Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was 26 years ago. Clarence Thomas is still on the Supreme Court. Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly were able to stay at Fox News through their many settlements for sexual harrassment. And after an October surprise of tapes and claims of sexual harrassment, Donald Trump was 'elected' president.
I think Bill Clinton changed the bar on that when he was accused of a whole lot more than just harassing women and it was not only ignored, but the women were branded as the evil ones. Everything after that is just kind of--so what--
It's a fair question. Let me start by saying -- keep in mind that when Anita Hill testified, not only was there no term (sexual harassment) for the behavior...a huge number of people didn't believe there even was a problem. Really.
I was in my 20's working in the financial industry in the 1980's and sexual harassment was constant! And there were three particulars that were almost always the case; the offenders were married, generally older and were in superior professional positions than the females they were bothering.
I come from strong German stock but, l'll tell you, it felt very threatening. And when you're young and not making much money and don't have much saved yet then keeping your job is of real importance. Oh wait, and let me toss back in: there was no recognized issue at the time, so who the hell would you tell in upper management? You'd get canned before they'd fire a good manager or big producer, no contest. It was a lousy situation for lots of young career women having to work with predators. If you left your company you'd most likely wind-up in a similar environment elsewhere.
What Anita Hill did changed everything and after that the behavior was recognized, labeled and large companies began developing policies to deal with it and, more importantly, laws began being passed whereby lawsuits, financial damages, firing of the offender, etc. could be pursued by the offended.
All of that has helped. But, there is still too much of it happening. Here's part of the problem: I'm reading many comments across various websites where, even in 2017, lots people want to blame the harassed as much as the creep. That is just sick and indicates how deeply stupid they are.
Another problem, (get ready, I'm going to throw a grenade into this convo) is that I don't think males, as a whole, really care about women getting sexually harassed. No, they don't. Some will pay lip service to being appalled about it...blah, blah. But, how many have stood up when it counted to try to prevent it, report it and/or call out the dirtbag directly? You all know the answer -- VERY FEW, a microscopic number. In the 21st century, decent guys are still covering for bad guys. Chew on that one.
It's a fair question. Let me start by saying -- keep in mind that when Anita Hill testified, not only was there no term (sexual harassment) for the behavior...
Not true.
Anita Hill brought completely unsubstantiated accusations of sexual harassment against Thomas in 1991.
However, the term “sexual harassment” was coined in 1975, by women at Cornell University.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travel Crazy
Oh wait, and let me toss back in: there was no recognized issue at the time, so who the hell would you tell in upper management?
Also not true.
By 1977, there had already been three cases litigated and which held that a woman could sue her employer for harassment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
SCOTUS upheld these early cases in 1986 with Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, which was brought on complaints filed by a female bank employee whose boss had allegedly intimidated her into having sex with him on multiple occasions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travel Crazy
Another problem, (get ready, I'm going to throw a grenade into this convo) is that I don't think males, as a whole, really care about women getting sexually harassed. No, they don't. Some will pay lip service to being appalled about it...blah, blah. But, how many have stood up when it counted to try to prevent it, report it and/or call out the dirtbag directly? You all know the answer -- VERY FEW, a microscopic number. In the 21st century, decent guys are still covering for bad guys. Chew on that one.
I have been "chewing" on this issue for decades and I think there is an alternative reason for men not coming to defend every women who raises an allegation. And of course, many women are happy to defend men accused of sexual harassment, if the politics are aligned.
Sexual harassment is extremely difficult to prove. Anita Hill, as a Yale law school graduate who worked at the EEOC, the very agency through which sexual harassment claims were handled, knew as much about the nuts and bolts of the procedures for filing claims and the substantive law, as well as anyone in the nation. Yet, she failed to either document her claims or to bring them in the proper procedure.
We have a sacred principle in US jurisprudence that is the presumption of innocence. It is by design difficult for the State to successfully convict a citizen of an alleged crime, as we force the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime alleged by the State, and until the Government does so, the accused is presumed innocent.
Yes, that means certainly that some people who are guilty of the crimes alleged will go free and unpunished (at least by the State). But, what is the alternative? Lowering the standards of evidence would be manifestly unfair.
Nobody (essentially nobody) likes sexual harassment of anyone. Men who see and are convinced that sexual harassment has taken place are appalled by such conduct and condemn it as fiercely as women (well, OK, if politics align, some men and women are happy to let accusations slide and to defend the accused)...
Meh... I hate sexual harassment. I also fear a Government that is not forced to conduct trials where the accused is presumed innocent until the State's criminal allegations are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Last edited by Salmonburgher; 10-11-2017 at 11:46 PM..
Seems obvious, salmonburgher is in the legal profession. He is accusatory, inclined to split hairs and clearly has no experience dealing with sexual harassment so, he holds only an academic understanding of it.
Were you even alive in the 1980's? How about the 90's....maybe in grade school?
I stand by everything I said. In some tiny academic or legal spheres, sexual harassment may have been identified and labeled prior to the Clarence Thomas hearings. But, in the wider world and in business-life -- not at all.
My statement about men not doing much about sexual harassment they know is happening had nothing to do with legal remedies. That should have been obvious. There is huge opportunity for male co-workers to speak directly to an offender or report what they've seen to management or inquire of the harassed whether that is what they are experiencing and ask if they need help. Legal aspects are further down the road and should be viewed by everyone as a last resort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher
Nobody (essentially nobody) likes sexual harassment of anyone. Men who see and are convinced that sexual harassment has taken place are appalled by such conduct and condemn it as fiercely as women.
More typical lip service. Please describe for us how many times you, or any male colleagues, have done something....anything....about it? What exactly did you or they do?
We have a sacred principle in US jurisprudence that is the presumption of innocence. It is by design difficult for the State to successfully convict a citizen of an alleged crime, as we force the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the crime alleged by the State, and until the Government does so, the accused is presumed innocent.
Yes, that means certainly that some people who are guilty of the crimes alleged will go free and unpunished (at least by the State). But, what is the alternative? Lowering the standards of evidence would be manifestly unfair.
Nobody (essentially nobody) likes sexual harassment of anyone. Men who see and are convinced that sexual harassment has taken place are appalled by such conduct and condemn it as fiercely as women (well, OK, if politics align, some men and women are happy to let accusations slide and to defend the accused)...
Meh... I hate sexual harassment. I also fear a Government that is not forced to conduct trials where the accused is presumed innocent until the State's criminal allegations are proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
I dont think this is true at all, in fact I see the opposite today, its much more common for people to automatically convict someone once an allegation is made, especially for anything sexual related, I see it all the time, the news reports Joe Smith is ALLEGED to have committed sexual harassment at work, then I see 500 comments, all calling him a rapist scum who needs to be shot down in the street or violently killed without a trial.
Today, all it takes is an allegation and the person is guilty in the court of public opinion!
I think Bill Clinton changed the bar on that when he was accused of a whole lot more than just harassing women and it was not only ignored, but the women were branded as the evil ones. Everything after that is just kind of--so what--
yup.
not only did they gloss over it, a reporter for Time summed up the feelings of many leftists with the following:
"I would be happy to give him [Bill Clinton] a blow job just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude.
Well, I don't know about the law or Salmonburger or when phrases became common, but there was an awful sex scandal involving some supervisors and Southwestern Bell Telephone company in San Antonio. It resulted in one guy getting fired, another committed suicide. There were all kinds of law suits back and forth for years. It also resulted in Texas forming a PUC. IIRC, it was in the late 60's.
But, like most teenaged boys, folks don't think they will get caught. An outsider was sent to work there in the 1990. There was one work group whose boss still required the female employees to sit on his lap and give him a kiss to get their paychecks twice a month. That boss was given one final warning. He got the sex oriented mugs and calendars out of the office that day, too.
It's a fair question. Let me start by saying -- keep in mind that when Anita Hill testified, not only was there no term (sexual harassment) for the behavior...a huge number of people didn't believe there even was a problem. Really.
I was in my 20's working in the financial industry in the 1980's and sexual harassment was constant! And there were three particulars that were almost always the case; the offenders were married, generally older and were in superior professional positions than the females they were bothering.
I come from strong German stock but, l'll tell you, it felt very threatening. And when you're young and not making much money and don't have much saved yet then keeping your job is of real importance. Oh wait, and let me toss back in: there was no recognized issue at the time, so who the hell would you tell in upper management? You'd get canned before they'd fire a good manager or big producer, no contest. It was a lousy situation for lots of young career women having to work with predators. If you left your company you'd most likely wind-up in a similar environment elsewhere.
What Anita Hill did changed everything and after that the behavior was recognized, labeled and large companies began developing policies to deal with it and, more importantly, laws began being passed whereby lawsuits, financial damages, firing of the offender, etc. could be pursued by the offended.
All of that has helped. But, there is still too much of it happening. Here's part of the problem: I'm reading many comments across various websites where, even in 2017, lots people want to blame the harassed as much as the creep. That is just sick and indicates how deeply stupid they are.
Another problem, (get ready, I'm going to throw a grenade into this convo) is that I don't think males, as a whole, really care about women getting sexually harassed. No, they don't. Some will pay lip service to being appalled about it...blah, blah. But, how many have stood up when it counted to try to prevent it, report it and/or call out the dirtbag directly? You all know the answer -- VERY FEW, a microscopic number. In the 21st century, decent guys are still covering for bad guys. Chew on that one.
Women will not be considered equal until they accept partial responsibility for allowing harassment to persist. My wife was harassed last year by a male peer. He showed her a naked picture that he found on on a computer that was being repaired for viruses. She went immediately to her boss and the guy was FIRED the same day.
Seems obvious, salmonburgher is in the legal profession. He is accusatory, inclined to split hairs and clearly has no experience dealing with sexual harassment so, he holds only an academic understanding of it.
Yes, I am in the legal profession.
Sexual harassment is a legal matter, if you want anything to be done about it.
I have quite a lot of experience with sexual harassment cases, actually. My experience is not limited to the academic.
Stating facts is neither accusatory nor is it splitting hairs. Facts are quite important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travel Crazy
Were you even alive in the 1980's? How about the 90's....maybe in grade school?
In the early 1980s I was volunteering at a women's shelter as an undergraduate. I may well be older than you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travel Crazy
I stand by everything I said.
You are free to hold tight to erroneous beliefs even after you have been advised of your error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travel Crazy
In some tiny academic or legal spheres, sexual harassment may have been identified and labeled prior to the Clarence Thomas hearings. But, in the wider world and in business-life -- not at all.
Harvard, Yale, Cornell, colleges across the US... The Supreme Court... These are tiny academic and legal spheres?
I am not denying that sexual harassment took place back in the day... it still takes place. I am simply correcting your erroneous belief that there was no term for the offence and no remedy for the transgression. There was, on both counts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travel Crazy
My statement about men not doing much about sexual harassment they know is happening had nothing to do with legal remedies.
Well, that may have been obvious, but, if you want to remedy the problem, you need legislation and sanctions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travel Crazy
There is huge opportunity for male co-workers to speak directly to an offender or report what they've seen to management or inquire of the harassed whether that is what they are experiencing and ask if they need help.
And women, too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travel Crazy
More typical lip service. Please describe for us how many times you, or any male colleagues, have done something....anything....about it? What exactly did you or they do?
Who is being accusatory, now? Don't make stupid and ignorant assumptions!
As stated above, I have volunteered in women's shelters... not the same thing, I know. But, I have been aware of and active in dealing with sexual harassment claims and legislation and have drafted policies for corporations for many years. Fortunately, I have never had to deal with a co-worker sexually harassing a colleague. But, I do not live in the US. The only instance of anything related to sexual harassment that I felt a need to address was the time the women in my office showed a movie with lots of nudity at lunchtime, and I advised them that this would be inappropriate in the US as it would be deemed to create a hostile work atmosphere.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
