my books,
    	nor any of the groups I have been part of.
    
    	 Aslo, on the subject of when a woman goes along with a
    	dirty joke. How can anyone assume just cause she would
    	think it's funny and laugh, that she gives every male
    	the right to say/feel what ever they want? If anyone
    	tells me a dirty joke and I do laugh at it, does that
    	mean they then have the right to grab at me and make
    	all kinds of rude remarks? Why do some men have to think
    	this way? There is no connection between the two, a joke
    	is a joke, but demeaning another in a sexual manner is
    	no joke.

    re: .46 re: .44 --
    
    My experience as a working woman has been that as soon as I start
    playing the game by the men's rules, I lose my status as a "woman"
    deserving the special treatment that forbids what .46 accurately
    labels as "this sort of crap."  The few times I have been on the
    receiving end of that sort of thing (mostly outside of work) it
    has struck me as almost exactly analogous to the hazing you read
    about taking place in the military academies -- like they're
    testing me and want to see how I react, what kind of stuff I'm
    made of.  And if I handle it in a way that makes them respect me,
    they accept me. 
    
    I've never had any trouble working with men by the rules of the
    men's groups.  I've always been accepted as an 'equal' as long as
    I could do the work of an equal. I don't always go along with
    those rules; I don't always think they're right and I don't think
    I have to remake myself into a man in order to do my job well. 
    
    I have never been harrassed in any sexual way in a work situation
    at Digital.  I attribute it to my father, who was very observant
    about the rules of the game and taught me how to play if I wanted
    to.  And although he understood those rules very well, he didn't
    play by a lot of them.  He went his own way and I think many of
    his colleagues thought of him as rather unmasculine. 
    
    --bonnie    

	Re .44, Jim, I can relate to what you are saying, and often
    	sexual or put-down-women type remarks are made as part of
    	initial ribbing when a woman joins a group.  The end result
    	of hazing is supposed to be admission to the group.  But 
    	sometimes truely malicious remarks are made intentionally,
    	with the goal of excluding the woman permanently.  If this 
    	is done each time the woman attempts to join in, I would 
    	construe that as harrassment.
	
    	Also there is a difference between a sexual putdown and a generic
    	one.  It is like if two people get into an argument and are calling
    	eachother names, and one of them shouts "You <minority>."
    	To me that is a different type of putdown.  It takes them off
    	of equal footing, and reminds the insulted person, "You are lower
    	than me in this society".
        
    	I get the impression from the last group of notes,
    	that people think women are running to personnel in droves over
    	the occasional off-color joke.  This sounds like paranoia
    	to me, like when they first allowed a woman to place rape charges
    	against her husband, many men seemed to think that women were
    	going to abuse this "power".
    
    	In my 2 years at DEC I have observed 3 cases of what I would
    	call harassement, 2 involved inappropriate touching, one of
    	those also involved persistent requests for dates after being
    	turned down, and the third was of the continued malicious remark
    	type mentioned above.  None of these incidents were reported
    	to personnel.  I think the average employee does not like to
    	make complaints to personnel for fear of being labelled a
	"troublemaker". 
    
    	Linda

    	Also, regarding the "we all have to go through hazing",
    	I think that the non-typical entrant gets it much worse.
    	If anyone saw the movie about the Citadel (a military
    	academy), the black student got it about 10 times worse 
    	than any of the other freshmen.
    		Linda

    re: .48
    
    In our area we are under the impression that relatively trivial
    sexual harrassment complaints are one of the reasons personnel
    is behind in helping with some organizational issues we're
    worried about.
    
    I don't know if it's actually true that personnel is swamped with
    such complaints or if it's true that the complaints are trivial.
    I suspect that in this case, what people believe is true is more
    important than what really is true. 
    
    --bonnie
    
    P.s.  :) I don't believe anything I see in the movies . . . :) 

    It's been useful for me when in a new situation to look around and
    observe how women who are treated respectfully and professionally
    are behaving.  I notice how they dress, where they go, what they
    laugh at, how they behave in meetings.  I keep some of my own
    preferences and tendencies "toned down" until I've observed other
    women long enough to know what the norms of the group seem to be.
    
    This doesn't mean I necessarily mimic them, but rather that the
    information gathered saves a lot of trial and error.
    
    It's also interesting to observe the ones who are the most frustrated
    about personal relationships and power.  In some cases, they are
    in a no-win situation that's not being managed well, but in
    other cases they are trying too hard to be liked and accepted,
    have thoughtless personal habits like constantly interrupting others
    and finishing sentences for others, or lose their sense of humor
    the minute the joke is on them and become self-righteous.     
    
    I'd like to read more about these things.  Has anyone read any good
    books lately about interpersonal dynamics at work?
    
    Holly
    

        Please don't think that I meant that all misbehavior towards
        women was "just good clean fun" or that women are treated the
        same way as or as well as men. That wasn't my intent. Similarly,
        I didn't mean to indicate that there was an epidemic of
        harassment complaints.
        
        On the other hand, it doesn't take going to Personnel to fail to
        play the game by the rules. You can also fail to play by not
        standing up for your rights, and thus abdicating from the game,
        or by fighting back the wrong way, or by going off in a huff, or
        by starting out strong and then playing the victim.
        
        Can I put this into less theoretical, and more practical terms?
        I'm not sure. I don't think I can do so effectively, because
        there's so much situation specific judgement involved that
        people are bound to disagree with the details of my
        recommendations for any given hypothetical scenario.
        
        Maybe I can do a little by analogy. There's a lot of similarity
        between men and dogs or wolves socially. Aggression within a
        pack is very symbolic, real danger being held well behind a
        shield of posturing. Also, a lot of pack dynamics is based on
        vulnerability. You expose your throat to your fellows, and the
        fact that they refrain from ripping it out underlies the pack
        bond.
        
        Amongst people, at least amongst men who tend to act like the
        hunters that our forefathers were, the posturing and the
        intentional vulnerability is very real, too. Being open to those
        around you means that you make yourself vulnerable, you even go
        mock fighting called play or rough-housing. The fact that it
        doesn'r escalate to real fighting helps to cement the bonds. The
        fact that a lot of play is mock fighting allows you to
        demonstrate how competent a fighter you would be if it did
        escalate, and how good you would be against non-pack members.
        
        At times, however, the play gets a little too real, claws come a
        little too close to the soft spots. Then it is important to turn
        serious, but not hostile, and draw the line. The proper response
        is to back off and apologize for accidentally coming too close.
        Real conflict is avoided by the buffer of the posturing.
        
        With regards to off-color humor and other "kidding around" that
        comes too close to offensive, the trick is to stop and draw the
        line. You stop playing and flex your muscles. You may show your
        teeth, or even snap momentarily, but you don't turn it into a
        major confrontation. You don't threaten. You just remind them of
        your comptence. Me, I'd physically back off a little, say
        something like "I'm sorry, but that's NOT funny", deliver a
        withering glance and then soften, open up a little and smile.
        I'd expect a sketchy appology or acknowledgement, and a change
        of subject.
        
        Most often, that's enough. You snap. They learn. No one gets
        angry and the bounds are drawn. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes a
        dominance struggle ensues. The offense is repeated until either
        you retreat your line and acknowledge their superiority, are
        driven off, or you push the line back on them until they
        acknowledge your dominance.
        
        How you handle this is up to you. Personally, I'm a pretty
        aggressive and dominant person. I tend not to start dominance
        struggles, but except when it is called for organizationally
        (recognizing the dominance of my manager, etc.), when dominance
        struggles start, I don't back down. This may very well not work
        for most people. I do think, though that some degree of
        aggressiveness is needed by everyone.
        
        If the boundary is crossed repeatedly, if the off-color jokes
        and offensive behavior continues, I would lay down the law
        formally--in private. Privacy is important so that the other
        person can back down. My tactic would be to say "This is
        offensive. I insist it stop." I would not invoke policy unless
        my right to insist was questioned. 
        
        If this failed, I would document (or get witnesses to) the
        offensive behavior, my claim that it was offensive, and my
        assertion that it was unacceptable. If that fails, I would use
        the dominance hierarchy and the documentation, starting with the
        lowest level of the system as possible. I would specifically
        tell the supervisor or manger that I wasn't looking for
        punishment, just an end to the offensive behavior. 
        
        All of this is done with an eye not towards punishing the person
        who has misbehaved, but towards demonstrating on the one hand
        power (including being able to wield the organization as a tool
        or weapon) and determination to use it if need be, and on the
        other hand an understanding of and willingness to play by the
        rules. The message is "I'm willing to be vulnerable within the
        pack, but I'm dangerous to mess with so don't take advantage of
        the vulnerability--better we save our aggression for outsiders".
        
        I've put all this in very graphic and aggressive terms.
        Understand that this is an analogy. The rules of men are not the
        rules of dogs or wolves. It needn't be viewed in terms of threat
        and violence and aggression, although many people do. The issues
        can be stated more positively. You need to demonstrate your
        worth, your openness, the limitations of acceptability and the
        importance to you of those limits. You need to do it in a way
        that allows the other person to back off gracefully when they
        overstep. A proper afternoon tea and drawing room etiquette are
        just as good analogies (especially if Miss Manners had a hand in
        the etiquette).
        
        JimB.

    Jim, I agree with what you're saying.
    
    As I read, I tried to imagine a man using some of the different
    strategies you suggested.  It wasn't hard.  The person confronted
    is kind of surprised, manages to indicate that they were just playing
    around and didn't realize you'd be offended, makes a mental note
    to be a bit more careful around you, and that's the end of it for
    both of them.
    
    I can imagine some women who have a great deal of
    power/charisma/credibility getting the same reaction.
    
    I can also imagine a number of other capable, articulate women
    confronting men in a constructive way...  
    
    For example, a woman confronts a man as Jim suggested. To the woman's
    face the man mutters an apology.  She leaves, he goes next door to his
    buddy and says "F***ing B***h".  The buddy replies, "Aw, it's probably
    just that time of the month."   A month later in a meeting the man
    belittles an important presentation the woman is making, and she can't
    figure out why.                         
    
    It happens.  There are lots of variations on the theme.  It often
    leaves me feeling that I can ignore it or escalate it, and I often
    ignore it if the relationship is not a close work relationship.
    
    Holly
    
    

	re .50, 
    	Bonnie,
    	  It would make a big difference to me whether the impression
    	were true or not.  If personnel is actually "swamped" with
    	trivial complaints of sexual harrassment then I would wonder
    	why they aren't holding educational meetings about what does
    	and does not constitute harrassment and to clarify Digital's 
    	policy.  I also think that they are acting unprofessionally
    	by stating formally or informally that the complaints they
    	receive are "trivial".  It sounds to me like they are doing
    	a poor job of handling the situation.
    	  If on the other hand, that is just everyone's impression,
    	then I think they owe it to the women in the building, who
    	may be subject to resentment because of this rumor, to correct 
    	it.
    		Linda

    Jim is right-on about "The Rules". IT happens that I learned them
    only because I was involved in sports and taught with men during
    my career. "The Rules", even for athletes, differ greatly for women.
    
    Personally, I hope that one of the things feminism is about is
    changing those "Rules" which are so silly, and replacing them with
    sensible people-to-people "rules". Maybe then women and men will
    begin to speak the same language.
    
    --DE