Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Legally, sexual harassment is any unasked-for, repeated intimate
    physical or verbal conduct by one employee to another, or any single
    act which is so far out of bounds that no reasonable person would be
    mistaken about its offensiveness.  
    
    Repeated touching or repeated requests for a date both qualify, for
    example, particularly when the perpetrator has a position of power
    compared to the victim.  Exposing oneself is an example of an act that
    qualifies even if done only once:  no reasonable person would consider
    that an inoffensive act in a normal business context.  Any threat
    accompanying a single act will qualify:  no reasonable person will
    consider a threat inoffensive.
    
    						=maggie

    Sexual harassment includes unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for
    sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct that is both
    sexual and offensive in nature.  Sexual harassment undermines the
    employment relationship by creating an intimidating, hostile or
    offensive work environment.
    
    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.
    
    Individuals who believe they have been subjected to harassment from
    either a coworker or a supervisor should make it clear that such
    behavior is offensive to them.  If the behavior continues, they
    should bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate manager
    and/or their Personnel Representative.  (See Open Door Policy, 6.02.)

    Yes, it could be. I've taken the local sexual harassment course (and
    suggested some improvements) but "asking somone out for a date" CAN be
    sexual harassment. It depends on a lot of things, but three of the most
    important are: 1) is the advance unwelcome, and particularly is it KNOWN
    to be unwelcome? 2) what is the work relationship between the two
    people, is one in a position of authority or influence over the other
    professionally? 3) what is the context and setting of the unwelcome
    advance? Is it in a social or professional setting?
    
    If someone asked you for a date, Mike, and the request was unwelcome,
    it would not necessarily be sexual harassment. If they were not
    associated with you in any professional relationship, if the setting
    were social, if they had no reason to know the advance was unwelcome,
    then it probably isn't harassment. If you change any one of those
    factors, it MIGHT be harassment - if it was your boss, or if it was at
    work or while on a business trip, or if you had previously made it
    known that you weren't interested, or if you  had turned them down
    previously. Then it might be harassment.
    
    However, the "blatant" or "active" sexual harassment that people seem
    to have focussed on is the "easy" case. There are many many harder
    cases of potential sexual harassment. One is not preventing outside
    parties from sexually harassing people you are responsible for. If you,
    as a boss, allow third parties to sexually harass your employees, YOU
    are liable. So for example if an outside contractor, say a copier
    repair person, were to make unwelcome advances to one of your
    employees, it is YOUR responsibility to put a stop to it. A more common
    example would be if an important, even crucial, customer kept pestering
    one of your empoyees for a date, and those advances were unwelcome,
    that is sexual harassment and you, and DEC, are liable and must put a
    stop to it. Another "tough" case is where the relationship is all
    honest, open and aboveboard, say between a supervisor and an employee,
    there is STILL the potential for sexual discrimination. A fellow
    employee may feel that you as supervisor are discriminating in favor of
    your sweetie - and they have a prima facie case for it. Worse, your sweetie 
    may feel discriminated against, because you must be "as Ceasar's wife".
    You can EASILY get into a lose lose situation, where BOTH employees
    have an iron clad sexual discrimination case against you and DEC. (This
    last scenario is one that makes me particularly sad. It means that even
    if you are doing the right thing, there may be no solution.) Another
    case, and the one that is probably the fuzziest and hardest is the
    "opressive/harassing environment". If people in your group are
    constantly  telling "off-color" jokes, displaying nudes on their
    workstations, sending degrading mail to each other, this can constitute
    an opressive or harassing environment and is sexual harassment. I think
    we can all imagine environments where the environment was opressive
    without any overt harasment taking place. This is sexual harassment in
    the eyes of DEC, and the law. Unfortunately, this one tends to get
    blurry. Is telling one "dirty" joke harassment? Probably not. However
    if someone complains, and the dirty jokes continue, that probably IS
    sexual harassment. Is posting a centerfold on your cube wall sexual
    harassment? Probably not, but again if someone complains, and nothing
    is done, then that probably IS a harassing environment. The potential
    for abuse is obviously there, and the potential for mean spirited
    individuals to use this for their own ends, but there doesn't seem to
    be a good alternative. If it ends up in court, you've already lost, not
    because the courts favor the plaintiff, but because if you can't
    resolve the problem without resorting to court, the problem has already
    gone way too far.
    
    Anyway, I can go on in more detail about this if people have questions,
    I'm confident in my understanding DEC's sexual harassment policy and
    the rationale behind it.

    > Then, it seems that some cases of sexual harrassment are not beyond what
    > one (specifically: I) would expect to encounter during the normal course
    > of human interaction at work.

    I really couldn't speak for what you might expect at work, Mike. :-)
    However, sexual harassment is CERTAINLY something that NO ONE should have
    to "expect" or "put up with" at work.

    > And that includes when people whom I work with, ask me to social events,
    > after I've previously said "no".

    Not necessarily. One important point is that it is not so much that you've
    turned them down before, but that you've said that the ASKING is
    unwelcome. As in "no thank you, please don't ask me again" or "I'm sorry,
    but I'm really not interested." If someone persists in asking you out
    after that, then yes, it is harassment.  You personally may choose to deal
    with it some other way than instituting a charge of harassment, but IT IS
    HARASSMENT in the eyes of DEC and the law, and DEC can be liable for that
    behavior should you choose to prosecute. Another important point is that
    asking people for dates at work may be inappropriate. Yes, DEC groups are
    often tight knit and friendly, and people DO socialize with their
    co-workers (no? REALLY? :->) the problem is when the advances are
    unwelcome AND come from a co-worker, or in a work environment.

    These issues can be very tricky though. Even though you feel that the
    advances are unwelcome, you may not feel comfortable telling this person
    to buzz off, as you might in a non-work situation if someone were being
    over persistent. Especially if the advances are coming from someone in a
    position of influence, you may not feel that you can tell them "no"
    without harming your work relationship. Remember I said *you* may *feel*
    that you can't say no, regardless of how reasonable the other person
    thinks they are, or how well they would take it. If you, as the recipient
    of the unwelcome advances, feel uncomfortable saying no, it is harassment.
    How you deal with it is up to you.

    > Charles, is that correct, according to what you've said in .7?

    Mumble, see above.

    > If so, do you think I am too tolerant of sexual harrassment?

    I have no idea!

    > Do you think the policy is wrong (either too restrictive or vague)?

    I feel the policy has problems, but I can't think of a way to fix them
    that doen't cause even worse problems. It's hard to balance the need to
    protect people from harassment, and the desire to not stifle normal,
    friendly, human interaction. The bottom line is that if you feel harassed,
    it almost certainly IS harassment. If you don't feel harassed it probably
    isn't (but might be). Unfortunately for "clean crisp" rules that everyone
    can agree on, what is harassment to one person might merely be friendly to
    another. In our group, for example, we tend to hug each other quite a bit.
    There are some people in our group that I don't hug. I don't hug people
    unless it's clear that they appreciate it. If I hug someone who doesn't
    want it, THAT IS HARASSMENT.

	-- Charles
    

    Sorry for coming off a bit strong earlier, Mike.  It's simply that I
    didn't start that note in an effort to end harassment, or to heighten
    noters' awareness; I seriously think something should be done to
    PREPARE for WHEN it happens, and I'm not sure what's the best format
    for that, or how to go about implementing it.
    
    Not to be rude, but while helping you <generic man> understand how you
    can harass is extremely important if we hope to end it, I am infinitely
    more concerned with helping women understand that if they're literally
    SCARED of standing next to someone because he might *touch* them again,
    then there's something seriously wrong.
    
    The cases I've counted included repeated behaviors AFTER being told to
    stuff it.  They do this in "inappropriate settings" (business meals, in
    the halls at work).  I didn't count the "space invaders" who walk me 
    into walls (while I constantly and blatantly adjust the distance between 
    us until I am literally up against the wall), nor did I count the folks
    who get crushes on me and ask me out a lot.  I don't freeze with terror
    when faced by them (although I've given up using any "space invader" as
    a technical resource because I can't concentrate too well when pressed
    up against up a wall).
    
    For purposes of the training, I would take a slightly different
    definition than Charles & Personnel, but that is mostly because I'm
    thinking in terms of feelings rather than in terms of litigation
    hazard.
    
    Is that clearer?  We can talk some off-line if you like: I'm in the lab
    all day today and as long as I'm not pressed up against a wall, I
    promise not to file charges :) :) :)

    to "quote some scripture"....(from Harassment Policy 6.03)
    
    "It is the policy of Digital Equipment Corporation that all our
    employees should be able to enjoy a work environment free of
    discrimination and harassment.
    
    Harassment refers to behavior which is personally offensive, impairs
    morale, and interferes with the work effectiveness of employees.  Any
    harassment of employees by other employees will not be permitted,
    regardless of their working relationship.
    
    The policy refers to, but isnot limited to, harassment in the following
    areas: [1] age, [2] race, [3] color, [4] national orgiina, [5] sex, [7]
    handicap, and [8] veteran status.  Such harassment includes unsolicited
    remarks, gestures or physical contact, display or circulation of
    written materials or pictures degrading to either gender or to racial,
    ethnic or religious groups, and verbal abuse or insuls directed at or
    made in the presence of members of a racial, ethnic or minority group.
    
    Sexual harassment includes unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for
    sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct that is both sexual
    and offensive in nature.  Sexual harassment undermines the employment
    relationship by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work
    environment. ....."
    
    
    and from the EEOC Guidelines, effective November 10, 1980, Section
    1604.11, Sexual Harassment...
    
    "A.  Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of section 703 of
    Title VII.  Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and
    other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual
    harassment when:
    
    1.  Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly
    a term or condition of an individual's employment
    
    2.  Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used
    as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
    
    3.  Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering
    with an individual's work performance or creating an indimidating,
    hostile, or offensive working environment."
    
    -Jody
    

>    to "quote some scripture"....(from Harassment Policy 6.03)
 
    To borrow from said quotes.....
    
       
    >"It is the policy of Digital Equipment Corporation that all our
    >employees should be able to enjoy a work environment free of
    >discrimination and harassment.
    
    to whit;
    
    
    The policy refers to...
    >  Such harassment includes unsolicited
    >  remarks, gestures or physical contact, display or circulation of
    >   written materials or pictures degrading to either gender 
    
    Now, based upon this "rule"..... 
    
    Wouldn't condencending remarks or degrading comments towards men be 
    considered part of this "rule"?  Honest question here.
    
    It would appear to me that it (the policy) explicitly states that
    "written material or pictures degrading to EITHER GENDER" is a no no.
    
    Thus, the "feminist note" is against policy, thus HARASSMENT.  Is it not?
    
    Or is there "another rule" that I am unaware of.....
    
    For example, the "rule" only applies when violating a protected
    minority.
    
    I am dead serious here.  I am NOT baiting, pissing, moaning, nor trying
    to "misdirrect" the topic in the least.  I want an answer, YES or NO.

    I would hope that the ordinary subject matter of this file would never
    form the basis for any allegation of harassment.  By men *OR* women. 
    
    If we cannot agree that this is "safe" space where the only penalty for
    ordinary interaction is verbal pummeling, then people won't dare be
    open and honest...and then we ALL lose, folks.  Nobody's life or career
    should get messed up by anything we -women or men- say here.
    
    						=maggie

    re: .13 by CONURE::AMARTIN

�    >   written materials or pictures degrading to either gender 
 
    Who gets to decide what is (not) degrading?
    
    Vague rules (and I understand why they're deliberately vague) are
    the most difficult ones to follow.
    
    Say I have pictures on my wall (I don't but just say I did).
    Essentially it seems that the standards of your co-workers are those
    that count.  If you move, or a new person joins the group, then
    what was not degrading (by consent) can suddenly become degrading
    because one person thinks it is.  Am I right?
    
    Confused,
    		Bob

    Thats just it, Bob.  It HAS been decided (pretty much) what IS
    degrading and what is not.  Comments made ABOUT women, off colour jokes
    about women, "pro choice" jokes, the use of HE when referencing the
    godhead, and a million others that would waste time and space to list
    are all frowned upon and looked as "degrading" towards women.
    
    Per the letters of the policy, this is a correct assumption.  Yet, off
    colour jokes aimed towards straight white males is somehow acceptable.
    
    It would appear (to answer you question) that the participants of this
    file have already decided as to what is "degrading" and what is not.
    
    ANd these are not MY rules.  These are rules that Jody entered and I
    merely expanded and questioned.
    
    A person (probably male) entered a joke AIMED towards feminists instead
    of the norm (the norm being aimed towards males in some twisted way)
    and he (yes, I am assuming he was a he) got his fanny pounced upon.
    
    I can spacifically remember two perons that did the "pouncing".
    
    I genuinely want to know WHY?  WHY IS THIS OK, yet others are not?
    
    WHy is that I can see chip n dales posters (calandars also), posters 
    reading "Do you want to speak to the man in charge or the woman that
    knows what's going on?" yet anything that remotely squeaks "anti
    feminist" is imediately acted upon.....
    
    If the rules are indeed vague, why is that so?
    
    

    Continuation of the Gospel, since once was not enough....
    
    from Harassment Policy 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.
    
    "Individuals who velieve they have been subjected to harassment from
    either a co-worker or a supervisor should make it clear that such
    behavior is offensive to them.  If the behavior continues, they should
    bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate manager and/or
    their Personnal Representative..."
    
    
    and from the EEOC Guidelines, effective November 10, 1980, Section
    1604.11, Sexual Harassment, 
    
    "In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment,
    the Commission will look at the record as a whole and at the totality
    of the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances and the
    context in which the alleged incidents occurred.  The determination of
    the legality of a particular action will be made from the facts, on a
    case-by-case basis.  
    
    
    And, from corporate AA/EEO information:
    
    "Advice to give an employee who complains about Sexual Harassment:
    
    "Refer them to their manager
    
    "Refer them to local Personnel Management
    
    "Corporate  Resources include
    	Corporate EEO/AA/ValDif
    	Organizational EEO Manager (telephone dtn 251-1753)
    
    "Encourage the employee to use the Open Door Policy
    
    "If issue/concern is a major infraction, the employee should be
    advised that you have a responsibility to report (follow up with the
    employee)
    
    "Inform the employee that harassment and retaliation are seious issues
    and are against Company Policy
    
    "Maintain confidentiality of the issue with the employee
    
    
    

    Those who never got around to reading .AND. comprehending the
    setting required for charges of sexual harassment may now berate
    themselves.
    
    Harrassment *requires* that it be in part of your job milieu; i.e.,
    that it involves the people you work with, or the locations you
    must traverse in doing your job, or things of that ilk.
    
    "Womannotes" is *not* a job-required notefile.  It is not part of
    your job milieu.  You may have been confused because it has been
    officially blessed as a "work-related" notefile.  Nevertheless,
    reading Womannotes is a voluntary activity on everyone's part.  (Even
    the moderators.  For them, it is `merely' morally required.)
    
    		*		*		*
    
    Did you know that many Victorian gentlemen used to go to brothels
    and pay to be flogged by women?  (A fact to add to the collections
    of those who knew the above stuff, so this note won't be a total
    waste.)
    
    							Ann B.

    To reply to Bob Buckland, and some others (hope I got the names
    right).
    
    Yes, the introduction of a new person into your work group may result
    in previously ok behavior becoming 'not ok'.  The definition of
    what is harassing is under the control of the potential victim.
    
    This has as a corollary that men *may* define as harassing those
    incidents and behaviors which they dislike.  I can see a 'hot buns'
    calendar being subject to removal if a guy claims he finds it creates
    an atmosphere which is intimidating and affects his ability to do
    his work.  If your boss is a woman and she persists in touching
    you on the shoulder, patting your rear, etc., after you have told
    her that you don't like it, she is guilty of harassment.  Ditto
    for a co-worker, sometimes even for a subordinate.
    
    As we succeed in freeing women to be 'all they can be', I anticipate
    that an unwanted side affect will be increased instances of female
    to male harassment.  Then we'll all get to work on reducing *that*
    plague.
    
    Alison 

    RE: Ann
    Were you speaking to me?  I am not sure, seems as though you were
    speaking to a child, and I, the last time I check, am not a child.
    
    I'll assume that you were talking to me, OK?
    
    "Harrassment REQUIRES that it be in part of your job milieu;"????
    
    I think not Ann.
    
    Your understanding and my understanding (Yes I CAN comprehend) of the
    harrassment policies differ extremely.
    
    Harrassment is harrassment.  Shouldnt matter if the person is in
    California and harrassing a person in Maine, its STILL harrassment.
    
    If I were to constantly jum all over Suzie Chapstick in California in
    every conference that she frequented, is that harrassment?  Damn
    straight it is!  Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but
    it would appear as I stated above, that out understanding of
    harrassment differ.
    
    I have no need for condescending remarks such as you made in .18.  So,
    if you cannot speak to me as a PERSON of the male species, forget
    commenting on my entries here.

    	RE: .20  Herb
    
    	> Indeed, were any such activities to occur, and nothing were done,
    	> I suspect that the company -on complaint- would close down the
    	> conference immediately.
    
    	If this were to happen, most likely the company would shut down
    	non-strictly-work-related conferences entirely (once they had a
    	chance to see some of the notes that exist about women elsewhere
    	in Digital.)
    
    	In case you haven't traveled around the net lately, here are some
    	samples:
    
    		One conference has a discussion about the joy and wonder
    		involved with looking at women's legs from the vantage
    		point of a truck in traffic.
    
    		The same conference has another note about "Women's breasts
    		- what are they?" (where men discuss and critique some
    		intimate body parts to be found on women.)
    
    		Another conference has a note whose entire content is a
    		series of jokes about the 19 year old woman who was recently
    		killed when she was set on fire and thrown from the roof of
    		a train station by her boyfriend for not being willing to
    		have sex.  (One comment was, "come on baby light my fire -
    		I guess she couldn't do it."  Towards the end, someone asked
    		a question about a drink, saying, "All jokes aside...")
    
    		This conference also has a note to discuss Molly Yard (the
    		President of the National Organization for Women,) and the
    		burning issues opening this discussion were about whether 
    		or not she is attractive and the size of her breasts.  
    
    	It's great that we can discuss (and express anger) about what sorts
    	of comments about women bother us, but let's not kid ourselves about
    	the fact that occasional "verbal pummelling" hasn't stopped these
    	comments around the net much at all.
    
    	If someone were to shut this conference down for comments about men,
    	then the company would be very remiss if it didn't shut down other
    	conferences for the far worse comments we see written about women
    	every day.

    Well, Al, I don't know.  Are you a person "who never got around
    to reading ... [about the corporate] setting required for charges
    of sexual harassment [to be filed in this company]"?  Are you a
    person "who never got around to ... comprehending the setting
    required for charges of sexual harassment..."?  If so, then I
    was addressing you.  If not, then I wasn't.
    
    In either case, you are faced with rationalizing why I would use
    the terms "milieu" and "brothel" in addressing a child in order
    to justify your comments to me.
    
    						Ann B.

re: .15:
    
    Harrassment *requires* that it be in part of your job milieu; i.e.,
    that it involves the people you work with, or the locations you
    must traverse in doing your job, or things of that ilk.

I'm confused.  Nowhere in 6.03 can I find anything that limits harassment
to one's "job mileau."  The first paragraph of 6.03 talks about "work
environment" which seems to include all aspects of one's job.  Also,
harassment is defined in terms of "employees" and does not appear to
predicate any relationship among them.
    
    "Womannotes" is *not* a job-required notefile.  It is not part of
    your job milieu.  You may have been confused because it has been
    officially blessed as a "work-related" notefile.  Nevertheless,
    reading Womannotes is a voluntary activity on everyone's part.  (Even
    the moderators.  For them, it is `merely' morally required.)

Sorry, again I disagree: it is part of my work environment, which includes
non-task-related aspects.  Even leasure-time activities such as Soapbox and
the Dec Running Club are not permitted to harass employees.
    
    Did you know that many Victorian gentlemen used to go to brothels
    and pay to be flogged by women?  (A fact to add to the collections
    of those who knew the above stuff, so this note won't be a total
    waste.)
    
In this context, this is exactly the kind of statement that gives Womannotes
the reputation of being a hangout for men-bashers.  Your mileage, of course,
may vary.

Martin.

    re: .7 mike z
    
	>>According to 6.03, if I ask a woman out, without first seeking
    >>her permission, could I be guilty of sexual harrassment?

	>>Would that depend on how I ask her out?

Yes, a good portion of it would depend on the circumstances.  Let me give 
you three examples, the former being a real-life example, the two later being 
examples of how that exchange, if the circumstances were different, might 
not have felt like harrassment:

Example 1:  An employee is working on a weekend in her cubicle in a section 
of the facility where there aren't any other employees around.  A man comes 
by her cubicle and asks where the showers are.  She points him in the 
direction of the showers.  He doesn't go away.  He starts asking her if she 
wants to join him for lunch.  She says no.  He persists in asking her out, 
like if she can't do lunch maybe there is some other time they can get 
together.  This employee feels vulnerable because there is no one else 
around in the building, she has never seen this man before and isn't really 
even sure if he is a DEC employee.  She feels threatened and afraid.

After the man finally leaves for the showers she phones up to the security 
desk and tells the guard what has happened and is told that not only is 
this man a DEC employee but that it's impossible that he *means* anything 
by asking her out because his girlfriend is sitting in lobby waiting for 
him!  (I am not making this up, it really happened).  The employee contacts 
personnel to file a complaint against this employee for inappropriate 
behavior and advances.

Example 2:  Instead of it being a weekend when no one is around, this is 
now a normal work day and *many* employees are around.  The same man comes 
and asks the same questions.  The employee would probably feel less 
vulnerable because there are lots of people sitting all around her that 
could help her if she yelled for help.  It still would have been 
inappropriate behavior and advances on the part of the male employee, but 
the female employee might have been much less afraid and may or may not 
have filed a complaint.

Example 3:  A female DEC employee is working either on a weekend or a 
weekday.  An employee who is well-known to her, maybe she's seen him a few 
times at a noters party, maybe he attends the same church as she does, 
maybe he belongs to the same health club as she does, comes by her cube and 
says, "are you interested in going out to lunch this Wednesday" and she 
says, "gee, I can't this Wednesday, but how about some other day," then 
this is not harrassment.  If her response was, "no, I don't want to go out 
with you and please don't ask me anymore," and the male employee were to 
persist in his advances, this would be harrassment.
 
	>>What if it I were to say:
	    >>"Wow, that skirt is really sexy!
	     >>You wanna go out this weekend?"

	>>Is that an unwelcome sexual advance?  Seems it could be.

That would be an inappropriate statement in a work environment, even if you 
know the woman.  If your manager overheard it s/he might also consider it 
inappropriate and might feel the need to reprimand you even if no complaint 
was filed.

Would the woman consider it an unwelcome sexual advance?  It depends on the 
woman.  One woman might not consider this an unwelcome sexual advance, the 
next might.

Hope this clarifies things for you, Mike.

Laura

           

    First as a comod
    
    I would like to request that specific complaints about notes in
    other notes files be discussed in that notes file and with the
    moderator(s) of that notes file. I don't feel it is appropriate
    to do so here.
    
    Second, Martin, I guess I look at things differently than you do.
    Ann B has a rather dry wit and can be sarcastic, but I didn't interpret
    her remark to be 'man bashing'.
    
    Finally in re harassment. It is my understanding that you have to
    feel personally offended by the remark/behavior and ask for it to
    stop. If it does not stop then you have grounds for harassment charges.
    
    Simply going into a file and finding remarks, jokes etc that you
    personally find objectionable does not in and of themself consitute
    harassment. (If it were so I'd be objecting loudly to the moderators
    of the conferences Suzanne mentioned, since I will agree that the
    material mentioned was in poor taste at the very best.)
    
    Bonnie

    A number of the previous replies have indicated that harrassment
    is defined by the recipient of an 'advance', regardless of the
    intentions of the 'advancee'.  And from what I've read I would tend
    to agree, but ...
    
    That being the case, do I have to be able to read minds before I
    say anything, or should I just go home to my cell in the cloisters?
                     
    Still confused,
    		Bob
    

Well, as I see it, the following would not be harrassment:

She is working in her cubicle.  He comes to the doorway and knocks.

He:  I've got tickets for a dance this weekend.  Would you care to come with me;
     maybe we could have dinn.er together first?

She: No thank you.

He:  OK, well, thank you anyway. Hope I didn't offend you.

He leaves. She continues working.


However, the following would probably be harrassment.


She is working in her cubicle.  He comes to the doorway and knocks.

He:  I've got tickets for a dance this weekend.  Would you care to come with me;
     maybe we could have dinn.er together first?

She: No thank you

He:  Oh come on, its just a simple dinner and dance

She: Really, no thank you.  i don't like to dance

He:  Well, maybe we could skip the dance and just have dinner, a few drinks, go
     back to my place after...

She: No, I don't want to go out with you.  

He:  Why not?  I'm a new-age sensitive male, I read womannotes, we've got a lot
     in common.  Come on, let's get it on...

    
    	RE: .29  Bonnie
    
    	> Simply going into a file and finding remarks, jokes etc that you
    	> personally find objectionable does not in and of themself consitute
    	> harassment. 
    
    	Thus, discussions about feminism that bother some people would not
    	be regarded as harassment, either, for example.
    
    	> (If it were so I'd be objecting loudly to the moderators
    	> of the conferences Suzanne mentioned, since I will agree that the
    	> material mentioned was in poor taste at the very best.)
    
    	So would I.
    

    
    	RE: .34  Mike Z.
    
    	My response to this topic was based on the premise that if female 
    	political leaders should be judged on the basis of the size of 
    	their intimate body parts, then so should male political leaders.
    

    Re: .35
    
    Suzanne, so that explains why Big-Dick-Nixon got elected. :-)
    
      Alan

    So let me try this one more time to make sure I've got it right.
    
    It's not what *I* do, what *I* say, what *I* intend, what *I* feel, or
    what *I* think that makes me guilty of harrassment, it's what *someone*
    *else* feels.
    
    OK.  Now I understand!

    
    It seems to me that the corporate policy around Sexual Harrassment is
    quite fair to the accused/potential harrasser.  My understanding is
    that with the exception of the outrageous behavior that Maggie
    described, it seems that the responsibility is really on the offended party
    to say that s/he finds the behavior offensive and wants it to stop.
    I think that gives the alleged/potential offender the benefit of the
    doubt and the opportunity to change his/her ways.  So in most of
    those ambiguous situations, it seems that it's only harrassment if
    the offender doesn't stop after requested to do so.  
    
    Justine

    re: .38 by Justine

�    I think that gives the alleged/potential offender the benefit of the
�    doubt and the opportunity to change his/her ways.  So in most of
�    those ambiguous situations, it seems that it's only harrassment if
�    the offender doesn't stop after requested to do so.  

    Note what you said.  "... alleged/potential offender ... opportunity
    to change .../... harrasssment if the offender doesn't stop ..."    

    The first sentence implies guilt (otherwise why would I change my
    ways) based on someones *perception*.  The second sentence implies
    the same thing.
    
    The subjectiveness of the "offense" is what concerns me.

    
    re .39
    
    I can imagine feeling uncomfortable at the prospect of being punished
    because of someone's subjective opinion about my behavior, but as
    I understand the Harrassment policy, you're not punished (except
    in the case of completely obvious offenses) unless the behavior
    continues.  So if I do something that makes you uncomfortable, say
    I stand too close or ask you out, or make a sexual remark or joke
    in your presence, I am obligated to stop if you ask me to stop.
    That makes it clear what's expected of me.  It also gives you
    responsibility for telling me if my behavior makes you uncomfortable.
    I'm not sure how we could use an objective measure for the more subtle
    forms of possible harrassment.  For example, we could say, no worker
    shall stand closer than 6 inches from a fellow employee unless invited
    to do so, but would that apply in an elevator, a crowded hallway,
    during a system installation where two people have to lift a heavy
    piece of hardware? Rather than trying (and failing) to codify every 
    possible scenario, it seems fairer to me to give folks the benefit of 
    the doubt, i.e., the first time behavior happens that I find offensive, 
    I'll assume it is due to ignorance, but if I say that it makes me 
    uncomfortable, it will stop.
    
    Justine

    
    re:.37
    although i suspect you intended this sarcastically, you are quite
    correct. my intentions are worth squat if i offend someone in any way.
    

    re: .41 by JWHITE
    
    It wasn't intended sarcastically when I started to write the reply
    but that is the way it turned out.  It was intended to be correct.
    
    Now please don't get me wrong.  I am dead against sexual (or any
    other kind of) harrassment, I just have a problem with the nature
    of the crime.
    
    You see, a sensitive individual (or an extremist) could complain
    to personnel about my behaviour and suddenly I have this stigma
    attached to me.  (I know they should tell me to stop first but let's
    just assume they don't feel comfortable with that and go direct to
    personnel.)  And what if my behaviour is not out of line when viewed
    by any reasonable person, but this individual objects?
    
    It's just too subjective for me (I'm a concrete sequential and I
    hate fuzziness).  And even though I understand why it's that way and
    agree that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make it
    properly objective, I still don't like it.
                         
    Bob

    Bob,
    
    Your worry is the reason why the `offendee' *must* trot out the
    message: ~I don't like this.  Stop it.~ before Personnel is willing
    to look into the matter.
    
    Now, let me present the other side of the objective/subjective
    coin.  (Well, *one* of the other sides, anyhow.)  Let us assume
    that you have your `objective' standards.  As Justine pointed out,
    minimum distances are unrealistic in crowded situations.  Okay,
    change that, and have the `objective' standards permit brushing
    against someone.
    
    Whooaa!  Women's alarm bells just went off all over the net!
    
    Being brushed up against can DEFINITELY be real sexual harassment,
    as can having someone grab you by the upper arm or shoulder (just
    to "steady himself" as he goes by).
    
    I'll stick with subjective-plus-mandatory-feedback, thank you just
    the same.
    
    							Ann B.

    re .42
    
    Bob,
    
    If your behavior is not out of line when reviewed by any reasonable
    person, but this certain individual still objects, then I think the
    stigma would be attached to her or him not to you.
    
    I agree that it would be awful to be falsely accused -whether through
    malice or misunderstanding- of something as terrible as sexual
    harrassment.  But I still think that there is a lot of shame attached
    to being sexually harrassed and even more to complaining about it, so I
    think the chances of anyone making a frivolous claim are low.  I mean
    it would be awful if someone accused you of stealing $20.00 out of their
    desk while they were at lunch, too, but I don't hear people
    worrying about that.  Basically, unless there is an independent
    witness, all claims of harrassment come down to one person's word
    against another's, and I think that has tended to work in favor of the
    alleged harrasser more than it has worked in favor of the alleged
    victim.
    
    Justine

    
    
    I'm posting this for a member of our community who wishes to be
    anonymous at this time.
    
    
    I had not yet reached my teens when I was first called to my uncle's
    bedroom for his afterbath massage. I remember how smooth and pretty
    his feet were. His hands were also smooth, and surprisingly gentle for a 
    man that was so large and strong, and could sometimes be so stern.
    His back was strong, and almost unsurmountably large.  I guess it
    got that way from the amount of manual labor he had to do. Most of all,
    I remember how nice and clean he smelled while I was applying the lotion.
    
    I would start with his hands and fingers and end with clipping his toe
    nails. I would press with all of my might until I could sense his muscles 
    and tendons beneath my own finger pads.  I imagine I pleased him.  He 
    would make pleasant humming sounds, or mumble an appreciateve "Good" or 
    "Right there" when I had reached a particulary interesting tendon, or 
    managed to isolate and manipulate a muscle group particularly well. I 
    remember being happy at being able to relax him so.
    
    There were several sessions of lotioning and tension release during the
    summers I spent with his family.  I don't remember ever feeling PRESSURED
    to perform the massage.  It was a casual time, that I and my uncle shared
    without my cousin or aunt around in the afternoon.  My cousin was never
    invited to participate in the afternoon sessions, my uncle claimed her
    hands were not strong enough.  That too made me happy that there was
    something it seemed ONLY I could do to please him.  The bedroom door was
    only closed when needed to conserve the air conditioning.
    
    Recently, while I was beginning the same ritual upon my own SO, I commented
    that my SO's feet were not quite as pretty as my uncle's.  My SO took
    umbrage, and indicated that the ritual, although reasonable if done for him,
    could possibly be considered suspect if done for my uncle.  
    
    I explained that my uncle had kept his genitals and buttocks covered by his 
    bathrobe at all times.  I also explained that the massages did not have
    a sexual tinge to them.  I had already had intercourse with a boy by own
    age by the time I began the lotioning for my uncle.  The lotioning did
    not have the same feel or tint to me as the games for sex had.  I stood
    with the position that, although it was sensual, and is currenly used by
    me as a sign of true affection, it was not sexual.
    
    My question to the file is:
    Is there anything untoward about this in your opinion?
    Does this, to you, constitute abuse?
    
    

    
    I gave both my parents back rubs very early on - probably started
    before I was 10 or 12.  my mother is an asthmatic and my father has
    several fused vertebrae and sciatica.  Whether they were together or
    separate, I didn't feel discomfort, nor did I feel overly pressured,
    nor did it feel at all sexual.  
    
    I'd say if it felt sexual or dirty or bad or you didn't feel
    comfortable doing it, it might have been abuse.  I think it's up to you
    to judge though, not us, nor your SO.
    
    -Jody
    

    I would rather not 'vote' now, but if i were to vote now the vote would
    be no it was not abuse. 
    First:
    	it sounds as if your so finds it sensual/sexual and that's
    fine for him. Sounds like a great connection for you two.
    Second:
    It did sound a little bit 'suspicious' at first. 
    But just because your SO thinks of it as sexual does not necessarily
    mean that others do.
    Andrew Kenah, some while back made a comment that i recall as defining
    abuse as being dependent on whether the 'abuser' is getting sexual
    enjoyment from it. I didn't hear anything that sounded like that.
    Particularly since the door was often left open. 
    
    However, the consistent absence of anybody else begs for an
    explanation.  I would be interested in having a better understanding of
    why your cousin  had never done this, nor was ever present when you
    were doing it. The fact that your cousin hands were not strong enough
    is not -to me- an adequate explanation of your cousin's continued
    absence. Nor the fact that the only time it took place was when your
    aunt and your cousin were not "around"

    
    					herb

Re: .45

You don't give any information as to what your state of dress was.  If
we assume that you were fully clothed, or at least "decently" covered,
and that your uncle made no "improper" advances or moves, then it's fair
to posit that it wasn't abuse, since there was then, and really isn't
now, any sense in your mind that it was "wrong."

RE. .47

The question of why nobody else was around may -- I repeat *may* -- be
asnwered by supposing that the uncle wasn't comfortable with the idea
of public knowledge of what was going on, however innocent it was in
fact.  This supposition is valid in light of what many people think
about "massage parlors" and "masseuses" who work on undraped males.
Such a reticence could be interpreted as intent to abuse, but I'm not
sure I want to stretch the point that far given what .45 says about it.

-d

    trying to be as honest as possible...
    
    Let me also say that I find the first two paragraphs somewhat erotic.
    That may be predisposing my view somewhat.
    
    
    What does it mean that i find the first two paragraphs somewhat
    erotic? It means than I find the first two paragraphs somewhat erotic
    and maybe nothing else.
    

    I can't help but wonder why you want *us* to tell you if you were
    abused?
    
    If you feel bad about what happened, if it hurt or damaged you, it was
    abuse.  If you feel good about what happened, it wasn't.
    
    I had sensual *and* sexual experiences with adults when I was young. 
    All of them were positive, happy experiences - nothing was ever hidden,
    nothing was ever pressured, nothing was every "dirty".  While some of
    the acts themselves (including massages) might be considered beyond the
    bounds of what "should" happen in those relationships, I think the
    *key* definition is whether it was harming to the person in the
    situation - if not, it wasn't abuse.  Why sweat it?
    
    It is NOT your SO's place to decide if you were abused - sounds like he
    was responding with jealousy rather than concern for your well being.
    
    D!

    re .45, I can't understand why you chose to tell your SO that your
    uncle's feet were prettier than his feet.  It seems like needless
    cruelty to me, and I would guess that the fact that you felt the need
    to comment on your uncle's appearance at all is what made your SO make
    a sexual connection.
    
    I don't think what you did with your uncle sounds like abuse but, to be
    honest, it does sound sort of weird to me.  Each to their own but I,
    personally, can't imagine ever finding enjoyment in rubbing somebody
    else's feet.  
    
    Lorna
     

    So long as this was non-sexual, it was basically therapeutic massage.
    Unfortunately, massage, especially in this country, has become strongly
    connected with illicit sexual activities. There are many other
    countries in which massage is....massage. I think a huge part of this
    problem lies in the fact that a goodly portion of the population think
    of massage as having sexual overtones. Unless practiced by a prostitute
    trying to escape local regulations, touching sexual organs, it is NOT
    sexual. 
    
    I think I'd advise letting this percolate in one's head for  awhile,
    and then try to recall the feelings around these massages. If the
    feelings are not that something "wasn't quite right", then I'd say
    not to worry about it. You're best off trusting your feelings, so long
    as you know what those feelings truly *are*.
    
    --DE
    

    re.51  Lorna, I know a lot of people who think other peoples feet are
    disgusting (not that you go that far).  I, for one, like to give
    massage.  Feet are one of the palces to give a lot of relief and
    comfort.  Some people also cannot stand to have their feet touched,
    others love it.  
    
    Re: the abuse/harrasment issue.  Unless it is clear, I am hesitant to
    accuse others of mental crimes.  I am aware that my perception is often
    quite different from another persons intention.  If it makes me
    uncomfortable and I am uncertain, I either ask or wait for additional
    input.  In the case now being discussed, I would say that, if it did
    not physically or psychically hurt the person who raised the question,
    then it is OK.  
    
    BTW, most people I have encountered, are absolutely incapable of giving
    massage.  They do not have the strength, empathy and/or ability to
    "reach out and touch someone".  Then again, some people (and I still
    find this amazing) do NOT like to receive massage.  Go figure.
    
    my $0.02
    jimc
    

    re .53, no, I don't find feet disgusting *or* attractive.  They're just
    sort of *there*.  :-)  Also, while I said I wouldn't find rubbing
    someone's feet enjoyable, that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it if someone
    I cared about begged me to rub their feet.  I wouldn't want to be
    expected to make a habit of it, though.
    
    Lorna
    

    A reply from the anon noter who wrote about her uncle and the questions
    she had about the massages she used to give him.
    
    Justine -- comod
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have viewed the reply notes.  I wish to thank you for them.  In an
effort not to torment the moderator I will
answer as many of the posed questions as I can all together. 

I took the time to consider motives. I considered mine, for the file
and the situation.  I also considered his possible reasons.  Following
are some of the responses I came up with.

1- Why did I ask the file.

Part of my SO's statement or objection was, "you can ask anyone, and 
I am fairly sure they will tell you.  That interaction was strange.
If YOU are SURE in was OK, and you did not witness any "tents" in his
robe, then I will not argue, but it sounds pretty weird to me. Uncles
and curious 11 year old girls is one of those things you alway hear
about."  I had even explained that the only time I came close to his
genitals he told me to be careful and watch out.

Ordinarily, I can take statements such as this without doubting my own
understanding.  However, my SO seemed quite unordinarily virulent about
it.  I began to worry that my perspective was wrong.  I would not wish
to perpetuate on my offspring any offense by my LACK of being able
to distinguish any grossly sexual aspect of such an action. 
I believed, from some other topics, that there were abuse survivors and fairly
clear heads here.  Such people, IMO, would have voices I respect.
I wished to have a consensus from just such a people as to if I had missed 
something that was as obvious as my SO suggested. 

That I received.

2- What were his motives?

I realized, upon reflection on one of the notes here, that jealousy, as
silly as it seems, is a possible motive for his response.  It would explain
a lot.  I will have to be careful about any other man I mention in the
future.  However, my SO is ordinarily not prone to jealousy either, so it
does not quite explain everything.

There is also the fact, that for him, the act of massage is almost always
foreplay.  It may not be that "anyone" would view the link directly. His
statement may have been colored by his own experience.

When combined, I become less afraid that I have a warped perspective.
His motives were important.

3- Other questions?

For abuses that have occurred within my life,  there has been counseling
that has helped me slowly work towards an even keel.  However, this one
hit an incident/activity that I had not checked before.  It slipped in,
and frightened me a lot.  
   It felt like, "If I could misunderstand this, what could I do to my
own offspring without knowing?" 
   I was hit pretty hard, and was prompted to ask voices which I respected.

Thank you for your responses.