5 ms·

> Harassment is easy to define Yeah I already posted a link to the EEOC's definition. > ...and very rarely illegal EEOC charge statistics say otherwise: http

by camgunz 12y ago

> Harassment is easy to define Yeah I already posted a link to the EEOC's definition. > ...and very rarely illegal EEOC charge statistics say otherwise: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm > Sexual harassment is a completely different beast. It's a specific type of harassment, like a Labrador Retriever is a specific type of dog. They're not completely different. > Sexual in this case means sex, as in coitus and other related physical stimuli, not gender. No, it's not restricted to physical stimuli. To reference the reports in this thread, telling a woman "it's taking all of my self control not to grab your ass right now" is sexual harassment, even if no one is touched. Do you really think otherwise? You also conveniently left out the rest of the definition: Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general. So you're really just 100% wrong, regardless of your opinions or feelings. > Honest complements, by definition, cannot create a hostile or offensive work environment They can if they're inappropriate and unwanted. I really encourage you to thoroughly read the definitions I linked to. > 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. I'm talking about the workplace and work-related functions, because that's the topic of this thread. > 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. It's extremely entitled to think that someone, man or woman, changed their appearance to elicit a reaction from you. > The law says, repeated unwanted sexual advances which are so severe that they create a hostile work environment. To be pedantic, you're quoting the EEOC (I assume), which isn't the law, it's just EEOC's description. Further, you've misquoted them: Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent *or severe* that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted). > First, actually, yes you can separate out the two. You can, because you personally know your intent. But no one else can, and your intent is irrelevant. If your actions create a hostile work environment, it doesn't matter if you meant to or not. > 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. Yes it is, it's an unwelcome sexual advance. If you keep doing it, you're sexually harassing someone, or if you do it in a severe enough way, you're sexually harassing someone. You don't have a right to say whatever you want to someone. You may intend it to be an honest compliment, but your intent is irrelevant. Someone's attractiveness and physical appearance isn't relevant in the workplace, and it's inappropriate to bring it up. > The law says, repeated unwanted sexual advances which are so severe that they create a hostile work environment. Again I assume you're quoting the EEOC, which is not the law, and again you misquoted them: Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted). > Personally, I'm not willing to "err" on the side of pretending my coworkers are ethereal beings without corporeal form. This is entitlement, pure and simple. You're not willing to stop commenting on womens' appearances in order to avoid potentially making them uncomfortable, because you have a burning need to compliment? Indefensible. Your need to compliment isn't something that we have to protect. Womens' ability to feel comfortable and safe in the workplace is. It's infinitely more important; any suggestion otherwise is wildly selfish. > 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 You have this backwards. Your default should be professional, workplace-appropriate conduct. Only in very specific circumstances can you act differently. I know we disagree on what workplace-appropriate conduct is, but your argument that it's up to women to "opt out" of your compliments is oppressive. The onus isn't on them, it's on you. And if you disagree that it's oppressive, remember that you're the one complaining about how onerous it would be for you to stop complimenting them. How hard would that really be, honestly?

zaroth 12y ago
> EEOC charge statistics say otherwise: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm How do you figure? Less than 100,000 charges of harassment, in a world where someone is harassing you pretty much on a minute-by-minute basis. I'd say that thoroughly substantiates my claim that harassment is almost never illegal. >> Honest complements, by definition, cannot create a hostile or offensive work environment > They can if they're inappropriate and unwanted. They can only if they're inappropriate and unwanted... and so frequent or severe enough. Which honest complements cannot be. A complement on someone's appearance is not sexual nor inappropriate. It may be unwanted, which goes back to my point about how well-meaning humans communicate through things like eye contact and facial expressions. I'd ask you to point out a single case of proven sexual harassment based on someone simply paying complements to a co-worker, but it's probably not worth your time. If sexual comments are inappropriate, unwanted, and are so frequent or severe that they create a hostile work environment (did I get the quote right that time?!), then they rise to illegal sexual harassment. It seems simple enough to me. Clearly a complement fails the 'severe' test, fails the sexual test, and so I'm left to just guess where you're coming from -- perhaps you're imagining a coworker doggedly pursuing an uninterested colleague, which, again, would not be what I call a honest complement. >> First, actually, yes you can separate out the two. > You can, because you personally know your intent. But no one else can, and your intent is irrelevant. If your actions create a hostile work environment... Certainly I agree the definition of a 'hostile work environment' does not hinge on the harasser admitting fault or intent. However, I also do not think a hostile work environment can be something that "just happens" without some actual physical manifestation of harassment. When we tell co-workers to speak up it's about identifying these moments when a line is crossed. Long before honest complements could somehow even remotely approach the point of creating a hostile work environment, I am quite comfortable the vast majority of people's ability to recognize that. And I am convinced that calling for a outright ban on complementing someone's appearance in the workplace is incredible overreach. > You don't have a right to say whatever you want to someone. Whatever you want? Surely not. But this is a logical fallacy I won't chase. > Someone's attractiveness and physical appearance isn't relevant in the workplace, and it's inappropriate to bring it up. You're overgeneralizing here. In most workplaces physical appearance is absolutely relevant to some degree. But ignoring the obvious cases where physical appearance is relevant, I'm honestly not sure what you mean by 'relevant in the workplace'. My workplace is not an assembly line where I don't interact with humans; quite the contrary. Interaction with humans is a large part of most workplaces, and conversing with, building rapport, trust, shared understanding and common goals is a major component of most workplaces. Part of team building is also building relationships and friendships, and that will naturally include people talking about themselves and talking about each other. While we should all expect this is always done in a positive and inclusive manor, we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Comments about peoples apparel, or appearance are natural, unoffensive, and should not be banned in the work environment. The damage in sterilizing the workplace of this type of camaraderie far outweighs to potential for harm. My general thesis is, that this is an over-reaction to the base and vile things that sometimes, but rarely, do occur in the workplace. >> 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. > It's extremely entitled to think that someone, man or woman, changed their appearance to elicit a reaction from you. Huh, what?! That's not what I said at all, please re-read it. I think something just shifted in your tone, and I'm sorry to see it go in that direction. Please try to remain charitable in light of the limited bandwidth of the communication medium. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, probably because I was trying to be too cute while saying it. The point I'm trying to make is, I don't think it's a reasonable trade-off, in fact I think it's massive overreach to strictly enforce a sterile workplace because someone might be offended by an honest complement. It's actually not about "me" it's just that pronouns get messy in comment threads. Please keep ad hominem out of it, because I'm actually trying to have a productive conversation here. I'm not complaining about how onerous it would be for me to stop complementing someone. What I think we do need to protect is our ability to be human and humane to one another, to empathize with one another, and to have the option of connecting on a remotely personal level to people we spend the majority of our days with. I think this happens naturally and copacetically 99.99% of the time. I think your quoted Charge Statistics support my conclusion.

by camgunz 12y ago

zaroth 12y ago

> EEOC charge statistics say otherwise: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm How do you figure? Less than 100,000 charges of harassment, in a world where someone is harassing you pretty much on a minute-by-minute basis. I'd say that thoroughly substantiates my claim that harassment is almost never illegal. >> Honest complements, by definition, cannot create a hostile or offensive work environment > They can if they're inappropriate and unwanted. They can only if they're inappropriate and unwanted... and so frequent or severe enough. Which honest complements cannot be. A complement on someone's appearance is not sexual nor inappropriate. It may be unwanted, which goes back to my point about how well-meaning humans communicate through things like eye contact and facial expressions. I'd ask you to point out a single case of proven sexual harassment based on someone simply paying complements to a co-worker, but it's probably not worth your time. If sexual comments are inappropriate, unwanted, and are so frequent or severe that they create a hostile work environment (did I get the quote right that time?!), then they rise to illegal sexual harassment. It seems simple enough to me. Clearly a complement fails the 'severe' test, fails the sexual test, and so I'm left to just guess where you're coming from -- perhaps you're imagining a coworker doggedly pursuing an uninterested colleague, which, again, would not be what I call a honest complement. >> First, actually, yes you can separate out the two. > You can, because you personally know your intent. But no one else can, and your intent is irrelevant. If your actions create a hostile work environment... Certainly I agree the definition of a 'hostile work environment' does not hinge on the harasser admitting fault or intent. However, I also do not think a hostile work environment can be something that "just happens" without some actual physical manifestation of harassment. When we tell co-workers to speak up it's about identifying these moments when a line is crossed. Long before honest complements could somehow even remotely approach the point of creating a hostile work environment, I am quite comfortable the vast majority of people's ability to recognize that. And I am convinced that calling for a outright ban on complementing someone's appearance in the workplace is incredible overreach. > You don't have a right to say whatever you want to someone. Whatever you want? Surely not. But this is a logical fallacy I won't chase. > Someone's attractiveness and physical appearance isn't relevant in the workplace, and it's inappropriate to bring it up. You're overgeneralizing here. In most workplaces physical appearance is absolutely relevant to some degree. But ignoring the obvious cases where physical appearance is relevant, I'm honestly not sure what you mean by 'relevant in the workplace'. My workplace is not an assembly line where I don't interact with humans; quite the contrary. Interaction with humans is a large part of most workplaces, and conversing with, building rapport, trust, shared understanding and common goals is a major component of most workplaces. Part of team building is also building relationships and friendships, and that will naturally include people talking about themselves and talking about each other. While we should all expect this is always done in a positive and inclusive manor, we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Comments about peoples apparel, or appearance are natural, unoffensive, and should not be banned in the work environment. The damage in sterilizing the workplace of this type of camaraderie far outweighs to potential for harm. My general thesis is, that this is an over-reaction to the base and vile things that sometimes, but rarely, do occur in the workplace. >> 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. > It's extremely entitled to think that someone, man or woman, changed their appearance to elicit a reaction from you. Huh, what?! That's not what I said at all, please re-read it. I think something just shifted in your tone, and I'm sorry to see it go in that direction. Please try to remain charitable in light of the limited bandwidth of the communication medium. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, probably because I was trying to be too cute while saying it. The point I'm trying to make is, I don't think it's a reasonable trade-off, in fact I think it's massive overreach to strictly enforce a sterile workplace because someone might be offended by an honest complement. It's actually not about "me" it's just that pronouns get messy in comment threads. Please keep ad hominem out of it, because I'm actually trying to have a productive conversation here. I'm not complaining about how onerous it would be for me to stop complementing someone. What I think we do need to protect is our ability to be human and humane to one another, to empathize with one another, and to have the option of connecting on a remotely personal level to people we spend the majority of our days with. I think this happens naturally and copacetically 99.99% of the time. I think your quoted Charge Statistics support my conclusion.