Describe the Sexual Harassment Rules where You Work

[alphamale]

:yup:

[Al Terego]

The usual.

[Dingfod]

My company's management made us put all the porno mags training manuals in a locker.

[Veritas]

I work at home, and I never get sexually harassed. I am therefore bringing into play a rulebook stating all staff (that is, me) must harass the boss (that is, me) at least once a day.

[Ensign Steve]

I work for the US Department of Defense. We are not allowed to exhale in the direction of another human being.

[alphamale]

I work for the US Department of Defense. We are not allowed to exhale in the direction of another human being.

I work for aerospace, same deal. Here's something that a friend of mine who worked at Rockwell/Boeing. Like most such places, they'd have sexual harassment meetings. (I've had them at TRW (now part of Northrop) and Raytheon.) The PC asswipe hired by Rockwell to keep the feminazis in the DOD happy held a meeting where everyone from some department was sitting in a circle. At one point she/he/it had the men sit on the floor in the center, with the women staying where they were. PC asswipe then asks the men "How does that make you feel?" "Great" said one guy "I got a good view of the ladies' legs!" This kind of crap would happen twice a year or so, with really smart guys being taken away from very important work for this bullshit.

[viscousmemories]

This kind of crap would happen twice a year or so, with really smart guys being taken away from very important work for this bullshit.
Good thing you were there to handle the important work while the really smart guys were busy.

[alphamale]

This kind of crap would happen twice a year or so, with really smart guys being taken away from very important work for this bullshit.
Good thing you were there to handle the important work while the really smart guys were busy.

Ya Har hee hooooooo cackle dackle doooooooo!!!!!!!! :D

[pescifish]

/me would like to dissavow the notion that all aerospace engineers are assholes in spite of alphamale's delusions of normalcy.

I've never had to attend one of the "special" sexual harrassment trainings though other programs have given them when a case has been verified within their team ranks. I did attend an annual ethics briefing where one of the ethical discussion scenarios was sexual harrassment. It had more to do with what a manager should do if someone confided a harrassment concern.

We had a group of about 15 engineers around an oval table, me being the only woman and new to this company (after 14 years at another, similar company). One of the guys gave his "what would you do?" answer in terms of a closer-to-home scenario: he pointed at me and said "Well, if I walked into XXX's [the boss] office and saw him bending you over his desk, I guess I might believe such a claim."

Cracked me the hell up.

The main gyst of both company's policies is that harrassment is in the eye of the beholder and that each person's feelings need to be considered. There is a responsibility of each individual to communicate his/her own boundaries and if that fails, then the companies offer several different means of dealing with it.

[alphamale]

The main gyst of both company's policies is that harrassment is in the eye of the beholder and that each person's feelings need to be considered. There is a responsibility of each individual to communicate his/her own boundaries and if that fails, then the companies offer several different means of dealing with it.

At one company, we had ethics meetings twice a year. They used to be about such things as not lying on your time card, not accepting gifts from suppliers, etc - ethics. Then they started adding the sexual harassment stuff, and then I was surprised that the last two such meetings I had were ONLY about that. The "eye of the beholder" is the problem. Someone asked a female harassment lecturer to define sexual harassment. She defined it completely in terms of the subjective reactions of a particular female. After that, I stopped dating or casually talking to women at aerospace companies. An example of a prohibited comment would be "You really look nice today!". One time I was walking in a project area where they had hundreds of file cabinets laid out with narrow "avenues". I was walking toward a woman coming my way, and did a right turn to keep from brushing her. I noticed other guys going to big efforts to avoid any physical contact whatsoever with women. I stopped having casual contact with them and would only talk to them when necessary and in a formal business-like way.

[pescifish]

An example of a prohibited comment would be "You really look nice today!".In my experience, only the guys who aren't able to communicate with females as human beings are terrified of saying something like that. Anyone who is not able or willing to be sensitive to the other people in the group will probably not be able to recognize when it's ok and when it is not.

If the crap you post on this board is any indication of your IRL attitude and demeanor toward women, it's probably a good idea for you to continue your Zero Interaction policy.

[alphamale]

An example of a prohibited comment would be "You really look nice today!".In my experience, only the guys who aren't able to communicate with females as human beings are terrified of saying something like that.

Actually, the guys that are terrified about keeping their jobs won't say things like that. The best way for guys to look at women in any company that does most of it's business with the government is that they are poison.

[pescifish]

Good thinking on your part, alphamale. 'Tis better all around, I'm sure. :yup:

[Veritas]

Surprisingly, I agree with alphamale. I honestly feel sorry for men who are so scared of losing their jobs that they feel unable to speak to women. It's true, there are some females who cry harassment at the drop of a hat, or at the giving of an innocent compliment. What's wrong with having a quiet word with someone if you feel they've over stepped the boundary rather than suing them?

If you sit in a circle on the floor and the ladies are seated on chairs, you're effectively making the men look at the women's legs. So, you make them look at something attractive and fire them for doing what you made them do?

If a man said to me, "You look nice today," I'd smile and say thank you. Where on Earth do people get off for suing someone who gave them a compliment?

As for REAL sexual harassment, that's a different story; offenders deserve to be punished. But here, I'm talking about simple, complimentary good manners.

[Dingfod]

Harassment can be construed in the context of a situation. Like the David Spade commercial for some credit card, where he wires his assistant with a mic to find out who is saying yes to their customers when their answer to every question is supposed to be "No." The assistant goes into a female coworker's cubicle and says "You say "No." but I hear you sometimes say "Yes!"." while raising his eyebrows up and down. She looks aghast and throws coffee on him, shorting out the wiring, sending him running back to David, who rips the duct tape off his burned chest, chest hair and all.

[lisarea]

If a man said to me, "You look nice today," I'd smile and say thank you. Where on Earth do people get off for suing someone who gave them a compliment?

Who does that? I've never heard of such a thing happening.

[Dingfod]

In my experience it's better received than saying "You look like shit today."

[Sweetie]

Sexual harassment rules at my work are simple. Nothing that can be taken as harassment such as vulgar jokes, jokes passed around on paper, any sort of sexual pressure at all, underhanded comments, personally directed innuendo, etc.

The same applies for issues of race and religion.

[Sweetie]

Harassment can be construed in the context of a situation. Like the David Spade commercial for some credit card, where he wires his assistant with a mic to find out who is saying yes to their customers when their answer to every question is supposed to be "No." The assistant goes into a female coworker's cubicle and says "You say "No." but I hear you sometimes say "Yes!"." while raising his eyebrows up and down. She looks aghast and throws coffee on him, shorting out the wiring, sending him running back to David, who rips the duct tape off his burned chest, chest hair and all.

You ever watch "What Not to Wear?" They used to put a camera in the person's bedroom and film them when they didn't know it. That was so not good, I would be so angry. Not that I do anything bad in my bedroom, mind you. :innocent:

[Dingfod]

Not that I do anything bad in my bedroom, mind you. :innocent:At least not without your husband watching.

[Sweetie]

At least not without your husband watching.

My man is a dreamer. A bit of a slut and a dreamer, but mostly just a dreamer. :D

[Dingfod]

At least not without your husband watching.

My man is a dreamer. A bit of a slut and a dreamer, but mostly just a dreamer. :DI'm kind of like that.

[Sweetie]

I'm kind of like that.

Most men are. :wink:

[alphamale]

Sexual harassment rules at my work are simple. Nothing that can be taken as harassment such as vulgar jokes, jokes passed around on paper.

This is what's so funny. Feminists have been telling us for 20 years women are the complete equal of men, and then when women became more present in the work force, common practices of men such as profanity and bawdy jokes had to disappear so they wouldn't disturb women, as if they were delicate sensitive maidens from the victorian age who had to be protected. :D

[pescifish]

Surprisingly, I agree with alphamale. I honestly feel sorry for men who are so scared of losing their jobs that they feel unable to speak to women. It's true, there are some females who cry harassment at the drop of a hat, or at the giving of an innocent compliment. What's wrong with having a quiet word with someone if you feel they've over stepped the boundary rather than suing them?My point, scarletpeaches, is that whatever aerospace company alphamale is working for, he either is not getting the message or he is misrepresenting aerospace's attitude.

I've worked at two of the top U.S. aerospace companies (14 years at one and nearly 9 years at another) and I can say that my experience is that the companies' training has focused on exactly the sort of communication and mutual understanding you suggest. The training has stressed the responsibility of each individual to clearly communicate his/her boundaries and the need for each person to be sensitive to those boundaries, wherever they may be.

In my experience, it is only the guys who are unable or unwilling to actually deal with their female coworkers as human beings who are terrified for their jobs. I don't give a fuck about what alphamale is all up about on this board, but he's already slammed aerospace (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=127513&highlight=cunt#post127513) at least once and I would like to toss in my own experience to counter his crap.

...common practices of men such as profanity and bawdy jokes had to disappear so they wouldn't disturb women, as if they were delicate sensitive maidens from the victorian age who had to be protected.Not in my aerospace. Too bad for you, dude. Though admittedly, I've never had to work with any man or woman who has projected the sort of asshole crap you do on this board. If I did, I'd be uncomfortable with the usual banter -- I don't like to banter with creeps, no matter the subject.

[godfry n. glad]

Okay... I'm speaking with present experience on this.

I am in the process of grieving a discipline measure taken by my supervisor at the behest of the institution's equal opportunity office.

I work for a state university that teaches specifically health care specialists. It's a "medical school" in the old vernacular, but has gone on beyond that to include nursing and the allied health specialties like emergency personnel, radiologists, therapists of various kinds. There is a very large research component, as well. I work in the library as paraprofessional staff, including supervising student employees.

My view is that on the basis of complaints submitted to my supervisor, I was called in for an interview by the institutional equal opportunity attorney. During that session, I had a number of scenarios presented to me and was asked if I engaged in these behaviors. Then they asked me if I remembered any conversations with sexual content. To which I answered in the afirmative, having had a conversation with a female student about why she shouldn't purchase backless high-heeled shoes and having expressed a positive opinion about the attractiveness of freckles. Those students were evidently then interviewed by the attorney and he rendered an opinion that my actions were in violation of the sexual harassment policies of the institution.

He also failed to do an adequate investigation, having failed to even speak to the one source I suggested he contact, a female co-worker who had taken part in the high-heeled shoes conversation.

They then fail to tell me which of the instances they considered in violation and subjected me to a "verbal warning" and a requirement to attend a three-hour session with a institutionally-hired specialist to assure that I understand the appropriate behavior.

I first of all view this whole process as rather "Star Chamber" in nature, as I was given no idea as to who my accusers were, or what the actual charges against me were. As to the "fishing expedition" by the "investigator", I was urged to self-incrimination. Those instances, I found out in the first step hearing on my grievance, stem from those two specific instances.

This is how I know the investigation was inadequate, because if they had spoken to my co-worker on the conversation, she would have informed them that I had not used the term at all, and had been warning the student away from an item that had a known unsavory reputation amongst women.

That left the single instance of my voicing an opinion on freckles. The exact phrase was, "I think freckles are sexy."

It was in a conversation about how freckles look. Keep in mind that I am very freckled. As were both females to whom I voiced the opinion.

This took place in a library. In a public university. The bastion of First Amendment rights.

I am being punished for having complimented someone.

I view it as censorship.

I understand the need for sexual harassment policies, as I've heard horror stories from women friends about male idiots in the workplace. However, I think that in many cases, the law is being applied inequitably, favoring women and those who wish to use the system for retribution, by allowing them to create an environment where men are encouraged to be open and honest. Men are then punished for the open and honest behavior, whereas women are not.

I am concerned about the interface between creating a safe and comfortable workplace, but the liberal interpretation of these policies by institutional zealots is creating a hostile environment and alienating men and women.

I happen to think open and honest communication a worthwhile objective. My employer, the library of a major health care higher education institution, evidently thinks not.

[alphamale]

Not in my aerospace. Too bad for you, dude. Though admittedly, I've never had to work with any man or woman who has projected the sort of asshole crap you do on this board. If I did, I'd be uncomfortable with the usual banter -- I don't like to banter with creeps, no matter the subject.

Then why are you doing it, asswipe? I worked for TRW, the old Hughes, and Raytheon, and now do contract work. Who did you work for? I can tell MANY stories of the idiotic PC regime.

[Sweetie]

This is what's so funny. Feminists have been telling us for 20 years women are the complete equal of men, and then when women became more present in the work force, common practices of men such as profanity and bawdy jokes had to disappear so they wouldn't disturb women, as if they were delicate sensitive maidens from the victorian age who had to be protected. :D

There's a certain level I have no problem with and most people don't, however it's the misunderstandings that can result from such things, and misinterpretations and then those who are oversensitive to such things.

At my work you can't say "I'll kill you" even in jest, for instance.

[lisarea]

I understand the need for sexual harassment policies, as I've heard horror stories from women friends about male idiots in the workplace. However, I think that in many cases, the law is being applied inequitably, favoring women and those who wish to use the system for retribution, by allowing them to create an environment where men are encouraged to be open and honest. Men are then punished for the open and honest behavior, whereas women are not.

But the thing is that it doesn't sound to me as though there's any application of law here at all. There has been application of an institutional policy, but I can almost assure you that they're just covering their ass, as is usually sound business practice. If you were to make noise about sexual harassment, I'm sure they'd send whoever you accused to training, too.

It's not uncommon at all for an organization to do preemptive ass-covering like that. And it's not even necessarily in response to real threats. Like that dumb old chestnut about warning labels indicating that someone must have tried [fill in stupid warning scenario].

[godfry n. glad]

The counter side to that, lisarea, is that it's possible I've been selected as the guinea pig for a newly implaced active outreach to "prevent" occurances. I'm fairly sure that they are aware if they reprimand one of the more vocal employees and succeed, then they assure that that one employee will make sure that the letter of the policy is applied throughout his workplace. They also make more work for themselves and thus justify their own existance by bringing into being more trivial claims of policy violation.

I still posit that I am the target of retribution by another employee who was the source of the complaints to my supervisor, as this complaint and a complaint about my rudeness (another issue) came to the fore just a week and a half after I challenged the authority of an equal in making decisions about the work flow (in the absence of the departmental supervisor). The employee has been the source of the encouragement to share bawdy jokes and exchange bawdy emails. I believe that she reported these incidents to the supervisor and then the students, who did not object at all, were questioned about what I said and did. Everybody in the scenario is female, except me.

I would like to have the right to know what the investigator asked who and the right to have my representative (in this case, my steward) ask them my questions. I do not been allowed that right. The investigator has served as the judge and jury. I have no recourse but the grievance process.

Unless, of course, I wish to file suit.

[lisarea]

I'm sorry if it looked as though I were implying that you were being paranoid or something, godfry. I don't think that's the case at all. I have too much experience with office politics to dismiss such things out of hand. Sides which, I tend to trust your word because you're cute.

The reason I only replied to that little excerpt from your post was that the only beef I had with it was the law vs. policy distinction. It seems to be one that a lot of people gloss over, and I think it's a pretty significant one, really.

I don't doubt your account, or even the larger claim that threat of lawsuits, sexual harassment or otherwise, is a handy tool for people with grudges. I just felt it was worth distinguishing that what was applied inequitably was a corporate policy, not a law.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm sorry if it looked as though I were implying that you were being paranoid or something, godfry. I don't think that's the case at all. I have too much experience with office politics to dismiss such things out of hand. Sides which, I tend to trust your word because you're cute.

The reason I only replied to that little excerpt from your post was that the only beef I had with it was the law vs. policy distinction. It seems to be one that a lot of people gloss over, and I think it's a pretty significant one, really.

I don't doubt your account, or even the larger claim that threat of lawsuits, sexual harassment or otherwise, is a handy tool for people with grudges. I just felt it was worth distinguishing that what was applied inequitably was a corporate policy, not a law.

Ah... But it's corporate policy motivated by federal law.

The question becomes how does one challenge the policy without challenging the corporate interpretation of that law. Which takes adjudication of some kind, doesn't it?

[D. Scarlatti]

I was just reading a case wherein two co-employees had been carrying on a consensual sexual relationship, upon the termination of which the spurned employee instituted a program of sexual harassment on the job, to the extent of kidnapping his love interest from the parking lot at one point.

The complaining employee managed to get a restraining order, which was violated several times, resulting in numerous jail sentences. In each case the terms of the sentence contained work release privileges, during which the employee was returned to the common workplace, where he was able to continue the sexual harassment.

[Godless Dave]

Sounds like some of you work for companies that have bad sexual harassment training. Mine showed us a pretty straightforward video (five years ago) and the policy can be read on our HR website.

[beyelzu]

Not in my aerospace. Too bad for you, dude. Though admittedly, I've never had to work with any man or woman who has projected the sort of asshole crap you do on this board. If I did, I'd be uncomfortable with the usual banter -- I don't like to banter with creeps, no matter the subject.

Then why are you doing it, asswipe? I worked for TRW, the old Hughes, and Raytheon, and now do contract work. Who did you work for? I can tell MANY stories of the idiotic PC regime.
fuck off troll

[alphamale]

Not in my aerospace. Too bad for you, dude. Though admittedly, I've never had to work with any man or woman who has projected the sort of asshole crap you do on this board. If I did, I'd be uncomfortable with the usual banter -- I don't like to banter with creeps, no matter the subject.

Then why are you doing it, asswipe? I worked for TRW, the old Hughes, and Raytheon, and now do contract work. Who did you work for? I can tell MANY stories of the idiotic PC regime.
fuck off troll

Nobody's talking to you, penis face.

[beyelzu]

again, i reiterate, fuck off you stupid fucking troll

and no i am not angry i am just trying to have a meaningful dialogue with an obvious cocksucker in his native tongue

[alphamale]

again, i reiterate, fuck off you stupid fucking troll

and no i am not angry i am just trying to have a meaningful dialogue with an obvious cocksucker in his native tongue

"fucking troll fucking troll fucking troll fucking troll" - what a WITTY little penis! :D

[beyelzu]

me love you long time, baby,

[Dingfod]

Five dollah, Joe, five dollah.

[Sweetie]

I'm not a feminist and I've never had an issue at work except with a few customers.

About the only thing though, that I can suggest to make one understand why some things might make some people feel uncomfortable whether feminist or no, and why it may not belong in the workplace, it's like this, because I do understand.

If you're heterosexual, imagine there's this homosexual who is hitting on you all the time. If you're male and this was a female, you'd be thinking, "nice!", but it's not. Chances are, you'd get real uncomfortable with it real fast. That's maybe what it's like for just some regular woman to be hit on, talked about, have sexual innuendo directed at her at work all the time and I understand why that might be uncomfortable. Some might think, well isn't it flattering? Sometimes no, it's not apparently.

Just a thought.

[Dingfod]

I'm a little discomforted by one of the supervisors in my department that wears miniskirts and low cut blouses. Can I file harassment charges because I feel uncomfortable with her inappropriate dress? I probably wouldn't even be bothered by it if it were a peer, but she's management and it just seems wrong.

[Sweetie]

:scratch:

I would say that you probably could complain about her manner of dress, I would say it doesn't sound very classy at the very least, though I don't want to say that because you are probably kidding.....or something.

[Sweetie]

Can I complain about all these girls in public who wear these low cut jeans and who:

a) shouldn't because they're overweight and everything is falling out

or:

b) everytime they bend over you see ass-crack, and I have yet to see it when it could be possibly even remotely "cute"

[Dingfod]

I'm dead serious. Should I approach her first? Or tell my supervisor, her peer? He'll probably laugh it off for a variety of reasons.

[Dingfod]

Can I complain about all these girls in public who wear these low cut jeans and who:

a) shouldn't because they're overweight and everything is falling out

or:

b) everytime they bend over you see ass-crack, and I have yet to see it when it could be possibly even remotely "cute"They work with you, over or [I hate to say this] under you?

[Sweetie]

I'm dead serious. Should I approach her first? Or tell my supervisor, her peer? He'll probably laugh it off for a variety of reasons.

:shrug:

Depends on what your employer is like. Depends if you have a dress code. We have a dress code so it's fairly simple.

[Dingfod]

Here's their policy:
Business unit or department management will determine appropriate appearance specific to its business. It is recognized that certain job requirements, or individual choice, may favor more traditional business attire while other jobs may allow for or require uniforms or work clothes to meet standardization or safety requirements. In the absence of specific guidelines from business unit or department management, employees are expected to use good judgment in presenting a businesslike appearance to Company customers, visitors, and colleagues, and in dressing more formally on business occasions when appropriate.

Guidelines can never be written to cover all circumstances and address all business needs. Outside of specific business unit or department directives, the best guideline for appropriate appearance is to use common sense and good judgment.

[Sweetie]

They work with you, over or [I hate to say this] under you?


Haha, there is no "under me", I'm on the bottom of the pond. :D

Other than that, yes there was an issue at work and yes when I was interviewed they mentioned that it had been happening with some young girls and that it was unacceptable.

But no, I'm not complaining about that at work, it's just too common in public. :eek:

[Dingfod]

But no, I'm not complaining about that at work, it's just too common in public. :eek:I think there should be a "no spandex" rule if you're over a certain percentage body fat too.

[Sweetie]

I think there should be a "no spandex" rule if you're over a certain percentage body fat too.

:thumbup:

[erimir]

and no i am not angry i am just trying to have a meaningful dialogue with an obvious cocksucker in his native tongue
Don't insult cocksuckers. What makes you think us homos want him?

[Shake]

Sexual harassment by any employee in violation of any applicable state or federal law is contrary to company policy.
Oh, that clears it up!

[Citizen of Earth]

I've never understood why such emphasis is placed on employee-employee harrassment. That does nothing. The harrassed employee presumably has an equal status, so therefore, nothing bad can come of a polite, "Fuck off, prick!" dismissal.

The primary purpose of sexual harrassment laws has historically been to prevent power differentials from having a coercive effect. In other words, employer-employee sexual requests are infinitely more severe than employee-employee sexual requests. Not content with merely their own wives or girlfriends (if they had them), capitalists and the underling bosses have often taken great interest in the female members of their workforce as well.

Jus primae noctis, anyone?

[Jesus Christ]

Ft Bragg/USA Army regulations. Like most combat arms units, my platoon is a walking sexual harassment case waiting to happen.

[godfry n. glad]

I've never understood why such emphasis is placed on employee-employee harrassment. That does nothing. The harrassed employee presumably has an equal status, so therefore, nothing bad can come of a polite, "Fuck off, prick!" dismissal.

The primary purpose of sexual harrassment laws has historically been to prevent power differentials from having a coercive effect. In other words, employer-employee sexual requests are infinitely more severe than employee-employee sexual requests. Not content with merely their own wives or girlfriends (if they had them), capitalists and the underling bosses have often taken great interest in the female members of their workforce as well.

Jus primae noctis, anyone?

That certainly ain't how it's being used in my workplace. In my workplace, if you use any terminology which offends any other coworkers, you are in danger of being disciplined for "sexual harassment". I myself am being displined for having expressed a very general opinion about a common physical aspect...freckles. Specifically, I stated, "I think freckles are sexy".

This is being used by some other employee to make sure I'm disciplined. I do not know who this other (or, these other) employee(s) are, because that information is kept secret from the "offender". Additionally, it was not until I grieved it that I found out exactly what my "crimes" were. From the interrogation, I gathered that I was accused of other transgressions which were untrue in entirety.

This is in a workplace where the females, as a matter of course, have felt comfortable making off-color and sexist jokes. I express my opinion and I'm brought up on charges. I'm interrogated without context and judged and condemned by one attorney who has his office in the corporate EEOA office. It's basically "Star Chamber" format.

In pursuing the grievance, I had a long meeting with a professional labor representative who informed me that anything I said outside of the context of my professional duties could be construed as "offensive" by anyone who heard it. I have no First Amendment rights in my workplace, which ironically is a public university library. I have been advised by counsel that my only recourse is to not engage my co-workers in any conversation that is not directly linked to my job tasks.

Ergo, I am skipping the library holiday party as a being a place where conversation drifts to topics other than work tasks. I am preparing to suggest that we remove all copies of People magazine from the library, as they will only fuel inappropriate conversations, especially the recent "Sexiest Man Alive" cover issue. I will get an opportunity to learn the ins and outs of the policy and the law which underpins it, after which I intend to supply myself with a healthy supply of complaint forms and zealously apply the corporate policy amongst my co-workers. I'm also expanding the definition of what "offends" me.

I'll be waiting for the next engagement or birth announcement to file my complaint.

As you can tell, I'm not impressed with the EEOA, particularly as to how it's being enforced within my workplace. I no longer trust my supervisor or any of my coworkers. I do not trust my employer and have determined that it is entirely without integrity.

Remember, Americans, you lose all your basic rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution once you walk across the treshold of your workplace.

It's bullshit....mostly.

[Citizen of Earth]

I've never understood why such emphasis is placed on employee-employee harrassment. That does nothing. The harrassed employee presumably has an equal status, so therefore, nothing bad can come of a polite, "Fuck off, prick!" dismissal.

The primary purpose of sexual harrassment laws has historically been to prevent power differentials from having a coercive effect. In other words, employer-employee sexual requests are infinitely more severe than employee-employee sexual requests. Not content with merely their own wives or girlfriends (if they had them), capitalists and the underling bosses have often taken great interest in the female members of their workforce as well.

Jus primae noctis, anyone?

That certainly ain't how it's being used in my workplace. In my workplace, if you use any terminology which offends any other coworkers, you are in danger of being disciplined for "sexual harassment". I myself am being displined for having expressed a very general opinion about a common physical aspect...freckles. Specifically, I stated, "I think freckles are sexy".

This is being used by some other employee to make sure I'm disciplined. I do not know who this other (or, these other) employee(s) are, because that information is kept secret from the "offender". Additionally, it was not until I grieved it that I found out exactly what my "crimes" were.

This is in a workplace where the females, as a matter of course, have felt comfortable making off-color and sexist jokes. I express my opinion and I'm brought up on charges. I'm interrogated without context and judged and condemned by one attorney who has his office in the corporate EEOA office. It's basically "Star Chamber".

In pursuing the grievance, I had a long meeting with a professional labor representative who informed me that anything I said outside of the context of my professional duties could be construed as "offensive" by anyone who heard it. I have no First Amendment rights in my workplace, which ironically is a university library. I have been advised by counsel that my only recourse is to not engage my co-workers in any conversation that is not directly linked to my job tasks.

Ergo, I am skipping the library holiday party as a being a place where conversation drifts to topics other than work tasks. I am preparing to suggest that we remove all copies of People magazine from the library, as they will only fuel inappropriate conversations, especially the recent "Sexiest Man Alive" cover issue. I will get an opportunity to learn the ins and outs of the policy and the law which underpins it, after which I intend to supply myself with a healthy supply of complaint forms and zealously apply the corporate policy amongst my co-workers. I'm also expanding the definition of what "offends" me.

As you can tell, I'm not impressed with the EEOA, particularly as to how it's being enforced within my workplace. I no longer trust my supervisor or any of my coworkers. I do not trust my employer and have determined that it is entirely without integrity.

Remember, Americans, you lose all your basic rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution once you walk across the treshold of your workplace.

It's bullshit....mostly.

I'm sorry to hear about your situation.

I would interpret this reaction as just a distraction from real sexual harrassment where differences of power exist and people's livelihoods are directly affected. I've never understood why bosses at companies take such an interest in preventing sexual harrassment nowadays. Their answer to everything is, "Fired"....."Fired".....everyone's "Fired." It is all just a distraction from the real problem of trading sex for money and job security. It's like the wolf guarding the sheep.

But such is the nature of corporatism. The worker is simply a commodity whose mind can be disassembled and rearranged at the employer's bidding. Don't like it? We've been given the "freedom" to quit and starve. And if we don't, it's taken to mean tacit acceptance of such things as "just the way life is." All that matters is that somebody controls the resources and as a result, can tell you what to do.