From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Another pogrom (was Re: Another program)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:19:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.030724.7549@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
)In article <1992Aug11.001419.9678@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

)I think this is interesting.  I'm curious as to whether the women
)doing the touching are flirting, harassing, or are "just" touching.
)Obviously, some touching is flirting and some is sexual harassment,
)but how about a touch on the arm or back?

Current interpretation leaves it all up to the reaction of the touchee,
as I understand it.

This makes it a non-objective term.

)  (I'll put in the disclaimer
)here that if the touchee doesn't like it, the toucher should stop
)doing it.)  I remember reading somewhere that superiors often touch
)subordinates but not vice versa.  Also, different cultures use touch
)and personal space differently.  I've discovered that what I consider
)just typical American (or Southern) friendliness makes me very forward
)by most Asian cultural standards, but cold and aloof by most Arabic,
)Turkish, and southern European standards.

I agree with the cultural differences.  My impression is that superiors
are trained nowadays not to touch subordinates, however.  I'd guess that
maybe a few older types do it, I doubt that younger ones do, however.

)>I personally think that officaldom should not get involved in such activities
)>unless:

(list deleted)

)This seems good to me, too.

)>I also think that complaints & bitching about office decorations, posters,
)>GIF's, etc by co-workers should be mostly routinely ignored (though the
)>managment gets the final call).  Complaints by management and/ or paying
)>customers should get the usual 'privileged' treatment.  [Rather elitist and
)>hierarchial of me, I suppose.  But it seems realistic & workable to me.]
)
)I disagree some here.  I think there are office decorations, etc. that
)can intimidate some people.  For example, one of the machine shops I
)use has several posters of bare-chested women.  I really didn't notice
)them until a female grad student mentioned to me that she didn't like
)using that particular shop because of the posters.

I suppose some flexibility is called for.  However, it really *shouldn't*
be a federal case.  Courts (esp Federal Courts) shouldn't be deciding what's
suitable office decoration and what isn't, All IMO.  (But that's the current
situation.)

...

)I agree that he was being sexually harassed.  In fact, my friend felt
)that the young man felt harassed, but that he didn't know quite how to
)deal with it.  He dealt with it by trying to avoid the harassing
)woman.

There wasn't any indication before this that the man felt harassed by this.
Given that he felt harassed, that's about all you need.

)  That's where my question about "macho" came in.  Many women
)seem reluctant to report sexual harassment because they believe they
)won't be believed, that nothing will be done (or the situation may
)actually worsen), and/or they may be blamed for being sexually
)provocative (think about Schafly's remarks that decent women are never
)sexually harassed).  It seems that men are reluctant to report sexual
)harassment by women for many of the same reasons, except that men are
)assumed to always welcome sexual advances by women.

That seems logical.  Such fears are probably not always unfounded, either.
In addition, the man can be quite rightly afraid (IMO) that the woman, who
was being aggressive, will accuse *him* of sexual harassment if he makes an
issue of it 'through channels'.  Some of the usual advice about keeping
a notebook of incidents may help - and then there is the issue of talking to
co-workers.   I also have the feeling that in a construction environment
there would be some 'macho' pressure.  In a white-collar environment, I think
there would at least be some limited support for the guy, though he might
have to give some thought to how and with who he talked about it.

)>This 'leave it alone' philosophy is in direct contravention to the
)>prevailing law, BTW, which is one reason I don't like the current laws.
....(some more, stronger stuff along the same line deleted)....

)I think the rules come from the fact that many women (and some men) do
)feel like helpless victims when confronted with sexual harassment.
)Sometimes the choices seem to be to either put up with it or leave.

I think the rules providing additional legal channels for complaints
of specific misbehavior against superiors & supervisors are on the whole good
ones.

The rest of the law I don't care for at all, and I really do think that the
idea of protecting 'helpless' women had a lot to do with its formation. 

There is some current legislation to raise damage limits (not sure whether
it's proposed or passed) that really will turn thins into even more of a
witchunt, and an opportunity for litigious people to make money by filing
suits with little merit.
Xref: sparky soc.women:15152 soc.men:14876 sci.bio:2910 sci.skeptic:14151