5 ms·

While you may intend a compliment on a woman's physical appearance as honest, in the same way you would compliment a man's tie or his shoes, the situations aren

by camgunz 12y ago

While you may intend a compliment on a woman's physical appearance as honest, in the same way you would compliment a man's tie or his shoes, the situations aren't the same. Men don't have centuries of history of being valued solely on their appearance. Men aren't harassed based upon their appearance. When men are raped, they aren't asked about their appearance, or if their appearance was provocative. I don't mean to put too fine a point on it, but many women view comments on their appearance as demeaning and threatening, largely because of harassment they've experienced all their lives. Their experience is different than yours, and it's important to acknowledge this. Women aren't men, and treating them this way papers over centuries of oppression and misogyny. It's important to be sex and gender conscious, not sex and gender blind.

zaroth 12y ago
It sounds like what you're talking about is women who have PTSD and are potentially triggered in situations like this. Unfortunately, it's impossible for me to know if someone is dealing with that, and I'm also not going to walk around in life assuming every woman has PTSD and could be triggered by an honest complement. It may be triggering but it still is absolutely not sexual harassment. If someone is triggered by things that come up regularly in ordinary work environments, first, that's a terrible situation. At some point they might want to consider disclosing at least something about the trigger to their colleagues so the colleagues can try to avoid it and understand it, versus hiding behind a claim of "sexual harassment" when it actually is not. I get that's not a good answer, because most people will absolutely not understand what a trigger is and why it happens, and most importantly what being triggered actually feels like while it's happening. But even in light of all that, it's a past crime echoing into the present, and not a new transgression, even though it may certainly feel that way to the person being triggered.
- camgunz 12y ago
  No I'm not talking about a disorder or any kind of mental illness. I'm saying that a woman's experience with comments about her appearance makes her view them completely differently than a man would. > Unfortunately, it's impossible for me to know if someone is dealing with that, and I'm also not going to walk around in life assuming every woman has PTSD and could be triggered by an honest complement. You should actually assume a woman doesn't want you to comment on her appearance. > It may be triggering but it still is absolutely not sexual harassment. The EEOC does a good job of defining what [harassment](http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm) and [sexual harassment](http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm) are. Importantly: "Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information." Basically, you can't separate out, "Hi [woman], you look great in that dress" from "Hi [woman], that dress makes me sexually attracted to you'. That's an unwelcome sexual advance. And since you can't separate them out, you ought to stay away from them altogether. You don't have the right to say whatever you want to someone. There are lines, and comments about a woman's appearance are on the wrong side of them.
  - marczellm 12y ago
    > You should actually assume a woman doesn't want you to comment on her appearance. I was taught both in dance/etiquette school and by my grandma that I should ALWAYS compliment if a woman looks great.
  - zaroth 12y ago
    Harassment is easy to define, and very rarely illegal. Otherwise, just about everyone's boss in here would be behind bars. Sexual harassment is a completely different beast. Talking about "harassment" in general is moving the goalposts and a distraction from the topic at hand. From the same source you just quoted, it defines sexual harassment as; ...unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Sexual in this case means sex, as in coitus and other related physical stimuli, not gender. Furthermore, even some conduct which may be considered "sexual harassment" is not illegal. It is only illegal if it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment. Honest complements, by definition, cannot create a hostile or offensive work environment, quite the opposite! > You should actually assume a woman doesn't want you to comment on her appearance. If you're talking about strangers, I would absolutely agree. I'm not talking about cat-calling someone in the street, I'm talking about natural conversation with coworkers and colleagues, regardless of their gender. E.g. If a colleague, male or female, comes in on Monday and their hair is a different color, I think not noticing it is more insulting by far. > Basically, you can't separate out, "Hi [woman], you look great in that dress" from "Hi [woman], that dress makes me sexually attracted to you'. First, actually, yes you can separate out the two. It takes a few hundred milliseconds to register the change in your interlocutor's facial expression which tells you if they took your comment as it was intended or not. Particularly between two people who have known each other and worked together for more than a week. But even more to the point; telling a coworker you are attracted to them, guess what, it's not sexual harassment, and it's certainly not illegal. The law says, repeated unwanted sexual advances which are so severe that they create a hostile work environment. Personally, I'm not willing to "err" on the side of pretending my coworkers are ethereal beings without corporeal form. If someone finds something I say or do offensive, I expect them to let me know, and I will apologize and modify my behavior. That way, even if someone believes I'm making an unwanted sexual advance, I can clarify that no, in fact, I was not talking about sex, and I can try to be more clear about that in the future. In other words, if the only way you're comfortable working with me is by me treating you like a robot, please let me know, and I'll do my best to accommodate you, but I sure as hell am not going to act like that toward the majority of my coworkers.
zaroth 12y ago
I should have called you out on some more of this earlier, but re-reading your reply, I feel like I need to comment on two points even though it's quite tardy; > Men aren't harassed based upon their appearance. I have been harassed based on my appearance, and many of my friends have reported the same. Anecdote isn't data, but your statement is categorically false. The harassment may be different (e.g. men being put-down or physically provoked versus women being cat-called) but it is all harassment. > When men are raped, they aren't asked about their appearance, or if their appearance was provocative. Also, categorically false. Questions as to consent, or mistake of fact regarding consent, are always raised at trial by competent defense. Let me clear, provocative appearance is not even remotely consent, but it is regularly part of the story told by the defense, regardless of the gender of the accused and the victim. I'm just stating legal fact here to debunk your claim, not endorsing anything.
- camgunz 12y ago
  Sorry I got lazy. I meant, "there isn't centuries of history of men being sexually harassed by women based on and valued almost entirely by their appearance". There are a lot of qualifiers and I get tired of typing them all out. Louis CK puts it pretty well in one of his bits when he's talking about being called a cracker: "Oh no, you're taking me back to the days where I owned land and people". There's a big difference between white racial slurs and slurs regarding other races. White racial slurs invoke our privileged history. Slurs against other races invoke their oppressed history. The same thing goes for harassment based on appearance. Certainly men can be harassed in this way, but it's nothing like when women are, because the history is totally different. > Questions as to consent, or mistake of fact regarding consent, are always raised at trial by competent defense. These are different for men than they are for women. Men have to face the "can men really be raped?" argument, where as women have to face the "was she asking for it?" argument. You can see how men's appearance doesn't factor into this; it's the gender stereotype of men being willing to have sex with anything that's at play. But we agree that both are pretty fucked up. > I'm just stating legal fact here to debunk your claim, not endorsing anything. Haha, things are getting a little hot in here I guess. I don't think you're defending rapists or anything :).

by camgunz 12y ago

zaroth 12y ago

It sounds like what you're talking about is women who have PTSD and are potentially triggered in situations like this. Unfortunately, it's impossible for me to know if someone is dealing with that, and I'm also not going to walk around in life assuming every woman has PTSD and could be triggered by an honest complement. It may be triggering but it still is absolutely not sexual harassment. If someone is triggered by things that come up regularly in ordinary work environments, first, that's a terrible situation. At some point they might want to consider disclosing at least something about the trigger to their colleagues so the colleagues can try to avoid it and understand it, versus hiding behind a claim of "sexual harassment" when it actually is not. I get that's not a good answer, because most people will absolutely not understand what a trigger is and why it happens, and most importantly what being triggered actually feels like while it's happening. But even in light of all that, it's a past crime echoing into the present, and not a new transgression, even though it may certainly feel that way to the person being triggered.

camgunz 12y ago
No I'm not talking about a disorder or any kind of mental illness. I'm saying that a woman's experience with comments about her appearance makes her view them completely differently than a man would. > Unfortunately, it's impossible for me to know if someone is dealing with that, and I'm also not going to walk around in life assuming every woman has PTSD and could be triggered by an honest complement. You should actually assume a woman doesn't want you to comment on her appearance. > It may be triggering but it still is absolutely not sexual harassment. The EEOC does a good job of defining what [harassment](http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm) and [sexual harassment](http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm) are. Importantly: "Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information." Basically, you can't separate out, "Hi [woman], you look great in that dress" from "Hi [woman], that dress makes me sexually attracted to you'. That's an unwelcome sexual advance. And since you can't separate them out, you ought to stay away from them altogether. You don't have the right to say whatever you want to someone. There are lines, and comments about a woman's appearance are on the wrong side of them.
- marczellm 12y ago
  > You should actually assume a woman doesn't want you to comment on her appearance. I was taught both in dance/etiquette school and by my grandma that I should ALWAYS compliment if a woman looks great.
- zaroth 12y ago
  Harassment is easy to define, and very rarely illegal. Otherwise, just about everyone's boss in here would be behind bars. Sexual harassment is a completely different beast. Talking about "harassment" in general is moving the goalposts and a distraction from the topic at hand. From the same source you just quoted, it defines sexual harassment as; ...unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Sexual in this case means sex, as in coitus and other related physical stimuli, not gender. Furthermore, even some conduct which may be considered "sexual harassment" is not illegal. It is only illegal if it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment. Honest complements, by definition, cannot create a hostile or offensive work environment, quite the opposite! > You should actually assume a woman doesn't want you to comment on her appearance. If you're talking about strangers, I would absolutely agree. I'm not talking about cat-calling someone in the street, I'm talking about natural conversation with coworkers and colleagues, regardless of their gender. E.g. If a colleague, male or female, comes in on Monday and their hair is a different color, I think not noticing it is more insulting by far. > Basically, you can't separate out, "Hi [woman], you look great in that dress" from "Hi [woman], that dress makes me sexually attracted to you'. First, actually, yes you can separate out the two. It takes a few hundred milliseconds to register the change in your interlocutor's facial expression which tells you if they took your comment as it was intended or not. Particularly between two people who have known each other and worked together for more than a week. But even more to the point; telling a coworker you are attracted to them, guess what, it's not sexual harassment, and it's certainly not illegal. The law says, repeated unwanted sexual advances which are so severe that they create a hostile work environment. Personally, I'm not willing to "err" on the side of pretending my coworkers are ethereal beings without corporeal form. If someone finds something I say or do offensive, I expect them to let me know, and I will apologize and modify my behavior. That way, even if someone believes I'm making an unwanted sexual advance, I can clarify that no, in fact, I was not talking about sex, and I can try to be more clear about that in the future. In other words, if the only way you're comfortable working with me is by me treating you like a robot, please let me know, and I'll do my best to accommodate you, but I sure as hell am not going to act like that toward the majority of my coworkers.

zaroth 12y ago

I should have called you out on some more of this earlier, but re-reading your reply, I feel like I need to comment on two points even though it's quite tardy; > Men aren't harassed based upon their appearance. I have been harassed based on my appearance, and many of my friends have reported the same. Anecdote isn't data, but your statement is categorically false. The harassment may be different (e.g. men being put-down or physically provoked versus women being cat-called) but it is all harassment. > When men are raped, they aren't asked about their appearance, or if their appearance was provocative. Also, categorically false. Questions as to consent, or mistake of fact regarding consent, are always raised at trial by competent defense. Let me clear, provocative appearance is not even remotely consent, but it is regularly part of the story told by the defense, regardless of the gender of the accused and the victim. I'm just stating legal fact here to debunk your claim, not endorsing anything.

camgunz 12y ago
Sorry I got lazy. I meant, "there isn't centuries of history of men being sexually harassed by women based on and valued almost entirely by their appearance". There are a lot of qualifiers and I get tired of typing them all out. Louis CK puts it pretty well in one of his bits when he's talking about being called a cracker: "Oh no, you're taking me back to the days where I owned land and people". There's a big difference between white racial slurs and slurs regarding other races. White racial slurs invoke our privileged history. Slurs against other races invoke their oppressed history. The same thing goes for harassment based on appearance. Certainly men can be harassed in this way, but it's nothing like when women are, because the history is totally different. > Questions as to consent, or mistake of fact regarding consent, are always raised at trial by competent defense. These are different for men than they are for women. Men have to face the "can men really be raped?" argument, where as women have to face the "was she asking for it?" argument. You can see how men's appearance doesn't factor into this; it's the gender stereotype of men being willing to have sex with anything that's at play. But we agree that both are pretty fucked up. > I'm just stating legal fact here to debunk your claim, not endorsing anything. Haha, things are getting a little hot in here I guess. I don't think you're defending rapists or anything :).