When you can't find an issue to stab someone in the back, you make one up. I pity you!

Save your pity and your croc tears, scanner. You might find sexual harassment funny, but it's not.

I'm also not talking about talking smack or bantering.

When, as their supervisor, you decide it's all right to refer to grown women as "my girls", make light of real sexual harassment with you Huckabee-wannabe antidotes and make statements that imply women are no longer paid less than men nor treated worse in the work place you show not only your chauvinism, but your lack of common sense.

P. S. It must really suck for you that you can't delete my comments refuting your BS here. Deal with it!

yeah, i'm not seeing how this is about stabbing anyone in the back or making up an issue. we shouldn't be making light of real sexual harassment by relating stories about how it used to be in the "good 'ol days." good 'ol days for who? sexually charged banter, flirting, etc. in the workplace is inappropriate. period. don't care what decade or industry or who initiates it.

let's face it. men are more likely to be ok with the behavior because they enjoy attention of any sort. women, not so much. it's been bad enough to get less pay at jobs where i was more qualified than the men who worked the same position and to be subjected to unreasonable expectations because i'm a lesbian and my boss was looking for a way to get rid of me. had i been subjected to any sort of "suggestive" banter, my ass would've been out the door and on the phone with a lawyer. this shit isn't a joke, especially to all the women who suffer it daily and might not have the option of quitting.

Is this a little mini-dust up?

Think I'll ever see the inside of your duck blind










..sugar










*ducking*

Huckabee and his moronic ilk have yet to face the gender challenges of the 12th Century.

rated.

Just because behavior may be symmetrical doesn't mean the consequences of it are. That's the point. Harrassment becomes harrassment when it becomes threatening.

If I remember Scanner's post correctly, Scanner did not initiate the sexual innuendoes in that particular workplace; his female coworkers did. He enjoyed it and replied in kind because of the point I started with: He didn't feel threatened.

I think some of us are concerned that bad pick-up lines and ungentlemanly passes, so to speak, have morphed into being sexual harassment. I know I am. Is a JFK who calls someone "too beautiful to use" in a campaign to be seen as unfit for office? Is a man who makes a pass at a woman, a kiss attempt, a moving hand, who is NOT in the OFFICE, but out of the office to be seen as unfit for office? Are comments of "You are so yummy?" and the like off bounds for all in all situations related to work? Where will we draw the line? I think it should be very carefully and specifically drawn.

And Scanner here, by the way, was pointing out something that just happens to be, for most men, true. Most men take the type of comments he was subject to in a fun-loving way. Many, many women don't. I admit that. But I also think many women are way too sensitive. Attempted assault, sure that must be guarded against legally. But a man making a stupid joke about a "you-know-what" on his coke can is a danger? I think he's just a jerk socially.

What do we want to BE sexual harassment? Do we want all flirtatious comments to be off-bounds? Do we want a man in a parked car (not at work) who makes a gross pass at a woman to be arrested for attempted rape? Even though when she says forget it he does just that?

I commend scanner for his honesty and I suspect that many a man, and this woman too, thinks it is sad and strange that all flirtatious talk is to be off bounds in a work place.

Also, the idea that harassment is, too often I fear, in the eyes of the "victim" is hardly just. This doesn't work in much else in law. If I am robbed, it usually has to be MORE than my opinion that I was taken advantage of in a bad deal.

I also note the irony that feminists gave us what in my views are rather extreme sexual harassment laws and yet have no problem with hook-ups, one night stands and sleeping with men you don't even know (or women you don't know). I find that very odd. One is supposed to be able to handle men wanting to jump your bones just cause they bought you dinner, but a man calls you sweetie at work and you need a lawyer.

BTW, I always thought that Ms. Hill was a nice lady who was much too soft to make it in the legal world if she couldn't handle a bad pick-up line.

Scanner thank you much for showing that men, for the most part, and women, for the most part, are very different with it comes to sensitivity and banter.

Amy--I agree with you. Having been backed into corners, had hands put on me, been called all sorts of sexually suggestive names, I don't find sexual harassment funny. But then again, I'm a feminist. You know, we don't have a sense of humor.

With the Tea Party (Ohio, Wisconsin, Mississippi) striking at women's rights to control their own bodies, make a decent wage, and on and on in the past several months, I have begun feeling them pushing on the top of our heads to keep us down as that is where they really want us!

I haven't time to read the article you are referring to, so I can't comment on that.

I have to admit that I'm surprised that Barbara Joanne's comments were written by a woman, not because I expect all women to be feminists but because I expect that most women have experienced advances that have seemed less than benign. Of course men seem less upset by this phenomenon: Men are less likely to feel threatened by such comments, partially because we're less likely to feel threatened by a woman than the other way around and partially because men are still more likely to be in positions of power than women are. What makes this an issue in the first place isn't sex at all; it's power. That's why the one night stand argument is beside the point. Psychologists will tell you that rape is not a sex crime but a violence crime. I'm not suggesting for a minute that offhand comments should be construed as rape, I'm suggesting that there are parallels between these two situations, even though they aren't usually anywhere near each other in degree. In both cases, sex is more a means than an end.

@ Barbara Joanne: Your comments once again prove my ascertation that you are in fact "a man of a certain age". Nice try, dude!

Okay, here's the deal:

If it walks and quacks like a duck, it's prolly a duck. If conduct meets the definition of sexual harassment, it's prolly sexual harassment.

However, if a wolf just ate a duck and he has feathers around his mouth and waddles cuz his bellys full, he STILL has no right to claim he's a duck!

There seems to be a strange disconnect going on here and it involves a lot more than language. Scanner has closed comments on his post which is unfortunate and cowardly. I would think a man who says he doesn't shy away from "hot button issues" and is comfortable with "talking trash" with construction workers would be able to take the heat for something he wrote.

The key to his post about his experience with sexual harassment can be summed up in this line:

"The thing is, it was funny and I loved every minute of it." He wasn't being harassed. He participated in it and encouraged it. He says he liked it. It wasn't harassment. I posed this question to him: Suppose it were a bunch of burly gay men calling you "fresh meat" and saying the same things. I highly doubt it would have been nearly as hilarious or titillating.

The attitudes of some people are truly disturbing.

BJ (hah) says "I commend scanner for his honesty and I suspect that many a man, and this woman too, thinks it is sad and strange that all flirtatious talk is to be off bounds in a work place."

What does (s)he mean by this? This isn't about "flirtatious talk." When a man comes up behind you at your desk and rubs up against you while you're on the phone are you supposed to think of that as "flirtatious"? Although I'd agree, it is sad and strange.

There's nothing wrong with a little flirtatious talk if both parties are amenable (although it would be a good idea to remember, you're on the boss's dime). The workplace is not a pickup bar. You're not there to arrange hookups and eightsomes. Calling other people "honey" and "sweetie" is infantile; it's been done to me by both men and women - total strangers - and I can't stand it.

Here's a question for the men and women who think playing a little grabass and making lewd comments at work is okay: Would you still do it if your wives or significant others were present?

I said this on another post: It's just another, ugly form of bullying. And it's not funny.

On the nose, Margaret!

I also think that there are many instances where a woman WILL joke back even if she is uncomfortable.

Let's look at the legal definition again:

"Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment"

The "unwelcome" part is what makes for the "hostile and offensive work environment" and that environment is what makes it illegal.

Making light of it, therefore, is no different than making fun of the REAL victims of any other crime.

The thing is that the advances made to Scanner weren't unwelcome.

So, what's his question? It seems to me that the question he's asking is:

"How do we prevent too much sensitivity from making the workplace too uptight?"

It's an unnecessary question. His situation isn't typical and, where it does occur, no one in the situation is likely to complain. That is still true today.

It would help if the nature of the question were acknowledged.

I understand what he's trying to protect, but it doesn't need protecting and, if the choice is between protecting it and allowing bullying in the workplace and preventing both it and bullying in the workplace, the second choice wins. Hands down, no question, no question even worth asking.

Sorry the discussion didn't get there.

Making light of real harrassment is a mistake.

@kosher: I think part of the problem here is that Scanner's attempt at humor backfired. He did not use good judgment. And he handled the fallout poorly. Just the fact that you've had to take pains to defend and interpret what he was attempting to say proves that. I get it. I get what he was trying to do. But certain subjects do not lend themselves well to humor. Not just sexual harassment. Rape. Pedophilia. Lynchings. Matthew Shepard. I could go on.

And some of the comments make me think there's another, underlying dynamic at work; it seems to me it's mainly men who are unhappy with constraints in the workplace regarding male/female interaction. Why is that, I wonder.

You assume this was the point of his post (and we don't that for sure since he's not here to defend himself):

"How do we prevent too much sensitivity from making the workplace too uptight?"

As opposed to what other scenario - a singles bar???? It's WORK! You know, the place you go to - work. Why is the workplace different from any other setting? Where does the notion come in that inhibitions should be lowered, certain societal constraints should be exempt, the interaction between men and women should be any different that in other settings? What do men want to say and do to women at work that they can't say and do in other places?

Also please define "sensitivity" because this also seems to be a problem, mainly for men. Accusing women of being "too sensitive."

This is not a rhetorical question. Please RSVP. Would some man, somewhere, please define for me what is considered "too sensitive." This is a sincere question with no ulterior motive.

Examples are encouraged (Amy, sorry to offer up your blog like this, hoping you don't mind.) But I doubt anyone will respond anyway.

"Too sensitive" is any time a woman objects to any in appropriate comment or action. It it usually proceeded by "I was just kidding" and followed by mumbled comments about "periods and/or menopause". :rolleyes: