Sexual Harassment Is Common In Scientific Fieldwork 362
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.
Such harassment (Score:5, Insightful)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to take your point seriously when the only link you provide is to a webcomic.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to take your point seriously when your post contains only an accusation masquerading as a glib comment with no real content.
Re:Such harassment (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is that the people that write these "reports" think the trifling transgressions are just as bad as rape. Many are what can only be described as "female supremacists" that will us any and all real, perceived and fabricated instances of "sexual harassment" to fight men wherever they can be found. I do not think it is a good idea to take these characters seriously at all, because their agenda is far more despicable and repulsive than what they claim to fight against.
Re:Such harassment (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think they think the "trifling" transgressions are "just as bad". I've never heard anyone say, or even suggest, that they are "just as bad".
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.
Re:Such harassment (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh? When they make statics that count them the same, that is not claiming they are of a similar nature? Well then, maybe they just have not even a basic grasp of statistics. On second though, it may also be use of a well established manipulation technique, where a high number is claimed by lumping in everything and the kitchen sink, and then pretending the worst thing in there is representative. Like in "99% of women have experienced gender-related events, such as rape". See the problem here? This is nothing anybody with the slightest shred of honor would say. It is something only people that want to crush their (perceived or real) enemy, no matter the cost to the truth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I don't think they think the "trifling" transgressions are "just as bad". I've never heard anyone say, or even suggest, that they are "just as bad"."
well you don't know what they think, but you can infer from their actions, and when they lump together rape with an off color joke, then use the combination of two separate and disparate incidents to use as a factor in the proposed statistic, then yes they are statistically equating the two as "just as bad".
maybe you're just not seeing the radical motivations
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think they think the "trifling" transgressions are "just as bad". I've never heard anyone say, or even suggest, that they are "just as bad".
I don't think most people (even most strong feminists) would say things like that, but the word "rape" is coming up increasingly in relation to things that are nowhere near as extreme. For an extreme example [carbonated.tv]:
Goshen College of Indiana declared all male students who stare at women as rapists early this year.
They state on their website:
"Don't allow psychological rape or commit it yourself. Psychological rape consists of verbal harassment, whistles, kissing noises, heavy breathing, sly comments or stares. These are all assaults on any woman's sense of well-being."
It looks like the link has since been taken down (but you can still see archived screenshots here [avoiceformen.com]).
Obviously this is an extremist perspective. But the ideas are out there, and it's not surprising that some people will equate "trifling transgressions" with much worse things, given the common use of t
Re:Such harassment (Score:4, Informative)
And don't forget they almost always use operational definitions which tailor the statistics to suit their needs, like the NISVS refusing to count female-on-male rape as "Rape" and recording it instead as "Other".
Re: (Score:3)
Another problem is sloppy wording of questions. Here is one example from the survey:
32. Have you ever personally experienced inappropriate or sexual remarks, comments about physical beauty, cognitive sex differences, or other jokes, at an anthropological field site?
Technically, if somebody ever told you a joke about anything at a field site, then "yes" would be a valid answer, depending on how one interprets which parts of the sentence "inappropriate or sexual" applies to. The same applies to the other subclauses, like cognitive sex differences or beauty, both of which are completely valid subjects of discussion.
I think the questions asked here do very little to distinguish harassment
Re:Such harassment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They're not the same. Raping a coworker will get you thrown in jail. Sexually harassing a coworker will get you fired, possibly have you end up with a large legal bill, and find yourself all but unemployable in the sector in which you work.
Re: (Score:3)
GP is not saying that such things aren't bad, they're saying that when you lump those things in the same category as rape and just give a statistic for the overall category that it is not very meaningful.
Re:Such harassment (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention that it cheapens the really serious offenses like rape and repeated harassment when they are grouped in with telling a suggestive joke once or forwarding a suggestive E-mail.
Offending someone is one thing (and should be avoided) but doing actual harm is quite another. Let's not group them together.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit! (Score:3)
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, th
Re: (Score:2)
Most "sexual harassment" today results from a person saying that someone looks nice, not the other way around.
If I asked you to back up this statement with evidence, particularly the word "most", you could not do so.
Now it is true that most sexual harassment is not intended to harass, and stops as soon as the person doing it understands that what they did (or continue to do) is unwanted and inappropriate. In many jurisdictions, it's only legally "sexual harassment" if the behaviour doesn't stop when you're told to stop.
This is precisely why the attitude that you see a lot of in the comments here (of the "it's alrea
Re: (Score:2)
Is it repeated, unwanted, attention of a sexual nature? Then it's sexual harassment.
Re: (Score:2)
So no.. it is not unless you are some weirdo looking for an excuse to claim sexual harassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Sexual or not, it's certainly harassment, and therefore, illegal in the US. More so in some states than others, but illegal everywhere.
I'd guess you've only been on one side of bullying, to take such a position.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people have conversations with themselves and impose the results onto others as if they actually participated in them?
I mean seriously, the topic is sexual harassment, the parent post complained about the illegitimacy of the inclusion as sexual harassment, I made a comment about how it was not sexual so should not be included as sexual harassment and now all the sudden you know all about my life while taking the position that it doesn't matter if it is sexual or not to be included as sexual harassmen
Re: (Score:3)
"Sexual harassment" has a specific legal definition - and the example given fits in it quite firmly. You are factually incorrect about it not being sexual. The "sexual" part of "sexual harassment" refers to gender, not the sex act. (My employer's mandatory - by state law - sexual harassment training used to be done by a trial lawyer who loved defendants - so long as he was on the other side - like you.)
And you implicated that I cannot possibly disagree with you unless I am mentally ill is proof that you hav
Re: (Score:3)
The "sexual" part of "sexual harassment" refers to gender, not the sex act.
Does it means that if a bisexual sexually-as-in-sex-act harass people of both genders, that's not sexual harassment ?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Who gives a shit about the semantics. If your making your female workmates uncomfortable, you deserve to be rapidly ejected out the door with "DO NOT HIRE AGAIN" stamped on your file.
Re:Such harassment (Score:5, Insightful)
Who gives a shit about the semantics. If your making your female workmates uncomfortable, you deserve to be rapidly ejected out the door with "DO NOT HIRE AGAIN" stamped on your file.
I'm curious, have you ever had a job? I don't mean a summer job or your coding job surrounded by fellow nerdlings. I'm talking about a job in a larger company where you have to deal with all sorts of people.
Because here's a hint: you're going to make people uncomfortable. People who overhear your in-jokes you make with your friends. People who come into the middle of a conversation and take things out of context. People who are naturally touchy. People who are having a bad day (and this happens pretty regularly for many women, about 4-5 days out of every 30). People who simply don't like you for one reason or another, because maybe they decided you look funny, or are the wrong race, or whatever, and they're either looking for an excuse to complain or they'll make one up.
And just out of curiosity, why is it only men who make women uncomfortable? Why can't men feel uncomfortable around women? Why isn't the need to constantly watch my tongue, to be on edge, always hyper-sensitive to their sensitivities a definition of uncomfortable? Why can Tom Brady honk their tits and tell them they should fuck, while I can't say hello without being a creep? (K, that's obviously an exaggeration, but you understand what I'm getting at).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm gonna start suing for sexual harassment every time someone says I'm a nerd or I'm too shy or whatever too.
You would also be prettier if you smiled.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether such such trifling "transgressions" are bad or not really depends on the intent and the circumstances. If someone goes up to a female coworker every day and makes jokes about how women are stupid, then, yeah, that's pretty bad, and it needs to stop. The guy is being a jerk. It's not as bad as rape. It is bullying.
To me, it's not especially heinous because it's "sexual". It's on the level of going over to the system administrator's desk every day and making jokes about nerds playing sports poorl
Re: (Score:3)
As for how it's happening, keep in mind that an archeological dig isn't a 9-5 job it's a multi-month trip to the middle of nowhere. In many ways it's much like the military as far as sexual harassment and rape.
Boobies (Score:5, Funny)
Scientist A: Show me pictures of your boobies!
Scientist B: They're really big [wikipedia.org]
My hobby: Making clean jokes.
Re: (Score:2)
And some of those people are lucky enough to be in a tag-and-release boobies study.
Re: (Score:3)
Those might be big boobies, but these are some great tits [wikipedia.org].
Dirty! (Score:2)
Those dirty filthy paleontologist types... I swear! They are giving us all a bad name!
Good enough for the President (Score:2)
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?
I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm seriously laughing my ass off here. If your wife pulled that shit with the construction workers I know, both you and she wouldn't even exist. You'd be in a concrete foundationg to be found a century or two from now.
There is always an excuse for being a victim.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm seriously laughing my ass off here. If your wife pulled that shit with the construction workers I know, both you and she wouldn't even exist. You'd be in a concrete foundationg to be found a century or two from now.
You might consider the possibility that these construction workers may be misrepresenting their primary occupation.
Re: (Score:2)
charges against the employer for having such a person in their employ
That line is quite concerning. It literally means that perceived emotional harm isn't just the fault of the perpetrator but a liability on the employer. It's impossible to control other's actions and more importantly how those around them perceive them, so the only meaningful defense is to eliminate potential victims.
Fieldwork in particular? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Fieldwork in particular? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't imagine why scientific fieldwork in particular could provide an environment that promotes inappropriate behavior.
You jest, but clearly you've never been on an archaeology dig. They often consist of the academic, a few students and a bunch of randoms. The randoms are generally slightly strange people (not necessarily in a bad way) who have no job responsibilities who can sit in a field for two months and dig. They come from -all- walks of life. "normal" people generally do not sit in a field for two months and dig.
Anyway you can only dig in daylight hours and the field is in the middle of nowhere. And there's the possibility of theives trying to steal artefacts (this does happen), so the archaeologists often camp out at the dig.
After hours it's all bonfires, booze, music and drugs.
The sad part (Score:3)
I saw this happen in the late 80's, when the heavy handed sexual harassment efforts first started.
Re:The sad part (Score:4, Interesting)
You seem to be confusing normal with paranoid. Normal men don't try to avoid the women they work with due to imagined dangers.
FIist, let us set the scene. This was the late 80's early 90's. Addressing sexual harassment was relatively new.
During our mandatory sexual harassment meeting, one of the men asked a question regarding a rule of thumb for sexual harassment. The answer was "Anything a woman says is seual harassment, is sexual harassment."
You could have heard a pin drop for the next 30 seconds.
In attempts to clarify that a little more, we found out we should not compliment a woman on her appearance or perfume, and that statements like "I like your earrings" were very dangerous. One of the machinists had photos of his family in the lid of his toolbox. One of the photos was of his teenage daughter in her high school cheerleader's outfit. They made him remove it.
This was obvious overreach, and in fact after roughly 5 years, they admitted as much, and overhauled the sexual harassment program.
One of the biggest complainants was women - Normal guys took the dictates to heart, and since we didn't know if telling a woman she was looking very happy this morning would cause us to lose our job, we clammed shut. Who wants to work with live hand grenades, and where you are always the one at fault by virtue of your gender? It was an exceptionally strained relationship between the genders for many years.
And at least the women that I worked around hated it with a passion. I'll let you in on a secret. Women think and talk about sex. Women don't mind talking to the men they work with. Two of the women I worked with had the dirtiest minds I've ever come across. Mostly, they were squelched because if they started talking about anything remotely sexual, the men would leave immediately. The saddest thing was that it did not make one change in the guys who were actually harassing women. They'd keep on doing what they do, and seldom be turned in. Because that's what they do until they are stopped. Because often the woman wonders if she did something to encourage the guy. And on and on
This wasn't paranoia, it was men being told exactly how they were supposed to act. And if any woman in the work force could cost you your job for any reason they deemed as a reason - you damn well will do anything to avoid something that will cost you your job. So you shut up. You avoid. You interact only to the extent you absolutely have to, then get away.
And despite your long distance judgement, the program was changed for exactly those reasons. The original program tried to scrub the workplace free of any interaction that could even be remotely connected to sex. It placed all responsibility for any problem upon the male. And worst, it completely poisoned the relationship between the genders while it was in force, and did not correct the problem it was designed to correct.
Fortunately, calmer heads eventually got involved, and the obvious element of misandry in the first system was ratcheted down, to the point where it was not 100 percent aimed at men. The genders get along fine now.
But I always have to caution when I see this sort of thing. There is a subset of females that do not like men at all. And unless we want to completely segregate the sexes, we have to know when to identify that subset.
Broad definitions of misbehavior (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: Sexual Harassment Is Common In ... Everything (Score:3, Insightful)
Clever troll against men and bonus points for using the meaningless letter soup "irregardless".
Re: Sexual Harassment Is Common In ... Everything (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re: Sexual Harassment Is Common In ... Everything (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re:Some people are jerks (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:Some people are jerks (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Some people are jerks (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Some people are jerks (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Some people are jerks (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all Sexual harassment isn't illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re:Some people are jerks (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Some people are jerks (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 downplay
Re: (Score:3)
Flirting with people you have employment power over IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT. It's kind of the definition.
Re: (Score:3)
When it comes to rape, confidential studies usually reveal the most disturbing [davidlisak.com] information [nih.gov]
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re:Some people are jerks (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 re
Re: (Score:2)
My country has a law like that, too. One thing it mandates is that companies have a sexual harassment policy.
Re:Some people are jerks (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Presumably having a continuous good time is against policy.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Having a formal policy reduces legal liability (somewhat) for the employer.
Of course, enforcing the policy reduces it even more.
Re: (Score:2)
Most harrassment is not illegal. (Assaults are of course.)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Some people are jerks (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
#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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re:Some people are jerks (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re:Some people are jerks (Score:4, Interesting)
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... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Marion Zimmer Bradley comes to mind.
[John]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Some people are jerks (Score:4, Funny)
And very unfortunately, such jerks are more likely to be able to grub funding for their research labs from government offices.
Re: (Score:2)
Or get a seat on the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:2)
did you mean to say anywhere there are men and women working together?
or were you intending to be ignorant and sexist?
Re:Newsflash! (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Newsflash! (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be sending -1000 bitcoins straight away!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Let me see if I can explain. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel harassed by the dress, cosmetics and perfume that some women in my office wear.
You poor thing. How do you stand the injustice?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine if I wore a v-neck that went half way to my naval to show off my manly chest hair and a codpiece at the next code review meeting it would certainly be considered sexual harassment.
What you're complaining about is the "harassment" that your female coworkers dress in a way that makes you want them so much you can't control yourself, not that what they're wearing would make them want to gouge their eyeballs out with a ball point pen. When you appreciate the difference between the two, you get to be a human being.