Where do we draw the line on sexual harassment?

Question

Or do lines even need to be drawn?

I ask this because in recent years sexual harassment has become anything from a 6 year old stick his fingers in his female classmates waistband

"On Jan. 30, a 6-year-old Massachusetts schoolboy allegedly slipped two fingers into the back waistband of a female classmate who was in front of him in class; he said she'd poked him first. The school reported the boy to the police and the local district attorney's office for sexual harassment."

to a man making comments about the size of his female coworkers anatomy.

"According to the suit, Grishaber made comments about the size of Giudry's b*****s and buttocks; commented to her about other women's bodies and how they excited him; regularly talked about things of a sexual nature; touched Giudry's face, grabbed her arms and hands, and rubbed her shoulders on a regular basis; made comments about his personal anatomy to her; and told Giudry that if she told him to leave her alone or report him, he would retaliate by throwing things and making her job more difficult."

It seems to me, sexual harassment has become an ambiguous term in our society.

Answer 1

Unfortunately these loosely thrown around  terms (rape, sexual harassment, sexism) only serve to harm the innocent and take away from the seriousness of such actions.

There is no  specific act or situation that warrants the label sexual harassment, it's case by case.

It seems like almost any act is labeled as sexual harassment.  People should use more wisdom before making accusations and throwing around labels of such magnitude.

Answer 2

segregation. Let the females who resent masculine strong willed men work somewhere else.  it cannot ever work. it goes against nature. with all the paranoid inducing walking on eggshells it is just too unpleasant to work for women. they must be separate. any slight and you have a case against men and the have families and lifestyles that are uncompatible. not even able to do it in most marriage let alone walking on eggshells and fearful you will be sanctioned or fired. hated it. never again. get real. demoralizing and unprodutive. it rarely works. forced blending of two distinctily different types in the modern workplace. few exceptions. different approaches to life and different needs to be comfortable and get thing. hate it.

face we are differnt and talking to guys makes men more comfortable. too much tension and walking on eggshells. Women haven't a clue. except for rare exceptions. women call men dumb and vice versa. just keep them apart. i would carefully choose a much different company than the last two. I will be very carefully to never serve under another female executive. never more. even if i have to sweep floors or dig ditches, so long as they don't tell me my boss is hillary or pelosi or such. been there, done that. they will manipulate and bug you until you get sick. they mostly have a great need for sarcastic qwips and downright discrimination on the borderline. ain't worth any amount of money. health first.

Answer 3

Yeah, you see, number two is definitely sexual harassment. Number one is just ridiculous. Plus, a lot of feminists make it out to seem like sexual harassment mostly and only happens to women (Which is not true) Among other things like domestic violence, rape and unequal pay.

But back to my point, have you ever heard of a media case where the man was a victim of sexual harassment?

I think not.

Answer 4

The second part I agree is sexual harassment the first I do not. I think the woman draws the line and if she feels uncomfortable then she say those two words (sexual harassment) and it causes a big ordeal. With the case of the school children, it should have been fine if the teacher explained to the boy that you don't touch girls in that area. They did not need to contact the authorities

Answer 5

well why did the boy feel the need to go into the girl's waistband? why not just poke her back? i don't automatically write off such actions as typical innocent kid behavior just because the perpetrator may be "too young to understand". if you don't stop the behavior when they are young then they grow up to be adult harassers.

btw, kids (and adults) lie just to get out of trouble so who knows if what he said was true

Answer 6

Sexual harassment: Unwanted physical sexual contact.

Other things that are commonly considered harassment aren't nice, but they're just people being jerks.

So, for example:

Harassment:

Guy: Hey, nice rack. *le squeeze*

Just being a jerk:

Guy: Nice rack. *walks away*

I don't support either behavior but one is a crime, and one isn't.

When a one person initiates unwanted physical contact with another person, the initiator is violating the other person's property: his or her own body.

The only crimes are those against property -life and liberty stem from property- so logically, talking like a douchebag isn't a crime.

Answer 7

Sexual harassment can mean so many things depending upon the situation and people involved; however, I do believe that things went too far with the 6-year old boy.  People have s*x on the brain constantly and therefore try to put a sexual perspective on every aspect of their life.

Answer 8

Its not ambiguous.  I remember working in a bar when the first sexual harassment laws were enacted in the late 1980's-early 90's.  The owners were complaining just that: they didn't get it about sexual harassment.  After observing the boss's friend (a bartender) groping one of the waitresses and hearing from another waitress about how the owner used to grope her - I understand why he didn't want to understand.  One of the waitresses (also was groped) took her case to some kind of labour-arbitration board (one step below a formal court case, I guess).  She won, the owners "got it" and there was no more sexual harassment of the staff at this bar anymore.  It worked like magic!

Every large or even medium-sized organisation has policies and procedures about dealing with sexual harassment written up where everybody can see them.  There are labour laws protecting the vulnerable, too. There is no reason to be confused anymore.  

#1 is nothing, #2 is clearly sexual harassment.

Answer 9

Sexual harassment to me the second scenario you provided. That's ridiculous that anyone should have to put up with that or be threatened in that way.

The first scenario seems a little more innocent. I really don't think that should have gone as far as a police report. He is a kid, and he probably knew what he was doing was wrong - but I doubt it was sexual in nature. Poor kid is going to grow up confused and angry at women for c**p like that!

    *  unfulfilled threats to impose a sexual quid pro quo.

    * discussing sexual activities;

    * telling off-color jokes;

    * unnecessary touching;

    * commenting on physical attributes;

    * displaying sexually suggestive pictures;

    * using demeaning or inappropriate terms, such as "Babe";

    * using indecent gestures;

    * sabotaging the victim’s work;

    * engaging in hostile physical conduct;

    * granting job favors to those who participate in consensual sexual activity;

    * using crude and offensive language

Answer 10

The second one is definitely sexual harassment. It contains all the necessary elements: unwanted attention of a sexual nature, hostile work environment, gender discrimination.

The first one, however, is just two little brats who don't even know what their genitalia is for.

Answer 11

I agree with the above poster that feminism will set the standard arbitrarily

Yet there has to be an offended victim and an offender with intent (unless of course they're mentally incapable of being offended)

The six year old girl probably would not have felt violated and neither probably understood the concept of sexual harassment.

It seems like it was the school who took the matter seriously  enjoys imperialising their views on others.

It's a completely disproportionate response

Answer 12

Well, one thing is, it's actually hard to tell from news reports, which are written to get a reaction, mostly negative, not to inform and advise.

Reading the excerpt you've put here, the first case looks like ridiculous authority gone mad, but I actually know someone whose child was molested by another child at school. This little boy was molested by another boy, who told him to keep quiet about it or he would hurt him.

The parents noticed a negative change in the child's behaviour, had medical tests done but to no avail. It was only when he started calling out in his sleep that they realised something was going on at the school. On investigation, it was found the boy who was doing the molesting was himself being abused by his father, and acting out on other kids ~ yes, more than one :-(

It is a horrible situation and the kids are still living with the damage from it.

So who knows really what went on at the school in the article BEFORE it got to that point?

Maybe it WAS nothing, a trivial situation gone awry, but the point is, the news article gives a minute's 'report' on a situation where much more could have gone on, for much longer and been much more involved.

Regarding the second item, it clearly states the harrassment was 'regular'. Saying something rude to someone one time is clearly not harrassment. Making rude, offensive and disruptive comments and  suggestions to someone, and inappropriate actions ~ especially putting your hands on someone in the workplace! ~ in an ongoing basis, interfering with their ability to do their work, seems a pretty clear cut case of harrassment.

If the case was brought to court, that would be the sort of thing the jury would be looking for to decide it was 'harrassment' and not just boorish behaviour gone mad.

Cheers :-)

Answer 13

It's wherever modern Feminists decide.