Talk:Sexual harassment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Sexual harassment, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating.

Contents

[edit] LOL, NPOV

First, this article completely omits the point that the verbal aspects of sexual harassment law can very easily be in the conflict with the basic right of free speech. A woman could complain just because she "feels" that the speech was too suggestive, too lewd, or too uncomfortable. Essentially, SH laws give prospective victims (women in 99% of cases) the retaliatory power to prevent men from saying certain things. In a verbal argument, a woman could call a man, say, a "stupid asshole", but he couldn't call her back a "dumb bitch" - not without the threat of sexual harassment complaint. In such a scenario a woman could intentionally (just out of being, well, a bitch) provoke a man into what would qualify as harassing behavior.

Second, false accusations are precisely the problem with sexual harassment and that is precisely the reason why they should be discussed here, in this article. Right now, there is not a word about them. I guess that would mean that they don't exist.

Third, and this was brought up more than once, why does Catcall redirect here? If you have a right to be provocative in your dress, why doesn't someone else have a right to be provocative in their words? Oh, that's because you can slap them with a complaint if you deem their words too provocative for you. Well then, should someone else be able to slap you with a complaint if they deem your dress too provocative for them?

Lastly, dear women, who feel so passionate about (verbal) SH, it's funny how you describe the same words as harassing or not depending on the attractiveness of the man saying them. Just admit that this is one more legal mechanism to enable your power trip over men, serving to remove "unwelcome" attention while attracting "welcome" attention - based solely on whether or not you like said attention. Equality or Hypocrisy? Anyone?


[edit] This article is about "sexual harassment", not about false accusations of sexual harassment or "alleged" sexual harassment or "claims" of sexual harassment

False accusations do happen, but as this is a different problem, and should be discussed in it's own article. And while concerns about so-called heterophobia and regulating sex are important to mention, they should be discussed in-depth in their own articles (with links to the SH article).

Also, there is a difference between "common" and "normal." While many believe that some sexual harassment is "normal," I would argue that many things in human nature may be common, but it does not make them okay. Ultimately, sexual harassment has nothing to do with sex, it is a form of bullying and an abuse of power and authority. It is a way of treating people with disrespect and a lack of dignity. Few would dare to argue that racist remarks or actions are "normal," and yet sexual harassment is no less serious, and no less harmful. 70.142.154.57 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

(This was originally at the bottom, but I'm placing it at the top so that no one misses it.)

  • What evidence is there that sexual harassment is purely about power? Not everyone accepts the feminist axioms about the asexuality of sexual harassment and rape. They need to be explained and justified, not taken for granted. Qvkfgmjqy 13:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps a mention on same-sex harassment?

Perhaps there should be a specific mention of cases involving same-gender sexual harassment? In the United States, such instances in the workplace are generally considered to be in jest (that is, as a joke).

Good idea. The "as a joke" harassment is one end of the scale. But then there are cases such as Oncale Vs. Sundowner where a male employee was severely and chronically harassed by his male co-workers, and even sodomized with a bar of soap. There is also the problem of harassment of/by homosexuals, which is almost always same-gender harassment so it should be included. Aine63 17:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It should also be remembered that much conduct which is not homosexually motivated but involves men sexually humiliating other men (as in various initiation rituals) would meet the legal definition of sexual harassment in many jurisdictions. Metamagician3000 04:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural bias

This is a good article in an American or perhaps European context. However it is not really applicable as drafted too much of the world where other mores apply. Could somebody perhaps adderss this cultural issue?PaddyBriggs 12:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If you read literature on sexual harassment in cultures with different mores you will find that the perspectives depends on who you are talking to. In a culture that has not outlawed sexual harassment, you will find that most women (who remain the primary targets of sexual harassment) will agree completely with most of the content of this article. The real problem is that they are not the ones in power, nor the ones who draft the laws that supposedly reflect the mores. 66.142.141.220 23:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • an example, please study up on the phenomena of chikan in Japan. Groping is such a huge problem, that men are being banned altogether not just from certain train cars, but from stores, restaurants, spas, etc. Maybe if they enacted some sexual harassment laws there, they might not have to go to these extremes. It is the same issue in Africa and Russia where sexual harassment laws are non-existent, yet sexual harassment is a huge, huge problem in these countries. That the laws of a country do not acknowledge a problem does not mean that the problem does not exist. Just ask the women there. Aine63 03:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
why don't you link to some examples of this? Qvkfgmjqy 14:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree completly with what was said here. As an imigrant I lived in two different cultures, an eastern european one and a western type culture, and I have to say that ceratain behaviors percieved in the west as sexual harassment (sexual jokes for example) were not perceived as such in the eastern european culture. There is change in the last years but it goes hand in hand with a general tendency (as elswere in the world) of indiscriminantly imitating/adopting western values. I think that much of the sexual harassment issue as it is seen today is a feature of the modern western culture. There is also worth mentioning that the phenomen received no atention during the known pre-modern history while men and women were frequently in situations like this for thousands of years.

[edit] Sexual harassment is not about Feminism

I removed the link to Feminism today. It's been bothering me for awhile, and I finally pulled it out. The reason for this is that sexual harassment is not about gender, it's about the abuse of power. Since men are also targets of sexual harassment, and women are also harassers--of both men and women--Feminism is not an appropriate "see also" link, at least not to me. (Feminism has yet to touch on the increasing problem of abuses by women who are now stepping into positions of power.) If anyone disagrees with this, go ahead and put it back. I don't mean to be vandalizing. I just think that both genders need to feel they are on the same side of the discussion.(Aine63)

I disagree, sexual harassment awareness is a result of feminism, and therefore relevant.Emmett5 04:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on mature consideration, I realize that you were right, Aine63. I appologize for returning Feminism to the link list, and will remove it immediatly.Emmett5 17:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the extensive edits

I restored most of my material that was edited out by metamagician. First, many of the edits were simply rewordings, and were frivolous at best, often making the paragraphs even more wordy and less concise. Second, all content that was edited to meet meta's approval was already backed up with references. Meta included no references at all to his assertions or to justify his changes. He simply reworded things to satisfy his own point of view.

I removed the "new" reactions of women section because the content was pulled from Retaliation and Backlash, and reworded to fit Meta's point of view. The reactions discussed belong under backlash and retaliation because the types of responses discussed consitute backlash and retaliation. (BTW: simply disagreeing with what consitutes sexual harassment is never an excuse for retaliation or backlash against a victim. Never. Actually, few women disagree about what consitutes sexual harassment. The difference is the degree to which someone is bothered by certain types of behavior, and this varies enormously. This fuzzy area is already touched upon at the top of the article.)

Also, I don't think an entire section on the reactions of women is not appropriate because men are also sexually harassed. This article should be about the problem of sexual harassment in general, not the problem of sexual harassment of women by men. (The brief mention of women's reactions in the backlash section is interesting because most people would be surprised by them.)

I moved meta's rant on career destruction as it was a major tangent in the backlash section. I do think these were good points, and placed them at the top, under the paragraph discussing the controversy around sexual harassment. This is a more appropriate placement, topic-wise. However, I reworded it to include both victim and harasser as either party's careers can be destroyed by allegations.

I removed the sentence about extending the quid pro quo category as it didn't make sense at all. Quid Pro Quo is purely "you do something for me and I'll do something for you." It is the only "neat" category when it comes to sexual harassment. Everything else is Hostile Environment, and is messy as hell. Also, I removed the sentence about behavior being sexual harassment even if the overall environment isn't hostile. It was long and merely states the obvious.

Wikipedia is a serious research tool and not a forum for an individual rant. If you want to rant, do it here, on the discussion page.Aine63 06:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


Hmmmm, my edits that got wiped out were based on legal experience in this field which I could have backed up with sources (though perhaps not always easily available ones) as well as my own experience. I've even written a book on this subject myself (though it was one those things that you have to pay big money for from a publisher targeting the corporate market; it is not available through bookshops and it is now out of date; I don't count it as one of my publications for most purposes, but it shows I do know what I'm talking about - I have some expertise in this area of law).

I also find it odd that my edits were called a "rant", but led to the very long post above, which does indeed look like a rant (as does this reply, but I plead provocation  :) ).

The rewordings were improvements in my view, and I have a certain amount of professional writing and editorial experience, so I don't think I was merely being petty. I do wish people would assume good faith. However, I'm grateful that at least some of my edits were retained. I've put some back and I may need to put back others. The claim above about quid pro quo is clearly wrong, and I think something needs to be said that is more sophisticated than what is currently there. The idea has indeed been extended beyond the original neat category if American law does actually include the third point as coming under "quid pro quo" (btw the emphasis on American law is another problem with the article). Note that the list of three points has an "or" not an "and". However, if it is only the third that is met there is not necessarily any straightforward quid pro quo. In Australia at least, straightforward quid pro quo claims are not all that common - most claims would fall under the third point, but not under "hostile work environment". The latter class of claims relate to things like pervasive sexism. As someone who has had to litigate cases about this, I am offended at being told I don't know what I am talking about on a point like that.

However, I will not simply revert all my edits. Some may have gone too far in attempting to rebalance the article by including the defendant point of view (which seemed very much to be missing) as well as the complainant point of view, and may not be easily verified. I'm not interested in a verification war. However, I do wish people would talk before simply wiping out edits that took a fair bit of time and work. Metamagician3000 07:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You made signifigant changes to the article without discussion, and anyone would be irritated about it. Some would be furious. (It's called "vandalism" in Wikipedia-land.) Regarding "talk before simply wiping out edits," you are supposed to discuss on the Talk page before you make such huge changes. (What you deem my own rant is my doing what contributors are supposed to do--justify their changes.) Most people who have contributed to this page have professional experience in this area, not to mention writing experience. You cannot rewrite the words of others, or restructure the article, to suit your own needs, particularly when the existing assertions are already backed up with references and experience. (Also, you can't change something just because it's viewed differently in Australia.)

BTW: this article is about sexual harassment, not "alleged" sexual harassment which is a different topic. If you want, just begin another article on "false accusations of sexual harassment." But do this on another page. (I removed your sentence about women being hostile because they may be more objective about the behavior as it is a ridiculous assertion--retaliation is never objective and never OK, not under any circumstances, and it is *always* illegal, even if the harassment was not proven.)

I'm not trying to silence you. The accused's point-of-view is welcome, and I take it that your personal experience is as an accused sexual harasser. However, this does not discount the experience of the victims. (I can promise you that many, many more victim's lives and careers are destroyed than are the lives of accused harassers--many more, as most harassment is never reported.) The accused's perspective would be best placed under it's own section called "Point of view of the accused?" Place this beneath "Effects of sexual harassment." Say what you will as long as you include references to back it all up. Personal opinion is not universal truth.

You can revert all the "undoes" that you want, but I will simply revert it all back again unless you discuss the issues here first. Considering the disrespect you have already shown to those who have contributed here, why should I or anyone else show you any faith?Aine63 15:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I made it quite plain that my experience is as a lawyer.
As it happens, I have professional experience in representing the interests of both complainants and defendants in cases involving allegations of sexual harassment, so I know a fair bit about the effects on both and can write about this subject objectively. (As I clearly stated above, I even had a book published on the subject for the corporate market in Australia (though I was only credited as "editor" and I have various reasons for not making too much of this publication).)In my opinion, the article was not objective when I initially read it but weighted to the viewpoint of complainants.
The difference between my initial edits on this article and your subsequent edits is that I did not wipe out anyone's material. I rephrased some of it to say better what I thought the article was trying to say, and I built on it to add to some other points which people could then work with. That is not what is meant by "vandalism", and I am offended at your use of that word. However, I've also been known to accuse people of vandalism in the heat of the moment, so I initially let it go. Now that you've repeated the accusation after we've discussed it, I really am ofended, and I want an apology.
There are a lot of claims in the article as I encountered it that are controversial opinions, not facts, and I would have been within my rights to edit the article far more ruthlessly. However, I left the substance of everything you and others had written, allowing you the chance to work with my edits constructively.
I am done with this for the moment. Given the way you distort things, jump to false conclusions, and refuse to compromise, you are obviously an unreasonable person, so it's difficult dealing with you. I'll worry about this article another time. For now, I just remind you that you don't own the article and that we are all warned not to write unless we are prepared to be edited ruthlessly. Accordingly, you had no right to make accusations of vandalism merely because of legitimate edits. (I did not edit the article very ruthlessly, as it happens, but merely rephrased some things and made some additional points. None of your points were lost.) I didn't revert your edits yesterday, but tried to work with them in a constructive way after you'd made them. Even my response to your first rant here was measured in its tone. I tried to get along with you. However, you seem unwilling to reciprocate.
If you were at all reasonable, you'd at least acknowledge that I have a legitimate point about the "quid quo pro" issue, which I explained to you quite nicely. Metamagician3000 23:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


LOL, "vandalism" is not my term, it is Wikipedia's term and created as a point of netiquette and protocol. Also, having "legal experience" does not automatically label anyone a lawyer. Neither does writing a book. Both can mean anything. (Sorry if I made you feel insulted as I did not mean that being an "accused harasser" meant that someone is an harasser; the "accused" was deliberate, and was actually meant to validate the specific point of view you have been pushing.)this is a way to not get inot alotzzzzzzzzZZZZzzzz of troble

My tone has been at least as measured as yours, and I certainly haven't resorted to personal attacks and insults. Asking you to discuss before you make your changes is hardly uncompromising. Again, my rant, as you call it, is once again my simply making the justifications for the reverts--part of Wikipedia protocol. (If you hadn't made so many changes without justification, I wouldn't have had to justify so many reverts. ;) )Besides, I encouraged you to add a section covering the perspective of the accused, which you stated was lacking and I agree with you. Again, hardly being uncompromising.

Of course you should be expected to be edited here. It happens every day. But it is part of Wikipedia protocol to justify most changes on the Talk page. If you make signifigant changes without justification, particularly to sections which are supported with references and/or concrete evidence, you *will* be called on it. (If it is any consolation, I learned about this the hard way myself.)

Final justification--the quote about backlash, since it is a comment about experiencing backlash, belongs below all the examples of backlash. Placing it in the middle makes little sense. Aine63 23:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the definition of "vandalism" used here and I strongly deny that anything that I did fell into that definition. However, to your credit, you've changed the heading to this section. I thank you for that, and I'll take that as a conciliatory gesture/sign of good faith.
Having "legal experience" can mean only one thing where I come from: it means experience as a lawyer in professional practice. If someone used the term in any other way, it would be a bitter joke. But let's just take that as an honest misunderstanding on both sides.
At this stage, you've retained some of my material (with minor changes that I actually agree with), changed the heading (as mentioned), and agreed with me that the article lacks the defendants' point of view. I'm pleased with all those things, and I'm not trying to make an enemy here. Also, it's not that I think the work done so far is terrible, and I meant no disrespect to anyone by starting some heavy editing on it. I just think that the article can be improved, and I was acting in good faith to try to do when we got into this discussion.
If you're prepared to work with me to improve the article I'll tell you some of the other things that I think could be improved (including some of my specific disagreements with your "justifications"). Even setting them out would take me some time - time that I could spend simply editing the article. But let's see if we can cooperate. Metamagician3000 04:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the acknowledgement of my trying to work with your edits, and I had done so before your earlier post that was full of personal attacks. The only new change I made was to the above heading.

All we ask is that you justify changes before you make them, particularly if it alters material that is supported, changes the meaning of what is already written, or changes the structure of the article. It's deemed good netiquette at Wikipedia and not simply my being difficult or uncompromising, nor is it my thinking I "own" the article. On pretty much any article, if you edit without justification, your edits will be reverted. Aine63 14:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Metamagician3000 00:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

I've created this heading as a place where people can list issues with the article in its current form. Here's a random list of problems that I see. It is not meant to be exhaustive. Feel free to add to it. If you think these points have merit, feel free to address them in the article itself.

1. The introduction is now far too long. The material in it is okay, but most of it after the first para needs to be taken out and given a new heading, something about the complexities, etc.

2. It really needs significant material that more precisely captures the widespread criticisms of the concept as it has developed. References to such writers as Wendy McElroy, Helen Garner, and Daphne Patai are needed. This does not mean I necessarily agree with these writers, but there is a POV that says the concept has developed in a way which is unnecessarily expensive to administer, unfair to defendants, and offensive to women. Some people talk about "the sexual harassment industry".

3. However, if there are references any such criticisms, the point should also be made that no one reputable defends sexual assaults in the workplace/on the campus, the use of supervisory power to coerce people into sex, or the creation of working environments that women experience as pervasively hostile. There is well-documented evidence that women in particular have suffered from these things in shocking ways. The difficulty that critics of the concept (as it has developed) face is that they can be thought to be defending this.

4. The criticisms relate to the way the definitions of sexual harassment have been extended well beyond the above situations to dubious, frivolous, inappropriate (as where there was an assault which was not really sexual but could be interpreted that way with some ingenuity), and opportunistic charges. Moreover, the concept arguably blurs serious conduct such as those described in point 3 with minor issues such as flirting and "dirty" jokes, while many publications simultaneously describe all behaviour that can be counted as sexual harassment as if it were extreme and amounted to a form of violence (especially against women).

5. The criticisms also include extreme and disproportional economic and psychological effects on defendants, both men and women, in such cases. Cases are sometimes cited of such responses as suicide. Another criticism made by some feminists is that the breadth of the concept suggests that women are too frail to handle quite mild sexual behaviour that is slightly offensive at worst - not actually intimidating or demeaning.

6. None of this is demonstrates that the criticisms are correct. (From my experience I do actually think there is some truth in them, but that's not the point.) The criticisms are out there, partly expressed in the popular culture by writers like Michael Crichton, partly in jocular and disrespecful discussion of sexual harassment law that pervades the culture, but also in the work of many writers who claim to be feminists. This POV should be acknowledged, even if it is identified as being a minority view among scholarly commentators.

7. In its current form, the article is very US-centric. The concept may have developed in other ways in other countries. For example, in Australia and New Zealand the categories of "quid pro quo" and "hostile working environment" are not that important (though they are recognised). Most cases are simply based on an attempt to prove the elements of sexual harassment. Depending on the jurisdiction, these elements are something like (1) that the conduct was of a sexual nature; (2) that the complainant was actually offended, humiliated or intimidated by it (or some similar formula); and (3) (in most jurisdictions) some requirement to the effect that it was reasonable and/or reasonably foreseeable that the behaviour would offend, humiliate, or intimidate. The third element is meant filter out mere flirting between friends and workmates, respectful, non-persistent requests for dates, limited sexual banter to which no one was objecting, etc., and the controversy tends to be about whether this element is adequate as a filter. Also, some jurisdictions seem not to have this filter at all, or have it in only a very weakened way. It would be interesting to reflect some experience from those countries/jurisdictions.

8. The article plunges straight into quid pro quo harassment and hostile working environment harassment. Though the elements are listed, there is no initial explanation of the theory behind these (e.g how they were developed in early feminist theory and case law on the subject). It seems very disjointed.

9. There is no acknowledgement in the article that many (most?) acts that meet the elements of sexual harassment set out in 7. above involve neither a pervasively hostile working environment nor any "quid pro quo". These acts are currently covered in the article by the third dot point under "quid pro quo" harassment, which extends that concept well beyond the clear idea of a "quid pro quo". I doubt that the extension of "quid pro quo" harassment has been done in this way in jurisdictions outside the US. It is unnecessary in any jurisdiction where claimants merely prove a set of statutory elements without worrying about categories. However, it would be interesting to know.

10. The claim in the article that many more people have been sexually harassed than have a good legal case is ambiguous. It is stated in the context that there are legal and colloquial concepts of sexual harassment. If it means that people have been sexually harassed in the colloquial sense (which needs to be defined) but not the legal sense, this may well be true, but it should be stated in so many words. Colloquially, someone may claim to be "sexually harassed" merely by unwanted sexual conduct that was not even offensive, and I have seen social scientists use this definition. Alternatively, if the statement means that people have been harassed in the legal sense, but do not have a good evidentiary case, this needs to be stated in so many words and the relevant sentence should appear in a different, less confusing contex. If this is the meaning, it is really speculative - we cannot know that anyone was harassed if he/she did not have the evidence to prove it. If it is based on surveys, all we can know is that people claim to have been sexually harassed. It should be made clear that this sentence is someone's opinion.

11. The article currently confuses the issue of backlash/retaliation with the issue of hostility to the claimant/sympathy for the defendant. They are two different things, as merely feeling hostile to a party, or sympathetic to the other party, may be expressed in quite legitimate ways, such as giving evidence in court to support one party ... or it may not be expressed at all. As it stands, the article seems to suggest that whenever women are hostile to the claimant or sympathetic to the defendant there is some pathological reason for this (e.g unconscious sexism against their own sex). That is speculative. The obvious reasons why a woman in a particular case may be sympathetic to a defendant (and thus may give evidence for the defendant, for example) are that she finds the defendant more credible or she considers the alleged conduct to be minor. To suggest otherwise is insulting to women and it is speculation rather than fact. Of course, none of this justifies anyone taking part in retaliation or backlash. However, the article needs to distinguish between merely "siding" with the defendant (giving emotional support, witness testimony etc, or merely feeling that the defendant is in the right) and actually retaliating against the complainant. At the moment, these different things are run together. I previously tried to deal with the problem by creating a new heading, but this got changed back, re-introducing the confusion.

12. The article also seems to confuse the experience of many complainants that they feel violated just from having to run their case, give evidence, etc, with the experience of retaliation etc. No doubt many complainants suffer retaliation. However, the article currently misses the important point that many complainants who have suffered very serious kinds of sexual harassment feel violated simply by what they have to go through to prove their case and even if there is no retaliation. (Rape victims often report this, too.) The quote in the article seemed to be making the latter point, but was under the heading to do with retaliation. Hence I moved it, but it got moved back. Someone needs to check just what the context and meaning of the quote was. If it really was about retaliation, then the point I'm making in this para should be covered elsewhere. Despite the criticisms that can be made of the way the concept of sexual harassment has developed, blatant sexual harassment is obviously psychologically destructive, and this point is an important one to get clear.

That will do for now. Metamagician3000 01:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

For the third time(or is it the fourth), the quote at the end of the retaliation article is expressly commenting on retaliation and backlash. It was taken from an article on sexual harassment, from the section on retaliation--I should know, as I put it there. The point you are making should be covered elsewere. I'm really tired of this. Also, the section on backlash does not at all suggest that hostility is pathological. You are reading into this.

The intro is fine. It is a group effort and reflects the perspectives of the most frequent contributors/participants here. While I don't agree with everything there, and would write it differently myself, I would certainly not pull anything out simply because it's not perfect. It's clear, and every point is valid. Each article at Wikipedia has it's own community that grows up around it. That is what is so great about it. Including everyone's point-of-view or input can make things a little long, (your additions will make things even longer), but this is what makes Wikipedia such a rich tool, and a rich experience to participate in.

Why not quit worrying about what you don't like about other people's work for awhile. (Again, your perspective is NOT the correct one; it's just another perspective.) Go ahead and begin a new section that discusses the criticisms of sexual harassment policy, or the point of view of the accused. These would be rich contributions indeed. Aine63 06:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, some of what I wrote here seems to have gone missing. Lost in the edit conflict maybe. Anyway, I've listed most of my objections to the article in its current form.
As I now look at the sources, I find that a lot of what is here is simply cutting and pasting from sources on the internet that have been written to advise potential complainants. Meanwhile, one link no longer works. Will it bother people if I remove it? Another link is actually misused: I've been saying throughout that there is something wrong with the definition of quid pro quo harassment, and it turns out that I am right. The relevant source from which it is copied verbatim does not use these three point as its definition of quid pro quo harassment. It lists these points. Then it adds that the first two are quid pro quo harassment. Why not acknowledge that I was essentially right about this? The third point would extend quid pro quo harassmment far beyond the original meaning of the concept. When I made a remark about this it was removed. Can I please fix this without the change simply being reverted. I won't do it yet. I'll give you a chance to look at the links and satisfy yourself that I'm correct and not merely trying to make trouble.
I'd rather not do a huge editorial job addressing all the points I've made. Even writing a major new section, as you suggest, without tweaking anything else is going to be difficult since it would probably mean challenging at least some things that have been stated as facts elsewhere in the article. Is that going to cause a problem? Metamagician3000 06:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, Meta, I no longer care about your point of view of what is already there. Since you clearly don't care about the perspective of the other contributors, I will simply revert any of your edits to those sections. (Some of the pages that you say were "pasted from" were written by people who have contributed here.) There is a community "voice" here, and it should be respected. Please know that you can be banned from editing altogether if you don't.

Again, worthwhile additions would be new sections on the topics you have mentioned that interest you. Aine63 07:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Aine63 07:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Will you please stop the person threats etc. Neither you nor anyone else owns the article. I am going out of my way to try to be conciliatory, having raised all the points in justification of what parts of the article I believe need to be edited. I am not impressed by the idea that people here are using their own work from elsewhere on the internet as source material (and that one of sources, in turn, cites the wikipedia as source material). That hardly makes the article more authoritative.
Through this whole discussion which you initiated, you have taken the attitude that you have a right to control whether legitimate, good-faith edits are made by others. Your initial claim was that they should not be made without justification, but I've now given elaborate justification of the kinds of edits I have in mind (and had started making), and you are still complaining. I have taken on board some of your points, and of course I won't make any changes that would be incorrect, based on what you've told me. OTOH, I've given you numerous chances to be constructive about working on this article, but you don't seem willing to look at criticisms of the article on their merits.Metamagician3000 07:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have to agree with a lot of these criticisms. This article is solid, but it is only solid from a single point of view. Other points of view, such as the idea that some cases of sexual harrasment are false and used only for monetary gain, have not a single mention. If the elder contributors here think that's good, that's nice for them. But by suppressing new ideas and edits into the article just firmly establishes the biasim of this article. 70.251.229.231

[edit] Quid pro quo problem

Why not simply address my point about quid pro quo, for a start? I've told you that your own source has been quoted inaccurately. This is simply a fact. You have not confronted the issue but threatened to revert any change I make, even if it is factually correct and has my rationale set out on this page. I have refrained from making any change to give you a chance to confirm that I am correct - I can't get more conciliatory and consultative than that. It seems to me that if anyone here is acting against the spirit of the wikipedia enterprise it is not me. I'll even save you the work. Here's what the article currently says:

Prima facie case for sexual harassment, quid pro quo To establish a prima facie case for sexual harassment of the quid pro quo variety, you must show that there were unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: [2]

1. Submission to such conduct was made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,

2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or

3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

Here is what the source says:

In 1980 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission produced a set of guidelines for defining and enforcing Title VII (in 1984 it was expanded to include educational institutions). The EEOC defines sexual harassment as:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

(1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment, academic status or progress or

(2 submission to or rejection of that conduct is used as a basis for employment or academic decisions affecting such individual. or

(3)such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work or academic performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work or education environment.

(1) and (2) are called quid pro quo (Latin for "this for that"). They are essentially "sexual bribery:" promising of benefits and "sexual coercion. threatening consequences. To be quid pro quo it must be proven that "the employee's reaction to the harassment complained of affected tangible aspects of the employee's compensation or terms, conditions or privileges of employment" (emphasis mine). This was originally the only recognized form of sexual harassment.

Type (3), known as "Hostile work environment," is by the far the most common form. This form is less clear cut and is more subjective; the legality of behaviors must be determined on a case by case basis. It focuses on the working conditions which must be endured by the victim as a condition of employment, rather than tangible job changes. To establish whether the situation is "actionable," the "totality of circumstances" must be weighed with an eye to determining "that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment in that it was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the condition of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment" (emphasis mine; Peiliciotti, 1988).

I hope this makes clear that the third point is not part of the definition of quid pro quo harassment, according to the source. Thus, the third point should be removed from this section. The material from this point could be included, with a comment, in the hostile working environment part.

I do not see how spotting problems like this, and wanting to fix them (and giving justification) can be said to show lack of respect for other people working on the article. My first attempt to fix the problem may not have been perfect, but it was made in good faith, and I hope you now understand why I think it is a genuine problem. The other problems I see may not be as a clear-cut, but I am simply trying to address problems, not to show disrespect to you or anyone else. Again, please assume good faith. Metamagician3000 08:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I have justified the reasons why some of your suggestions, and certainly your approach, are inappropriate. Again, some of the pages you say have been "pasted from" were written by the people who put the material here. (BTW, the large chunks of material that you deleted last night were contributed by the real owner of this page, who is also a lawyer, I understand. You will note that these pages have been restored.)

Personal? I have never seen anyone at Wikipedia get more personal that you. (You are the first I've ever seen resort to attacks when disagreed with.)

Your attitude would not inspire faith in anyone. Your point of view is not the correct one, it's just another point of view. You are not a better writer than anyone else, just another writer. You seem to prefer to take a destructive route, and rip apart/out what others have contributed, rather than take the constructive route and add to, clarify, or enrich what in most cases is already sound and fact-based. Again, this is not my "owning" the article, anyone will give you the same response about it on any page that you contribute to at Wikipedia, if the article has active contributors. (And yes, what you are doing is "vandalism" and can get you banned from editing.)

Frankly, I don't see why you don't build your own website devoted to the subject of sexual harassment. There are not that many really good ones out there. It would be incredibly comprehensive, I am sure, and then you don't have to worry about bothering with other people's ideas.

I, now, am the one who is finished with this. In me, you have lost your audience. I have told you what my response will be to your continued approach. Aine63 15:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Why have I been accused of deleting large chunks of material? If someone did this it wasn't me. I didn't touch the article, as I explained above. I intend to work on this article gradually when I get around to it, having explained my concerns at length for people to consider. Meanwhile, I object to the bullying that I have received since I turned my attention to improving this article in what I thought was a routine way. Metamagician3000 01:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why "sexual jokes" put back where it was and other changes removed

Sexual jokes are, by law, considered sexual harassment if they are offensive to people in the environment. This does not mean this would win any lawsuits. Still, these are the facts and Wikipedia is not the place to impose one's own personal point of view and pass that off as a fact.

Also, most professionals who study sexual harassment and the causes agree that "sexualized environments" lead to more serious and chronic sexual harassment. A sexualized environment is one where there are sexual jokes made, or graffiti or sexual objects(such as posters)displayed. Environments like this have greater occurrences of extreme sexual harassment (the kind that truly ruins lives)than environments that are not sexualized. (I am going to add this to the article when I've got the reference for it--there are so many of them that I'll have to pick from a pile.) 71.143.134.238 17:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not going to quibble about this right now. Your edits seem okay. :)
However, I may have some issues later on when I've thought about it. Many people would dispute that such actions as flirting, telling jokes with sexual content, etc., are in themselves objectively offensive, even if some people are subjectively offended (and it is objective offensiveness that is required in most jurisdictions; as you yourself note, this is not the sort of thing by itself that normally wins lawsuits ... but many employers and educational institutions try to suppress it). Also, many people (McElroy, Patai, Katie Roiphe, and other critics) would say that it is dehumanising to try to take this sort of interaction out of the work environment, which is now such a large part of professional people's lives, let alone the campus environment. That point is in addition to the freedom of speech issues that you have raised and associated with Dershowitz.
At the moment, the article still leans towards the more puritanical POV. However, as I said, I'll leave it for the moment. I'm mainly trying to get facts in there. Metamagician3000 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I have no problem at all with people editing my material in a civil way, even undoing specific edits that might be arguable. The process of getting articles right is an iterative one, and like everyone else I may, from time to time, inadvertently take steps that don't stand up well, at least without further support. I try to follow NPOV but what seems just obviously and uncontroversially correct to me may sometimes actually be contestable. The main thing is to keep improving the article. As long as civility prevails this all part of the process. :) Metamagician3000 02:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk of gender superiority...

I don't think that saying "men are better than women" or "women are better than men" is sexual harassment unless there's something that actually connects it to the act of sex, such as a lewd joke or anything like that. If a woman jokingly says "I figured this out because women are smarter than men", I don't think the men would be quick to sue her and vice-versa.

LOl good point 70.142.154.57 22:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hostile environment sexual harassment

The article on "Hostile environment sexual harassment" mentions that higher standards apply for claims of hostile environment sexual harassment when the enviroment is sexual by nature such a strip club. I think their should be at least a brief mention of this in this article too. --Cab88 00:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that all the legal discussion and burdens of proof should remain under the Hostile environment article, and be removed from the SH article except for a brief paragraph. Also, a SH Quid pro quo article should be created to house that info and discussion of burdens of proof. (See suggestion below).68.89.42.198 23:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed some extra references and others that were out-dated or not necessary

Two of the books/articles listed in the references were not cited anywhere in this article, so they have been removed. There were three citations for the very minor fact of the source of the term "sexual harassment" which is overkill for trivia. I removed two, and left the Patai since she is cited elsewhere. 68.91.114.175 02:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed definition reference that SH usually happens in the workplace

SH happens anywhere--at work, at school, on the street, even at home. To keep lumping it into employment law isn't accurate. 68.88.13.169 20:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about a section discussing the power that the accuser has in a sexual harrasement case?

Something talking about the law bias when a case is first brought to the attention of authorities. I dont know how else to say what im trying to say but refer to USC QB Mark Sanchez to better understand what im trying to say.

In most cases, an accused harasser is in some position of authority, and they have the advantage, and may even be protected by the institution. Is this what you mean? Or is it that you think that it is the "accuser" who has all the power, which is a fallacy. See the retaliation section of the article for what usually happens when a SH victim speaks out.(BTW, the case against Sanchez was dropped becuase the medical exam was "inconclusive" not becuase it was proven to be a false accusation.) 68.88.13.169 03:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burdens of proof and non-U.S. jurisdiction

I removed the list for Australia because it was uncited, and because it isn't necessary for an entire section on Australia. The section will be stronger with a list of differences of how a number of other cultures define the burdens of proof, or if they have even out-lawed sexual harassment. Also, it would be good to add info on how the populace of those cultures view these guidelines (i.e. women in Middle Eastern cultures are not likely to be fans of the guidelines, where/if they exist, in their countries.) I'll try to collect this info and add it to the article. I left the short, but uncited paragraph about non-US jurisdictions to justify leaving the section for the time being until it can be filled out--with cited material. 70.239.51.24 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a lot of non-US law and descriptions of govt. agencies today. Note that many of them have been pasted as is from other articles or legal documents and have not been revised or re-written. The reason being that they are laws or official policies, and I don't feel justified in doing much rewording of them. It seems that they should stand as is. Still, if this is a violation of Wiki copyright, anyone who has the appropriate expertise to reword them should pleas do so as long as they don't change the meaning of each description, law, or policy. 70.239.50.33 20:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
China recently outlawed sexual harassment, but I can't find the definitions they have adopted. If anyone has access to this, please add it to the list. (Please be sure to include the source.)70.239.50.33 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed weak/unreliable citations

I removed the citations for McElroy and Patai. Patai because the page for the latter was created exclusively to back up the point for this article. The McElroy source was also Wiki, and the point was added to the existing page on McElroy without any source to back it up, and added only to use as a citation for this SH article. This does not mean that these crtics should not be included, they should. But they should be included with citations to books/articles/reliable Internet documents. Simply creating Wiki documents or points on other pages, particularly if they are not cited, doesn't cut it. 69.154.163.109 20:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propostion to move burdens of proof to their own, corresponding articles

This article is getting very long, and there are still many useful points that can be made--for example, good addtions would be the causes of SH, and discussion of the evolution of SH law and how other cultures are following suit. There is already an article about hostile environment sexual harassment. Perhaps it would be better to move the burdens of proof info to that page, and a new Quid Pro Quo page with links to the SH article. Or, perhaps they should both be housed together under a "Sexual harassment burdens of proof" article. Either way, then the contributors interested in the specific legal questions can "go to town" with whatever debates and legal-ease they want to include. 68.89.42.198 23:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the move of the "hostile environment" material. Will make a new article for Quid pro quo if no one else does Aine63 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On recent deletes

Do not delete information without discussing it here first--particularly when the information is backed up with references. Also, many of the deletions involved information from non-U.S. sources. It has already been discussed and agreed upon by the editors of this article that non-U.S. source material should be included. Aine63 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenson v. Eveleth

Jenson v. Eveleth Mines was important as it was the first class action sexual harassment case, but it did not change the law, as it stood, so it does not belong in the "Evolution of sexual harassment law" section. It is mentioned in other sections of the article Aine63 17:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • after a little further research, I found that J v. E did set precedents for what the "discovery" process (investigating complainants) and how far lawyers can go with it, and cemented the concept of "litigation injury" which is psychological damage from depositions by lawyers. So, I've added it to the list with these points. But the reference to the movie is down in the Media and Lit section, and does not belong with the laws. Aine63 18:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Harassment Panda

It's with regret I deleted this Sexual Harassment Panda from the Sexual harassment in media and literature. I'm a fan of South Park, and am a HUGE fan of good satire. But good satire is only good if if satirizes the truth, and this episode does not honestly present the issue of lawsuits and sexual harassment in schools. No sexual harassment victim just goes out and sues right after being harassed. They must ALWAYS go through the school's grievance procedure first-and it is usually very painful and humiliating for the victims, and adds to the already existing damage from the harassment. Lawsuits only arise after the school has ignored the complaint, or has not done anything to remedy the harassment. But if the South Park episode has included this fact, then it would have wrecked the entire premise for their spoof. I'm still a fan of South Park, but this episode is not appropriate as a listing in this article. Aine63 18:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures...

This article needs a picture of sexual harrassment lol. All the other (sometimes perverted) sex-related articles have accompanying pictures, including pedophilia, coprophilia, and child pornography. 205.188.116.131 15:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The Harassment article used to point to Image:Harassment.jpg, which was of a middle-aged white man with his hand on the shoulder of a younger black woman in an office. He is smiling and she is frowning and they are both looking at his hand. The reference to the then-dead image was removed with this edit:
  • 21:58, 4 January 2006 205.188.116.202 (Talk) (edited bad code)
but the comment is in reference to some HTML div that was there. The image looked posed and I assume that the people were models. The image was deleted in December 2005 as a copyvio.[1] -- PinkCake 23:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted extensive info on sh in India

I deleted the extensive additions on sh in India as this country is already listed earlier with definitions (redundancy). Plus, none of the info is cited, and is largely a discussion of the Vishaka case. So much in depth info on the Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan case is not appropriate here. It should have it's own article, like Jenson v. Eveleth, or Ellison v. Brady do. (Also, the case is already mentioned in the "evolution of harassment law section."--more redundancy.) Koala06 06:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted silly INSISTANT request for citation in definition

Because the article focuses on so many of the countries that deem sexual harassment to be an illegal form of discrimination (indeed, this is discussed throughout, and there is a list at the bottom), insisting that a discussion of all the places it is deemed illegal in the definition, too, is ridiculous and redundant. If you want a discussion of the places that it is not illegal, feel free to add this in an appropriate place--probably in a section at the end, below the discussion of where is IS illegal. Koala06 17:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request photos

This article has no pictures to illustrate the subject. Perhaps some can be added?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think there can be any picture that can be used in this article. It might possibly be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Kirbytime, please note that if you make one more request for inappropriate pictures, you may be blocked. --Matt57 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Street harassment merger

Due to discussed lack of encyclopedic merit, I've redirected the article here. Below is the stuff from the "further reading" section, which may need to be incorporated into the article:

Articles:

   * "A Black Feminist Critique of Same-Race Street Harassment"
   * "Situating legal consciousness: Experiences and attitudes of ordinary citizens about law and street harassment"
   * "Street Harassment and the Informal Ghettoization of Women"

Books:

   * "License to Harass: Law, Hierarchy, and Offensive Public Speech (Princeton, 2004)"
   * "Passing By: Gender and Public Harassment"

--CA387 09:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catcall

Why exactly does "catcall" direct here? As I've always understood it, catcalling in itself (whistling, "Hello-o-o-o-o nurse!," etc.) is not harassment under proper circumstances. For comparison, "groping" directs to an article on frotteurism, as well as an article on non-penetrative sex. Obviously, groping a coworker would be considered harassment, but the presence of a separate article acknowledges that that particular behavior has its own proper place. Redirecting "catcall" here implies that to engage in that behavior is also to harass, and nothing else. After looking it up, I've also found that "catcall" can refer to calls of disapproval, jeering, etc., such as at a sporting event. This, also, is not sexual harassment in itself. If there is no separate article on this, all well and good - that can be remedied - but it seems inappropriate to apply such a broad label to it. If there was a particular reasoning behind this redirect I'm definitely open to hearing it, but if not then it should probably be taken care of. intooblv 04:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the wrong term got used here by mistake; should be "wolf whistle," not "cat call." I'm changing this here and elsewhere. Rousse 06:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"Wolf whistle" *was* the term I was looking for to describe the actual rising/descending whistle, but "catcall" is often used (at least around here; maybe it's a regional thing) to describe calls of approval directed towards an attractive man/woman. After looking around, I've noticed that the negative definition ("call of disapproval, jeering, etc.") seems to be the prevailing one, which just seems odd to me since the nocturnal yowling of cats is often mentioned, which would seem to support the usage I am accustomed to. Like I said, maybe it's a regional thing. intooblv 07:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catcalls

Catcall currently redirects here. That doesn't make any sense because neither the word nor the meaning is used only in the context of sexual harassment. Apart from that, the article doesn't even mention it. I'm not sure where it should redirect, but if it's not changed, I'll ask for its deletion, so there's at least a chance that a reasonable article or redirect will be set up in the future. Thanks. --Ibn Battuta 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I obviously hadn't seen the entry above. All the more: Let's change it. Thanks, Ibn Battuta 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Reminder: Redirect is still in place as of 30 Aug 2007. Could someone do something? I would do it myself, but I'm not a native speaker and I'm not familiar with the term. --193.99.145.162 20:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was disappointed with the redirect because this article here does not even mention the term. I was hoping to find examples to use for a translation [Polish u-la-la]. The link to this article stifles the development of at least a stub/definition of catcall. If the term is not even mentioned, much less defined, in this article, what good is the redirect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.199.54.218 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] short-sighted article ?

I'm surprised not to see any reference to Seung-Hui Cho in this article. Sexual harassment was said to be in the background of his massacre in a big way. Isn't this an article in the sociology category ? Perhaps someone could go further than say harassment is evil and discuss how these cases are handled in reality. My point is that they may be handled in a brutal way in some cases in North America, contrary to Europe. Christopher Lims 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)