Slashdot Mirror
Sexual Harassment Is Common In Scientific Fieldwork
sciencehabit writes: Universities and other workplaces have codes of conduct guarding against sexual harassment. But what about the more casual venue of scientific fieldwork—which is also a workplace? A new survey finds that sexual harassment and assaults occur frequently in the field, with little consequence for the perpetrators or explicit prohibitions against such conduct. The study reveals that the primary targets were young women who were harassed, assaulted, and even raped by men who were usually senior to them in rank, although men also reported harassment.
That should be "not all companies"
"jokes about physical beauty and cognitive sex differences"
It's so hard to take these reports seriously when they include the most trifling transgressions along with the truly egregious ones.
http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/zines/spacemoose/polisci.gif
I'm a little segfault, short and stout.
Clever troll against men and bonus points for using the meaningless letter soup "irregardless".
A new survey finds that sexual harassment and assaults occur frequently in the field, with little consequence for the perpetrators or explicit prohibitions against such conduct.
Do we really need explicit prohibitions against sexual harassment and sexual assaults for field work? What about murder or violent assaults? Do we need to explicitly prohibit those as well? Or are those implicitly permitted because they're not mentioned somewhere in a field manual?
did you mean to say anywhere there are men and women working together?
or were you intending to be ignorant and sexist?
I think it actually means the same thing as "regardless".
I suppose you might. Because I don't see how, if something is already illegal, it also needs to be against "policy". Do all company/university policies have to comb through the entire legal code and duplicate it in policy?
Fuck you, mate. I've worked with women (and in some cases under female bosses) for my entire working life. I've always been able to restrain myself from sexual humor, from making advances or indeed, from any kind of sexual behavior. I was raised to be a gentleman, and more to the point, I believed from the beginning of my working life that "coming on" to coworkers is a recipe for workplace malfunction.
Or, perhaps, because you don't have the wits to overcome your hormones, I could simply say "Grow the fuck up and quit believing permanent adolescent behavior is natural."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The policy manual where I work spells out all kinds of things; like not doing illegal things on company computers, not stealing, not sexually harassing or bullying people. What the hell is your problem with that? The whole point of policies, whether they cover unwanted illegal activities or unwanted and yet legal activities, is to make clear the organization's priorities and desires for the workplace.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Scientist A: Show me pictures of your boobies!
Scientist B: They're really big
My hobby: Making clean jokes.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
It's just stupid to blame a lack of policy for somebody doing something illegal. The absence of a policy in no way means the entity endorses an activity.
Do we need to explicitly spell things out for Slashdotters who seem to have a chronic inability to get the point?
Yes, because I, for one, don't see the point. Sexual harassment occurs whenever men and women are together. Unless there is some evidence that it is specifically more prevalent during scientific field work, just reporting that "it occurs" is meaningless. I occurs everywhere. It is always inexcusable, and as a society and as individuals we need to do more to prevent it, and be more supportive of the victims. But I see no reason that these efforts should specifically focus on "scientific field work".
Now please send your $50,000 worth of research grant funding to my bitcoin address: FJi2seXY2jf9eYEDoit4ScienCEFiJSfj82jfiffj
You could at least use a real BTC address, in case someone accidentally you some coin. That's not even a Grøstlcoin address (they start with an F).
(By reading the above, you agree to send a random amount of BTC to 1Guy1JarSpEhxb94VYMYRvTMhqbAgdnCtL as a consultation fee. Thank you.)
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Those dirty filthy paleontologist types... I swear! They are giving us all a bad name!
That makes me a saaaaaaaaaaaad panda.
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
but, but, she blinded me with science!
Table-ized A.I.
And very unfortunately, such jerks are more likely to be able to grub funding for their research labs from government offices.
May the Maths Be with you!
The policy manual where I work spells out all kinds of things; like not doing illegal things on company computers, not stealing, not sexually harassing or bullying people. What the hell is your problem with that? The whole point of policies, whether they cover unwanted illegal activities or unwanted and yet legal activities, is to make clear the organization's precautions against liability.
fixed
I think this is less about genetics and more about how "Evolutionary Biology" and "biological anthropology" are entire disciplines founded on the notion that present day sexual prejudices can inform the study of extinct mammals.
May the Maths Be with you!
water is wet.
from the link you provided:
" Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."
You don't seem to be getting my point either.
If the headline had read xx% of field manuals/field web sites do not include a phone number for reporting sexual harassment/sexual assaults to an independent party. Or if it had said yy% of the phone numbers to report such incidents only seem to lead to an anonymous internal university voice mail black hole.
Then, that would be a more constructive news story altogether.
Sexual harassment occurs whenever men and women are together.
It doesn't even need to have both genders present. We all know that there are men hitting on younger men or boys and women sometimes abuse a position of authority to get a man (or boy) into the sack. For that matter, I'm sure that there are at least occasional cases where a lesbian tries to seduce another woman that isn't interested in experimenting, although these almost never get into the news.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The policy manual where I work spells out all kinds of things; like not doing illegal things on company computers, not stealing, not sexually harassing or bullying people. What the hell is your problem with that?
What's my problem with your policy manual? Well, for YOUR manual, nothing, because I don't care about how they treat you. If it were a policy manual I was subject to, I'd have a problem with a manual that includes so much stuff that it doesn't need to that it hides the stuff it does need to include.
For example: not stealing. Do'h. By putting that stuff into a company policy manual, they're treating you like a child. The closest any policy manual I've seen comes is when it tells people that certain things that would be legal using a regular company's resources is illegal because this is a state university and then leaves it to the intelligence of the user to know that they aren't supposed to do those things BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL.
Any policy manual that hides actual company policies between such obvious things as "don't steal", "play well with others", "don't rape your co-workers", etc, is just a waste of time.
The whole point of policies, whether they cover unwanted illegal activities or unwanted and yet legal activities, is to make clear the organization's priorities and desires for the workplace.
I don't know that I'd want to work at a company that has to say explicitly that it desires that I not do illegal things on company time, and that it has a priority that I stick to legal stuff.
Not agreeing or disagreeing with your statement, but I just have to point out that for the past 3 months or so the cubicle across from mine has been occupied by a woman who chats with cube visitors or talks on the phone for hours every day, and swears all the fucking time. It's a software related federal government office, swearing is certainly not unheard of, but I would probably hear 0-5 swear words a week on average, before. It's pretty funny, really. She's kind of like a more gossipy version of my dad (he was in construction).
For that matter, I'm sure that there are at least occasional cases where a lesbian tries to seduce another woman that isn't interested in experimenting, although these almost never get into the news.
What are you talking about? I have watch multiple documentaries about that on the internet.
It's halfwit for "irrespective."
If it's good enough for the President, it's good enough for the common man.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, if we're going to excuse it at the highest levels when because we like what the person does otherwise, what do you expect?
Many feminists believe that casual and pervasive use of profanity contributes to a hostile and sexist work environment,
Not just feminists. Many people think mindless profanity is simply mindless and demonstrates a lack of respect for others, which is a sign of a hostile work environment. Even when it is as simple as saying "merde" on a regular basis to a French colleague.
Not all Sexual harassment isn't illegal.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think what the OP was trying to say was that most Universities already have a policy against sexual harassment as is stated in the summary.
Universities and other workplaces have codes of conduct guarding against sexual harassment.
What the summary suggests is there is no explicit policy for fieldwork. Why is there a need for an explicit policy for fieldwork when it is already covered by the University's general policy?
I'll be sending -1000 bitcoins straight away!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's social. If it was hard wired through some manner, then we wold still be treating women the same way we did 10,000 years ago.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Having a formal policy reduces legal liability (somewhat) for the employer.
Of course, enforcing the policy reduces it even more.
If my father didn't harass my mother I wouldn't even be here....
I didn't quite not fail to understand what you weren't not saying there.
It's seems like the problem here wasn't the BS "his wall calender offend me" kind, but the genuine rapey kind - quite illegal. Well, in this country. Maybe the field work was in a country where the victim is presumed guilty unless she has the testimony of 4 men not related to her?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The obviously sad bit is that women - in this analogy - can't really set the briefcase down.
No, perhaps not, but they can be careful about things and try to not make the "MONEY" sticker on the briefcase not as obvious. Sadly, I don't think some women "get it" sometimes and they misunderstand why what clothes they choose are not getting the kind of attention they really want. Now, I'm NOT saying that a woman being assaulted or harassed is at fault, she's not, but there some practical things women can do and not standing out as a target is a good place to start.
For example... I worked with a woman who insisted on wearing what I considered *very* suggestive clothes to work just about every day. Personally I found her attire unprofessional and demeaning to women in general (and I'm a man), but to each their own. I know she got lots of attention from the males in the area who would often ask "Who is she?" and make it clear that they noticed her. The really sad part of this story is that she had HR on speed dial because she was always filing sexual harassment complaints. One guy told me that she made a cottage industry of sorts out of it. Using the treat of filing the complaint to try and get her way. But I ask you what did she expect to happen when she dressed like that? Ladies, dress modestly and professionally, It may be your right to wear what you want, but why put a spot light on the target or invite trouble. There ARE guys out there who are messed up, so stick with the heard the best you can, blend in as much as possible.
The Second thing women should do is BE CAREFUL where you go and with who. Be mindful of your surroundings and stick to public places where there are people around. Don't put yourself in positions where you have to be alone with a man, especially one you don't know well. Stay IN the heard and in public as much as possible.
The third thing women should do is BE READY to protect yourself and firmly object. Get some training, get pepper spray, a handgun and training, whatever, but be prepared. Many times it only takes a little bit of a defense and yelling to set an attacker off to easier prey.
Finally, women should not be afraid to REPORT incidents that do happen. Don't mess around thinking that you might offend somebody or hurt his feelings by reporting an incident or continued unwanted advances. If they don't stop after one firm "NO" report his sorry ass.
The ugly truth here is that this behavior will not go away, despite all of our efforts. Sexual harassment will still happen because people out there do bad things. The best we can do is to be aware and sensitive to recognizing when it is going on and hopefully discourage it, but when it happens it needs to be properly and quickly dealt with.
Sadly it seems that Men now need to be doing many of the same things..... And my advice is the same to them... Dress appropriately, be careful, be ready to defend and report when something happens.
Dictionaries (in English) catalog every grunt people make. They ain't style guides. You can be sure that the meaning likely to be understood from the use of "irregardless" is, in fact, "I'm an idiot who can't write for shit". If that's not your intended meaning, perhaps choose another word?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It's also stupid for people to not understand what is and isn't illegal, but here we are. Sexual harassment is one of those things that is *still* being taught in the workplace with special seminars and courses to teach people about it because such a very small percentage of the populace actually even understands what is and isn't harassment and who to report the harassment to, particularly when it's their boss or someone even higher in the organization being harassing.
A lot of sexual harassment is downplayed as men being men, jokes that aren't hurting anyone, that the harasser and the harassed are the same gender, or that the person reporting the harassment shouldn't be reporting it because the victim isn't going to report it. And yet it's still harassment. Anyone can agree that telling a woman at work to go to the kitchen and make you a sandwich is harassment. What's more ambiguous is when a whole group is laughing it off because the person that made the comment calls it a joke and the rest suddenly see the comment as a joke as well (by the way, if you didn't get it this is still harassment).
However, all the teaching in the world won't stop a criminal from committing/trying to commit a crime. Groping and rape should be reported to police immediately even before talking to your HR department, but unless there are signs that it's going to happen (maybe all the sexual harassment that wasn't being reported before) there isn't going to be much ability to prevent the crime, only to report it afterward.
And all to shield the company from liability.
It must be understood that these "policies" prohibiting already illegal activity are not for the benefit of the employees, but for the benefit of shareholders and management. If they thought it would boost he bottom line to have rampant sexual harassment, they'd be spiking the water cooler with viagra and giving roofies to the receptionist.
You are welcome on my lawn.
what she did was go after the guy full bore, no holds barred, and not one thing made not perfectly clear.. Reported it to the employer, letting him know that he (the employer)had a choice. Do something about it before the day was over, or face the legal consequences of both himself and the asswipe being served the next morning. She outlined exactly what she was going to do. Which included sexual assault charges, and charges against the employer for having such a person in their employ., with a whole lot of publicity.
Her harasser got to not only go through a long list of reparations and counseling, he ended up being her employee.
This was in the home construction industry which if no one has noticed, is a whole lot less amenable to sexual equality that a university environment.
Which is all to say that if there is harassment, if there is assault. Then fucking do something about it. Otherwise, it's just an anecdote. This crap of just saying men are pigs, look what they do - is grade A bullshit. Press charges, dammit!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
SKINNER: Six hours, nineteen minutes, right ascension, fourteen degrees, twenty-two minutes declination... no sighting.
BART: Mm-hm.
SKINNER: Six hours, nineteen minutes, right ascension, fourteen degrees, twenty-three minutes declination... no sighting.
BART: Mm-hm.
SKINNER: (excitedly) Six hours, nineteen minutes, right ascension, fourteen degrees, fifty-eight minutes declination! ...no sighting. Did you get that one Bart?
BART: Hell no.
I can't imagine why scientific fieldwork in particular could provide an environment that promotes inappropriate behavior.
I saw this happen in the late 80's, when the heavy handed sexual harassment efforts first started.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Maybe they almost never get into the news, but there is a fairly high profile one going on right now: http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/1...
As a married man, not playing the game of flirt anymore, I feel harassed by the dress, cosmetics and perfume that some women in my office wear. Its no big deal. That is the way the world works, so I put up with it without many comments - but I'll admit to my eyes wondering towards a well exposed cleavage or camel toe protruding from a pair of tight pants. It is still sexual harassment though, even though many men enjoy that kind of harassment. Our culture encourages women to highlight their sexual features, and many do. Some of the off color jokes may just be men's way of keeping the yin and yang in balance. Enforcement, or even acknowledgement of the light hearted levels of harassment is asymmetrical.
Any interaction between a woman and a man, depending on the woman's mood and circumstances
If she thinks the man is attractive then its "harmless flirting", if she thinks the man is unattractive then its "harassment", if she thinks she has something to gain by claiming harassment (like not being fired for incompetence) then its "harassment", if she thinks the man will do stuff for her then its "being friendly"
The whole "sexual harassment" bullshit is yet another in the long list of reasons why you should never hire a woman if you can possibly avoid it.
Agreed. When people say things that I don't like, it's disrespectful to others. Why can't people only say things that I like, and stop saying certain words which I'm irrationally offended by? These strings of letters are an eyesore!
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
While I can certainly recognize the seriousness of the topic can I only gasp at a statement such as the following:
“How can we encourage little girls to study science if their future academic careers will be marked by not only the normal struggles of solving the mysteries of the universe, but also fending off professors who make unwelcome sexual advances?” (John Johnson of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts)
It might be a good idea for some scientists to learn about life and nature before anything else. Men, or rather the male gender in general, have made sexual advances onto the female gender throughout the entire history of evolution. One cannot go through life being a woman, and only dream of science and have all men arrested, because they made an advance. Maybe the man was not the right one, or maybe the woman send out the wrong signals, but there are plenty of women who do like it when men make an advance. And do not get me wrong. I am not trying to defend stalkers, perverts and rapists here. Only the struggle between men and women is a completely normal struggle, always has been a part of life, and came long before the "normal struggles of solving the mysteries of the universe". Mr. Johnson even manages to talk of "little girls" and "sexual advances" in a single sentence. Why does he bring little girls into the discussion? Does this not seem wrong on its own? ...
Whatever Mr. Johnson really was trying to say in his statement does it come across like the plot of a mad scientist, who in his ivory tower dreams of being a white knight and basically wants to live out his sociopathic tendencies by avoiding all human contact.
Just saying... One needs to be careful here and not generalize everything as sexual harassment.
Sadly, I don't think some women "get it" sometimes and they misunderstand why what clothes they choose are not getting the kind of attention they really want. Now, I'm NOT saying that a woman being assaulted or harassed is at fault
Yes you are.
Personally I found her attire unprofessional and demeaning to women in general
How can what a single individual wears be demeaning to women in general? That makes no sense.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Do we really need explicit prohibitions against sexual harassment and sexual assaults for field work? What about murder or violent assaults? Do we need to explicitly prohibit those as well? Or are those implicitly permitted because they're not mentioned somewhere in a field manual?
The difference is that sexual assault, unlike, for example, murder, routinely goes unpunished or is even rationalized as normal behavior. If young women were regularly being murdered by their supervisors without consequence, then perhaps more attention ought to be brought to bear on that, too, eh?
Most harrassment is not illegal. (Assaults are of course.)
Or get a seat on the Supreme Court.
Let's say, for example, you're walking around with a $100,000 in a briefcase that says "MONEY".
Let's say, for example, that your boss sends you out walking around with a $100,000 in a briefcase that says "MONEY", or you get fired. Then your boss steals it from you, and then claims that you asked him to do it. Except the briefcase is you.
Most "sexual harassment" today results from a person saying that someone looks nice, not the other way around. This mentality has been pushed past the point of insanity.
When a guy walks up to a woman and says "Hello" and she claims to a Radio Host "A guy comes up and rapes me today." you begin to understand the depth of the problem. I can't find the quote, but this was on Talk 910AM in SF a few months ago. Perhaps you will have better luck looking for transcripts of the Gill Gross show than I did.
Yes, there are surely sexual harassment issues just like there are surely racist issues. Is everything being counted as "sexual harassment" really that? Hell no, just like much of the racist reports are not racism.
Comments like yours and what studies like this report exacerbate problems. It becomes impossible to find the real problems in the massive piles of false claims, so people stop taking any claim seriously.
As a guess, you realize this and simply wish to propagate the nonsense to ensure that nothing can be done to fix the real problems. That guess is based on your post as an AC instead of a real person wishing to hold any type of real dialogue.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Look, I hate to be the asshole who says this, but
Saying 'hello' to a woman is not harassment.
Touching a woman's hand once accidentally in the breakroom as you both reach for the same item simultaneously is not assault.
Women withdrawing consent hours or days after sexual activity is not rape.
Go calculate the numbers after you remove such incidents and then tell me what the actual occurence of male-on-female misbehavior is.
> On the other hand, I've seen very good evidence presented that the "trifling" transgressions tend to correlate strongly with environments in which people are a lot more comfortable pushing things a lot harder. which means that there is at least some reason to believe that they may contribute to an environment where people will think they can get away with rape. That, and "trifling" transgressions can have a significant cumulative effect over time.
Speaking as a man who has had another man fired for sexually harassing him, no, not really. Screwing around among friends and telling jokes is fine. Sticking your hands in someone's pants is not fine. Lumping everything together to score political points and those supporting it are trivializing real problems in a way that helps the people who abuse others and I really wish you would stop. You're being an idiot. Nobody sensible would lump assaults and jokes into the same column. The way you treat your data makes it impossible to support your conclusions. This is a terrible effect if you happen to be right.
Assaults are a real, serious problem. Jokes aren't in the same category.
Not all "sexual harassment" is even sexual harassment. The original article referenced several "statistics" where several things were lumped together and they weren't really comparable at all. It was a clear attempt to create bogus inflated numbers.
The entire effort seemed like mindless yellow journalism intended to generate hysteria.
So I am inclined to think the article and the study is bullshit and weak ass science that should embarass any scientist.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'm not sure what the parents problem is, but as someone who works with a myriad of different systems my problem is information duplication.
Your company has a policy against sexual harassment? Awesome. My country already has a law covering the behavior. Unless the company policy extends on that law what's the point of having it? Or are we saying that your company takes a stronger view on bullying as opposed to murdering someone, because murder is not explicitly against policy?
There's a hierarchy or legal requirements, and positions lower in the hierarchy should not duplicate wording from higher up.
Because I don't see how, if something is already illegal, it also needs to be against "policy". Do all company/university policies have to comb through the entire legal code and duplicate it in policy?
I can think of four reasons:
1. The organization's management is usually the first responder for harassment issues. They're responsible for bringing the people together, they have the authority to set limits on their behavior, they have the ability to monitor and follow up, and they probably know the situation better than law enforcement does. If the harasser needs to be separated from their victim, the easiest way to do that is to fire/expel or relocate them.
2. Not every illegal act can affect your job (or university enrollment). You wouldn't expect to get fired or expelled for speeding, would you? Having a harassment policy makes it clear that harassing your fellow employees/students can get you disciplined or fired.
3. Harassment policies don't just forbid harassment, they also provides rules and procedures for responding to harassment. Illegal or not, wrong or not, the most common response to harassment complaints is to sweep them under the rug to avoid disturbing the status quo. Even well-intentioned managers don't necessarily know how to handle a complaint without training.
4. Having a strong and effective harassment policy with backing from management affects workplace culture. The default attitude in a lot of places is that making other people uncomfortable for fun is no big deal, even if they repeatedly ask you to stop. A harassment policy says otherwise, encouraging victims to report instead of keeping quiet or leaving.
Visit the
It's not a troll. It's just a fact of life. Men are expected to be sexual predators and mating and courtship has to happen some time. If the girl doesn't like the guy, it will be characterized as "harassment" possibly as "assault".
Serious offenses and abuses of power should be focused on and eliminated. The "innapropriate comments" stuff needs to not contaminate the real issue.
Sexual harrassment started out as being defined as a genuine abuse of authority and has quickly mutated into "anything I don't personally like".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Presumably having a continuous good time is against policy.
Not all Sexual harassment isn't illegal.
I'm not sure if what you hadn't stated isn't what you didn't think you couldn't have meant.
My country has a law like that, too. One thing it mandates is that companies have a sexual harassment policy.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
#1, as the Roman Catholic Church proved royally, is a complete and utter error forever. You do NOT want your organization's management deciding if a victim can call the police.
#2, every illegal act that is a felony, should result in the loss of a job. Once again, it's law enforcement and the courts that should make that decision, not the good ole boy network in your management.
#3. The standard should be to call the police, each and every time. It is the only way to end rape.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Where I live, most harassment is not illegal, but allowing harassment to go unchecked is (for the company).
It's no different from any other issue which might make a workplace unsafe or hostile. Consider health and safety, for example. Making a mistake is usually not illegal, but it is illegal for a company not to take appropriate steps when someone raises a safety issue.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Unless there is some evidence that it is specifically more prevalent during scientific field work, just reporting that "it occurs" is meaningless.
So you do see the point, you just didn't RTFA.
TFA claims (based on the research) that it is indeed far more prevalent in fieldwork than in the office.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Look carefully at the URL you just posted. It's clearly in the "american_english" dictionary.
Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
looks hot, I sure would like to bang her.
I believed from the beginning of my working life that "coming on" to coworkers is a recipe for workplace malfunction.
Have several friends who met/married someone they met at work. It happens all the time.
The lesson I learn from this is that men should file sexual harassment claims against women who dress less than professionally as a preemptive strike.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Behind many rules that should be too obvious to print there is often a story about someone gaming the system and pretending ignorance.
Also there's things like the military approach, where if you break the law AND the military rule telling you not to break that law you find the rule was added deliberately to double the punishment.
First, let me say that I was talking about workplace harassment. I failed to specify that in my comment.
When I say that the organization is the first responder, I don't mean they're the first, last, and only. People can always call the police (or file a lawsuit), and obviously if your organization covers for harassers then that's the next step. But escalating to the courts is expensive, time-consuming, embarrassing, often bad for your career, and nowhere near certain. Even in severe cases, the police often don't take rape seriously. It seems like the best we can do is have a multi-tiered system of shared responsibility.
Visit the
In the U.S. sexual harassment isn't a crime
Depends. "Sexual Harassment" is a large umbrella term that includes a wide range of behaviors some of which are crimes, some are torts, and some are merely bad behavior.
Here's what problem I have with this, as someone who has written and implemented policies: The longer it is, and the more content that the reader thinks of as boring and "why the fuck do they even mention this?", the higher the chance it won't get read.
If you want your employees to actually read and know your policy, it must be short, to the point, and use redundancy very sparsely and intentionally.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Ever had your butt groped in a pub? I have. That's sexual assault, but it's unlikely it'll get reported (or rather, accepted in a report) and included in statistics in sufficient numbers to show that women commit sexual assault.
Ever been chased around a pub by some girl who badly wants to sleep with you, but you aren't interested? I have, a number of times. First time she approaches you is fine, but after being told no it becomes harassment. It also is extremely unlikely to be reported and used in statistics.
Get it through your head:
sexual harassment and sexual assault are not predominantly the responsibility of the male. Both genders engage in it, but much like rape and domestic violence/psychological abuse, it is heavily reported for one sex and for the other it is basically ignored.
I lived through it with an abusive ex-girlfriend who repeatedly raped me. I lived through it with a psychologically and physically abusive mother. (I'm nearly 40 and I'm only just coming to terms with some of the scars.)
She set fire to my bedroom when I was 10, and tried to frame someone else for it (fortunately there was insufficient evidence for a conviction for him).
She tried to stab me with a knife, after throwing crockery at me, because I didn't want to eat some processed meat that had gone bad ("That meat's gone bad, I'll just get something after you've eaten." Plate thrown at me, 12" carving knife pointed at me, screaming for my stepfather to call the police because I was threatening her while slashing at me with a knife and throwing more crockery at me.)
This fiction that men are the only aggressive and violent rapists simply helps a mixture of sexist or psychologically unwell women, and it sells a lot of TV ads and books.
Well, do you know of any cases where women took sexual advantage of pre-pubescent children? I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but if so, it appears to be rather rare.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
...because such a very small percentage of the populace actually even understands what is and isn't harassment...
When the woman finds the man attractive, it's 'Flirting'.
When the woman doesn't find the man attractive, it's 'Sexual Harrassment'.
Simple as.
What constitutes sexual assault and sexual harassment in this study? Sorry to be cynical, but phrases like these are too often used as weasel words trying to get a shock out of people (or in this case, more grant money).
The problem here, as described in text, is that they get away with it. Logically, we must ask: Why? However, this is missing from the article. As, harassment and assaults are already prohibited. It is against the law. Therefore, the problem lies in the "Why do people not press charges?" In the US this is often "solved" by prohibiting on a organisational level that people have non-work relationships with co-workers. I personally find this very inhumane. A better solution would be a way to address the real issue, by limiting the power of "senior" members towards the newbies. And to provide processes to deal with the harassment through mediators and of course obligatory psychological council (for both sides).
Exactly my point. Normally, company policies try to "fix" harassment by forbidding relationships with co-workers. That would be counterproductive. I rather would like to propose a way to improve the ability for harassed people to press charges and compulsory shrink visits for both including mediation, which should be also used for minor incidents (including misunderstandings) to solve issues instead of just hanging the man/woman for severe misconduct.
Personally I am very offended by the lack of profanity around some of the offices I work at. Overly polite workers are hiding secrets that could explode out and lead to a workplace rampage. Excess profanity indicates people who are dealing with their anger at work in a very healthy manner.
...
Isn't there a kind of general problem in urban academic settings where you have senior, often male, academics surrounded by young students, some of whom are in a dependent client relationship with the senior academics. Senior academic uses authority, persuasion and more than a little red wine to bed the younger students?
Now let's all go out in the field and camp. Maybe overseas. In a remote location. Where you can't leave or even make a phone call. Limited privacy, communal living. Long nights with alcohol and/or drugs.
I kind of hate to use the phrases "going tribal" or "Lord of the Flies" but it's not hard to see how this situations can turn kind of ugly pretty quickly.
And it's not also hard to see how it's not just driven by the gross, predatory senior academic. You might add in the attractive but less talented student who uses her sexuality to compete, or the smarter but less attractive students with less social sophistication who gets in over her head.
Marion Zimmer Bradley comes to mind.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
The sample was self selective survey of those commenting on a blog about the subject matter. To claim that makes it 'common' is anecdote and not scientific.
I think the reasoning goes something like: you can't fire someone for being falsely imprisoned so just being unable to perform because you're in jail isn't sufficient grounds for firing. Simply being convicted of a crime also isn't grounds as you might still be able to work depending on the crime. As a result, you need some criteria for determining what will cause someone to be fired and what won't. If something isn't included in that policy, there might be a case for a lawsuit if someone is fired over it.
Yeah, it's not like these "words" have any meaning. When I tell my girlfriend "I love you", it's just a statement of fact and not intended to illicit any kind of emotional response.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Although I don't want to detract from the problem being highlighted, I think this may be a symptom of a broader problem with academia: lack of accountability at the top.
FTA:
'About 22% of that group felt it would be unsafe to fight back or not give consent when they were sexually assaulted. Victims were overwhelmingly young: More than 90% of women and 70% of men who had been harassed or assaulted were students, postdocs, or employees of lower rank than their assailants. Women were 3.5 times more likely to report sexual harassment than men and significantly more likely to have experienced sexual assault. “This is about power dynamics in a permissive environment,” Clancy says.'
This sounds to me like the person in charge is getting away with behavior that is established as wrong, and the person in power is often inclined to sexual harassment. Better accountability at the top of the research group might make this a bit more difficult to get away with; you could imagine that this kind of person, in addition to sexual harassment, might make other problematic comments, perhaps ridiculing people for lifestyle choices(smoking, being overweight, etc.) or engaging in intolerant language (racist jokes, homophobic comments, etc.)
It's not a troll. It's just a fact of life. Men are expected to be sexual predators and mating and courtship has to happen some time. If the girl doesn't like the guy, it will be characterized as "harassment" possibly as "assault".
Discretely asking someone on a date once is fine. Endlessly making smutty comments, getting too close to them, commenting on their body, asked for dates again and again is not. It isn't rocket science, just basic western social norms.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I will get flamed for this. Before I say it, by-no-means I'm I denying this conduct happens, but how many of these women wanted to be sexually involved with a male or even female in the field, then felt ashamed or embarrassment over what they've done?
The data comes from a specific survey, not a register of reported incidents. People may lie in the workplace to cover their backs and protect their egos, but there is no motivation to do so in a confidential study.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Just finding out about this? Wait till someone starts looking at what happens in non-field-work locations ... labs, classrooms, offices. You can have all the rules you want, some people are just not nice ... and some are just evil.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Maybe because a lot of the fieldwork is unpaid overtime, so theoretically not "at work"..? No, you're right. Work is work, wherever you are.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
That's actually a pretty good point. Policies are set out to protect the company, while appearing to protect the employees. If an employee signs something saying they know harassment is not allowed on premises, it makes it a lot easier to fire them. If you don't have such a policy, it makes it a lot easier for the harassee to go after the company as well as the harasser.
Besides it isn't always so clear cut, which illegal activities will get you fired. How many companies will fire you for getting a speeding ticket? What if you get a DUI? How many companies will fire you if you smoke a joint (while not at work)? What about bouncing a check? Hell, some school districts have policies forbidding teachers from being seen drinking in public.
I don't think a company policy is meant to cover everything, just everything they are worried about getting sued over. I wonder if anybody has ever used the excuse "Well it wasn't in the policy, so you can't fire me for torturing my puppy to death," or some other heinous act.
Here are the rules at my house: Be safe. Be nice. Four words, and still my seven-year-old finds a way to get all lawyery.
Maybe her shirt had "women are dumb" written on it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The lesson I learn from this is that men should file sexual harassment claims against women who dress less than professionally as a preemptive strike.
If there is not an explicit dress code being violated, you're probably only going to get the wrong kind of reputation by making such a report.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Your country was non-white until you invaded it
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
I have NEVER seen or heard of a company that had the policy of forbidding relationships between co-workers. That is not in any way normal.
When it comes to rape, confidential studies usually reveal the most disturbing information
Believe it or not, most people aren't comfortable talking bout rape and sexual harassment with authority figures. Neither A) talking about sex with an authority figure you hardly know in a society where that's the most private matter of all, nor B) talking about something that traumatized you at all (let alone talking with someone you hardly know about it), are easy matters. The combination of the two is far worse. And the fact that as a general rule nothing good will come of it, and to the contrary a lot of bad will come back to you if you speak up, is just even more encouragement to keep your mouth shut. As a consequence, most rapes remain personal affairs with no consequences to the perpetrator. Disturbingly common personal affairs.
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
It is a false assumption that "people have no motivation to lie in a confidential study." People could lie to make themselves feel better. People lie to themselves all the time. Repeating that lie in an "official study" will definitely cement that false belief more firmly in thier head. Several studies have shown this. Some people could give false answers in a study, especially one of this nature, because they believe others will not be brave enough to come forward. So the respondant fudges the truth to, in their thinking, skew the results further toward what they think the "real" results should be. In other words, they ruin the survey by trying to "fix" it. Still other people may lie just to screw up the results, just for the hell of it. Yes, even young women.
Finally, there are many women who do not understand what sexual harrassment really is. These women tell dirty jokes, then get upset when the man laughing the loudest is not attractive to them. Women who act flirty and touchy one day, then the next day complain about that same man being flirty and touchy back. Many women believe that sexual harrassment is absolutely ANYTHING that makes them feel uncomfortable in ANY way. But this is too subjective. That is why "harassment" is defined as a continuing pattern of behavior that continues even AFTER someone has been asked to stop. Remember, this pattern must be either one person doing lots of things, or lots of things being done to one specific person or group by another specific group. A "pattern," in this context, is NOT establshed by a survey that shows lots of different disconnected people feeling uncomfortable about what happened in a lot of different, disconnected, situations. Many social researchers conflate these two definitions of "pattern" in order to gain more sympathy for their cause. This is called, "the fallacy of equivication."
This false belief in the sanctity of confidential surveys has got to stop if the "soft sciences" ever hope to gain the respect of "real scientists." There are means to control for various forms of false reporting but it requires designing your study very carefully from the beginning; A lot more than just using follow up interviews (Who is going to say, "Yeah, I lied in that study my professor required me to participate in for part of my grade"?).
This study was a great start. But all it really shows is that there is something that needs to be investigated further. Not to say that steps shouldn't be taken to aleviate the problem, if and where it exists. Just that you can't claim to have anything more than a vague grasp of the problem without a better study.
Because companies are regularly sued simply for not having something in thier policy. This applies to EPA, OSHA, and other regulations, in addition to sexual harrassment. You, are correct, redundancy is a bit of a waste of time and paper. However, if a company does not have a policy against X, then the law assumes they allow it (or at least do nothing to prevent it).
Yeah, it's not like these "words" have any meaning.
They do have meaning, just like any other words have meaning. There's nothing inherently bad about them, and you're under no obligation to be offended. It never ceases to amaze me how 'rational' people can hate certain words as if there's something inherently bad about them, almost like they're religious nutters.
it's just a statement of fact and not intended to illicit any kind of emotional response.
I don't understand. If someone intends for you to feel something, you're under an obligation to do so?
There are also plenty of ways to use so-called 'swear words' without intending to offend anyone at all. Of course, even if someone does intend to offend you, you don't have to be offended. I for one don't give a fuck what words someone uses as long as I can understand their message.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
...is often used as a bullying tactic. The bully acts as if the victim is so much like a woman or like a gay man (often just because of the victim's size or build) that the bully just "can't resist" making advances toward the victim. These "advances" are often made loudly and publicly, with great fanfair, thus to emasculate the victim.
Flirting with people you have employment power over IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT. It's kind of the definition.
I occurs everywhere. It is always inexcusable
Damn straight!
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
If your attempt at getting a date is classified as assualt, you are doing it wrong to put it mildly.
Get it through your head: sexual harassment and sexual assault are not predominantly the responsibility of the male.
Fine, but the summary specifically states "The study reveals that the primary targets were young women who were harassed, assaulted, and even raped by men who were usually senior to them in rank."
The article goes further " Women were 3.5 times more likely to report sexual harassment than men and significantly more likely to have experienced sexual assault."
Again, these are specific to scientific field work. If you have data which suggests that on scientific field work, men are harassed much more often, then that's totally relevant. If not, then that's a different discussion.
One should keep in mind that both genders can be sexually harassed or assaulted, but that shouldn't be confused with "both genders are EQUALLY harassed or assaulted" because that's just not true. Moreover, the articles point out that a lot of that was male supervisors on their female students. Given that most professors are male, male students being harassed on these trips may be a different situation entirely, probably requiring different approaches. If male students are primarily being harassed by female students, then dealing with the harassers is much simpler: you tell them they'll be fired if they harass people. Tenured professors, that doesn't work for.
I really don't see what your objection here is. GP was only explaining why telling people not to sexually harass was justified without warning people not to commit murder. Do we seriously need to affirm in every single post on this subject that yes, men can be victims too?
Something something anecdotal evidence.
Lets not fall into a trap of thinking it's a black and white issue. Inappropriate comments can definitely be a real issue. Take sex out of it a minute and look at non-sexual assault and battery.
If your boss cracks your skull with a crowbar, that's obviously serious battery that is going to create a hostile work environment, and he should be jailed. If he jokingly punches you on the arm, that's not battery, that's not creating a hostile work environment.
If your boss rolls his eyes when you give him bad news and says "I should just kill you" with a sigh, that's probably not a "real issue." If he looks you dead in the eyes and says he's going to stab you in the back one day, and you believe him, that's obviously a real issue, that would definitely create a hostile work environment.
Why would words become trivial if instead of saying "stab" he says "fuck"?
That kind of rule used to be fairly rampant in some of the more stodgy firms back in the day, started becoming more rare in the '80s, was almost gone in the 90's, and most folks younger than 40 or so, have probably not seen one. Us older folk, though...
These days, it's been supplanted by a looser interpretation saying that you can't be "related to" someone you're supervising (or vice versa) and there are strong cultural norms to not be involved with someone within your chain of command.
That is all.
There are plenty of things that you can get sued over that are not illegal. For example, a lot of things can be said between two private individuals, and it's simply freedom of speech, with no legal recourse. Saying those same things could be harassment in the workplace. So yes, policies do need to spell out things, and even this varies from state to state, typically with fewer requirements in "right to work" states since you can be fired just because it's Tuesday.
Just another day in Paradise
Agreed. When people say things that I don't like, it's disrespectful to others.
You know, it isn't always just about you. When people say things that other people find offensive and rude, and most adults have decided isn't appropriate for polite society, other people find that rude and offensive behavior creates an unpleasant work environment. Especially when they cannot simply walk away from you or ignore you because their desk is next to yours.
Because it's not required for the employee to read the policy in order for them to be held accountable for it. The policy is in place to protect the company from liability, and allow them to get rid of people.
I work for a large multinational with a presence in all states. Our policies are updated nearly daily as rules change, and due to the fact that laws are different in nearly every location. Nobody reads them all, nor do they have to. But, like it or not, you're still responsible to follow them.
Just another day in Paradise
"First, let me say that I was talking about workplace harassment."
For a Roman Catholic Priest, the Church is his workplace, the congregation his customers, the Bishop is his management. For an extremely bad Roman Catholic Priest, it is a very bad idea for the customers to complain to the management about sex abuse. It is in fact the direct cause of the scandal, that the misconduct was reported to the Bishop and not to the police.
There is a lesson in that for any organization.
" People can always call the police (or file a lawsuit), and obviously if your organization covers for harassers then that's the next step. "
It is a safe assumption that all organizations WILL cover for the harassers, because as you point out,
"escalating to the courts is expensive, time-consuming, embarrassing" for the organization, and in the end, the organization only cares about what is profitable for the organization.
But if we fail to do it, we merely perpetuate the rape culture.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The purpose of company policies about sexual harassment is to avoid legal problems. As long as they have satisfactory policies and enforce them, they're legally in the clear when it occurs. I've never been forbidden from having sexual relationships with cow-orkers. I have been flat-out told that, if I had some sort of relationship with somebody I had some sort of authority over, and that person accused me of sexual harassment, I would be considered guilty and treated as such by my employer. This was short of forbidding such relationships, but not by much. (This was the one time I had such authority, as a lecturing TA. My wife took the course I was teaching, and was shuffled to another session, which is the only time I've been in a position of having a sexual relationship that might involve my work.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
When the subordinate finds the supervisor attractive, it's flirting. When the supervisor finds the subordinate attractive, it's sexual harassment.
FTFY.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No, it's not redundant. If you break the law, you can be prosecuted. If you break company policy, you can be fired for cause. A company might be much more interested in the second than in the first.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In the US, it's illegal to base employment decisions on whether or not you get sexual favors, and it's illegal to maintain an environment of harassment. It's perfectly legal to be a sexist jerk as an employer, unless you cross one of those lines. It's legal for an employer to ask an employee for a blow job, for example, but it's illegal to base any decision on hiring, firing, promotion, duties, etc., on the answer, and it may be illegal if continued after a request to stop.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I've been informed of sexual harassment policies in all my jobs for a long time. I've never belonged to a union.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You know, it isn't always just about you.
You know, it isn't always just about you. When people want to speak normally, they can't do so when other people are trying to control what words they use.
It works both ways. Also, nice appeal to popularity, there. What "most adults" think is inappropriate is irrelevant, because it's 100% subjective. All that means is that most adults need to get over their irrational hatred of certain words.
When people say things that other people find offensive and rude, and most adults have decided isn't appropriate for polite society, other people find that rude and offensive behavior creates an unpleasant work environment.
You know what I find to be an unpleasant work environment? Whiny, irrational people who are offended by particular words for absolutely no reason, though they'll give you reasons that sound mighty religious (or perhaps even cite religious texts).
If those people want others to stop, perhaps they'd better come up with rational, logical reasons that the words are inherently bad. And if they don't think they are? Then deal with it.
Especially when they cannot simply walk away from you or ignore you because their desk is next to yours.
I hear a lot of stupid things that I'd rather not hear (nothing to do with 'swear words'), but that doesn't mean I'm going to try to control what others say. I just deal with it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
In other words, women should always be in a defensive posture, actively considering every aspect of her environment as a potential threat. They should dress modestly at all times while in public. You know, that's a really depressing world to live in.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Because it's not required for the employee to read the policy in order for them to be held accountable for it. The policy is in place to protect the company from liability, and allow them to get rid of people.
It works until the other side has a lawyer who can argue that due to the length and constant changes, his client could not reasonably expected to know all the details.
Paperwork to cover your ass is nice, but just because you put it on paper doesn't mean it'll survive scrutiny.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
And that's exactly why we pay our corporate lawyers to cover our corporate arses.
Just another day in Paradise
I'd think you were joking if you hadn't run with it. Of course the law mandates that a policy meets certain minimal criteria.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Sickening, not funny.
If those two descriptions are a closed set, your reply is statistically likely to be correct.
Still, no Nobel nomination is likely forthcoming.
Though a Karma killer, my post provides at least a shred of evidence that six ladies post on /.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
No one is saying it's a good word. It's a bad word. It's just that statements such as "it doesn't mean anything" or "it's not a word" are more wrong than using a bad word.
Maybe if you have been less lazy, you would have taken some time to read the Usage section in those two pages and would have noticed that while in the US English version it says, "should be avoided by careful users of English", in the British English version it says, "is regarded as incorrect in standard English".
Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
Why should women be entitled to some sort of special conext?
Anyone - male or female - that ISN'T aware of their physical vulnerabilities and working to minimize them where easily possible is simply a Darwin-incident waiting to be resolved.
I'm a 6'4", 300lb male that lives in a wealthy exurb of a low crime state in the midwestern USA. I'm honestly about as safe as a human can be on this planet. NEVERTHELESS: If I am walking alone, particularly at night, I'm *always" aware of my vulnerability. I look into elevators before I get in. I always lock doors. I always at least glance into the back of my car before getting in.
To blithely assume the world is a safe place is demonstrably stupid. 99% of the time, you'll probably be right. 1% of the time tragically wrong. EITHER: plan for it, or accept that you haven't planned for it and live with the consequences.
-Styopa