From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:11:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.215737.15466@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.195735.13037@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com
>(Janice Kendall) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.014515.11092@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>>In article <3707@creatures.cs.vt.edu> debra@creatures.cs.vt.edu
>>>(Debra Potts) writes:
>>>
>>>>	  In every case I've ever EVER seen, the woman
>>>>	  claims sexual harrassment on the basis of direct, specific, and
>>>>	  often explicit sexual remarks that have been uttered by the accused--
>>>>	  most significantly, such remarks made AFTER the utterer has been
>>>>	  warned that the remarks are offensive/unacceptable.
>>>
>>>I guess you've never seen the cases where a women accuses a man of
>>>sexual harassment because she disapproves of the calendar he posts on
>>>his wall, or the magazine he reads during his lunch hour.
>>>
>>>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
>>
>> 1) It depends on where they post it.  I have complained when it is posted
>>    in a more-or-less public place where I, and many others, can not easily
>>    avoid seeing it.  If the offensive poster/calendar is not easily seen,
>>    I have less of a problem.  This is true of women posting beefcake
>>    posters/calendars as well.
>
>I was responding to the statement that every claim of sexual
>harassment involves "direct, specific...sexual remarks...made AFTER
>the utterer has been warned..." (see full quote above).

 Yes.  I changed the direction a little - I admit I entered this 
 discussion late.

>
>> 2) Same with the offensive magazine - it should be read in private, not
>>    public.  How would you feel if you walked up to a woman at lunch to
>>    visit and then realized she was staring at a picture of some guy's
>>    erect penis?
>
>I really don't care what magazine she puts down to talk to me.  And if
>she doesn't put down the magazine, I'll leave, and it still won't
>matter what magazine it is.
>
>> Guys, it can't be too much skin off your back to keep this stuff at home.
>> Put it on the ceiling over your bed, in your bathroom, on your refrigerator,
>> I don't care, but don't put it on your office wall.  I tend to avoid men
>> who put such things on their office walls as I tend to feel that they have
>> little respect for the women with which they work.
>
>That's a perfectly reasonable attitude on your part; you're welcome to
>base your feelings about people on whatever you want.
>
>> An interesting experiment is to bring in similar material which features 
>> the opposite sex and display it in a similar fashion - sometimes people 
>> have to experience the discomfort themselves.
>
>Of course, lots of people won't experience any discomfort.  Many men
>who like looking at naked women expect women to like looking at naked
>men, and aren't bothered by it.

 What if it's a male co-worker who has posted a sexually suggestive
 poster of a man?

>
>If I post a calendar with pictures of sushi, could a vegetarian take
>that as harassment?  If I had a picture of my wife and children
>(assuming I had any), could a member of ZPG take that as harassment?

 Part of my point was that some women may feel physically threatened
 (i.e., if this guy wants to be reminded of sex all day, will he turn
  his unwanted attention in my direction...)
 A vegetarian has little to fear from a sushi eater.

>
>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
   
 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

      Don't Panic!  Clinton will be our *42*nd President.