From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: sexual harrassment (was Re: Dworkin...)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:31:44 GMT

In article <=zdntvn.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) 
writes:
>Granted. On the flip side, are you apecifically aware of any sexual
>harrasment laws which do not specify the harrasser as male and the
>harrassee as female? Has anyone heard of any non-sexist harrasment 
>laws?

Well, I don't have any laws sitting close at hand online, but I
do have the sexual harassment policy from my workplace.  Here is an
extract:
 - -
      It is the policy of Northwestern University that no male or
 female member of the Northwestern community - students, faculty,
 administrators, or staff - may sexually harass any other member
 of the community. Sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,
 and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature
 constitute harassment when
 
      1. submission to such conduct is made or threatened to be
         made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition
         of an individual's employment or education;
 
      2. submission to or rejection of such conduct by an
         individual is used or threatened to be used as the basis
         for academic or employment decisions affecting that
         individual; or
 
      3. such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially
         interfering with an individual's academic or
         professional performance or creating an intimidating,
         hostile, or offensive employment, educational, or living
         environment.

 - -

There is no gender bias here -- and the context makes it quite clear that
men and women are to be equally protected. I think this is more typical
of laws and policies actually in force today.

Once it is decided that this is a good thing to do, I think any competent
lawyer can draft gender neutral legislation, regarding sexual harassment or
whatever. As this example illustrates, it can be rather straightforward.

It seems like Dworkin &/or McKinnon are introducing exotic legal theories
to suit their particular ends.  From the example given, one aim is
to make the causes for bringing legal action quite broad and to 
disqualify any defense in advance.  (It looked like they want to
be able to bring civil *or* criminal charges.)

The legislation would be more robust if it protected men and women
equally -- I think the reason for not doing this (but including
men in such a roundabout way) was to maintain the view that women
as a class are injured by pornography.  (Saying that *everyone* was
injured would be even more obviously questionable. Unless one's
theory is that it is like air pollution.)

(I'm not saying I agree with them but just suggesting an internal
logic that might have led to this position. I don't think censorship
is a desirable solution to pornorgaphy.)

Andrea Dworkin discovered years ago some ugly truths about the extent
of misogyny in our society.  But she seems so consumed by anger about 
this that she does not recognize her own "shadow".

I would contrast her with, for example, Robin Morgan or Susan Griffin
who have entertained some of the same truths, but seem to have more
sense of their/our mortal limitations and ambiguities (but for better or
worse have not gotten into the business of writing legislation.)

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
Newsgroups: alt.feminism