I recently watched the program, "Insight," on the ABC,
on this topic - and was quite surprised by
the mixed reactions, particularly from women.

Of course the recent case of the biggest sexual
harassment lawsuit, with Kristy Fraser-Kirk filing
$37 million claim against David Jones, where she
had worked as a publicity co-ordinator was brought up.
Many women were detracted by the amount of money,
rather than the issue at stake.

Perhaps, as one person suggested - had she filed for
a smaller amount, the entire matter would have been
either swept under the rug, or settled out of court.
At least this way, the matter has atracted media
attention, and perhaps it's forcing corporate
Australia to take another look at what's going on in
their workplaces.

I'd like poster's views on the subject, as well as a
definition of what people think constitutes,
"sexual harrassment."

I saw that too Foxy. The definition is a bit nebulous and very individual I gather from what the legal practitioners had to say on the matter.

Sexual harrassment is unwanted attention of a sexual nature and that might differ among a group of people. It comes down to commonsense and reading body language and social cues.

The jury is still out on the David Jones case but I personally don't think the amount matters. It brings attention that there are still problems in this regard, particularly in regard to power politics. People pretend that there are avenues for dealing with sexual harrassment but if it is from your boss who might be a CEO or close to the top, the accuser usually has buckleys of getting anything done.

There are always grey areas but there are also some pretty obvious cases of harassment that any reasonable person would summise given the facts.

I think that is the key as one of the panel suggested - behaviour that any reasonable person would find unwarranted in the workplace.

Remember that story about the posh legal firm where there was a painting of a nude woman in the meeting room (a tasteful renaissance style I believe). The female lawyers complained and were made to feel their complaints were invalid. Next week the picture was replaced with a male nude in similar artistic mode and the men complained and in the end the point was made and both paintings were discarded. There is a lot of double standards on this issue.

Seems like Kristy has a track record of complaints

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/david-jones-sexual-harassment-accuser-kristy-fraser-kirk-has-a-past-case/story-e6frewt0-1225902509986

Reading this article really does throw quite a few doubts about this woman's credibility.

The following link supports Kristy's credibility to an extent that nobody could have any doubt whatsoever that certain things happened. As you can see, the Federal court was told on the 30th August that the case involves SIXTEEN women - - - - - not just Kristy. Plus two women have come forward regarding the behaviour of Mr McInnes at his former workplace.

Also the barrister for Mr McInnes, Tony Meagher FC, said "some of the conduct which is alleged is not contested".

Also Kristy has pledged to give the damages received to charity.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/six-more-harassment-claims-made-against-david-jones-ceo-mark-mcinnes/story-e6freuy9-1225911798590

So there you go runner. Maybe you should consider the "facts" more, before you write personally derogatory posts like that.

Lets be very clear no form of harassment in the workplace should take place.
Sexual is not the only kind, but please believe me some women discriminate by using this old chestnut against enemy's.
I know of such claims even one that saw the woman admit she got carried away with personal dislike.
A woman who works in a public out door area, and has to watch visitors for rubbish dumping and anti social behavior, has seen very often in daylight hours deviant sexual activity's.
She has been told over and again she is homophobic, on warning these people off.
So it can be two sided .
Last week a woman IR person screamed at me, in a way not man ever would, her male companions both told her my case was just and that she was wrong.
Wrong in her stance and wrong to scream like that, but the discrimination thing saw her get away with unacceptable behavior.
No one, ever should be judged on what sex they are no one should be targeted and while some of the best in IR are women the very worst are too.

Looks like runner has already made up his mind on the basis of one other complaint while ignoring the numerous complaints that have come out against the David Jones CEO. The other complaint was while working for a police force where harrassment has always been a problem not only for women but for homosexuals.

runner seems to think that you only get one complaint per lifetime and if you get robbed, assaulted or sexually harrassed more than once, you've used up your right to justice.

She is an attractive woman - it is entirely possible that she has experienced harrassment more than once. Some people get robbed more than once. It does happen for goodness sake.

What ever happened to gentlemanly behaviour and sticking up for women who have been unfairly treated. Sheesh....

very much looks like you Pelican and others have also made up their mind to this man's guilt. I certainly have not but it should not stop the facts from being looked at.

runner you clearly did not read my post. I said "the jury is still out" on this particular case. Why do you always defend the alleged perpetrators and heap abuse on the alleged victim when the perpetrator is male and the victim is a woman.

I am speaking in general terms about sexual harrassment. If you really believe this man is innocent that is fine, but I am going to wait for the jury decision and to hear from other complainants.

I bet if the perpetrator was a woman you would be first to put the boot in as your comments are generally anti-woman and pro-men no matter the circumstances.

I believe that when the Kristy Fraser-Kirk
case goes to Court at the end of this month
it will be a jury trial - so all of the facts
will indeed be looked at. However, it's not
looking good for David Jones and its former
chief executive Mark McInnes as more and more
women are coming forward. Another 6 women from
the company will lay claims in addition to
the five women who were earlier included in Kristy
Fraser-Kirk's statement of claim against David Jones.

I worked as a uni student at David Jones in Sydney
a few years ago - and for me there were no problems.
Perhaps I was too naive (or stupid), but no male
staffers made any lewd suggestions to me. On the
contrary, they were all lovely, including my boss -
who was very complimentary - but nothing offensive.

Sexual harassment in the workforce,
as I understand it is any form of
unwelcome sexual attention that is offensive,
humiliating, or intimidating that happens anywhere
you carry out any task for your employment.
And both males and females can be victims.

Luckily, I have experienced it only once in my life,
and that was as a trainee telephonist for a cab company -
when my boss tried unsuccessfully to make a grab for my
breasts.
I was just a student - and scared silly, but a young
taxi driver stepped in and drove me home. I never
returned to that job. I was too embarrassed to report
my boss. I don't know if the young driver did.

I've been fortunate in my employment since then, and
all of my bosses have been gentlemen.

I guess I've been lucky.

Foxy, I didn’t see Insight, but here’s my take on it…

As I understand it, Kristy Fraser-Kirk has been offered a large sum to just drop the action; a sum that is considerably larger than that usually won by legal action taken by people rendered invalid or unable to work as they previously could. She remains uninjured physically and not really significantly damaged mentally, and still fully able to work [From Radio National this morning].

Wouldn’t any sensible person in her position just take the settlement? If not, what is really her motive?

Runner posts an interesting link. From this article:

< Sgt Michael Magill was transferred from the Operational Information Agency to the highway patrol after Ms Fraser-Kirk allegedly claimed he had invaded her personal space, made comments about her handbag and clothes and sent her inappropriate text messages. >

Can’t trust the media to accurately report the circumstances, but if this is true as written, it is hardly any big deal is it, really?

I’ve had much worse impositions placed upon me in my workplace by more senior people who feel that they can act in a manner completely independent of our code of conduct.

Indeed, I worry that this sexual harassment thing is sometimes blown out of all proportion, resulting in essentially innocent red-blooded males being stung, while code of conduct infringements (and the code of conduct is supposed to be the rule book in the workplace) go completely unaddressed, no matter how vehement the complaints might be.

As Pelican says, the definition of sexual harassment is nebulous. This is very important. What it really means, or should mean in law, is that a person CANNOT be busted if they undertake any activities that are in the nebulous zone, and can only be found guilty if they have clearly and unambiguously infringed the rules, and then only in a manner that is genuinely detrimental to the person on the receiving end.

You’ve then got to consider whether there was any ill-intent or whether the alleged perpetrator was actually just flirting with a person that he found attractive, or behaving in what seemed to be a harmless playful manner or a manner that he thought would be complimentary to an attractive young woman.

Another thing to consider: did the alleged victim decisively tell the alleged perpetrator to stop all forms of alleged harassment shortly after they started or at some point after that or at all?

I’m not willing to see Kristy Fraser-Kirk as the victim here without a whole lot more detail, of the sort that us members of the public are not likely to get. It could just be that Mark McInnes is the real victim.

Ludwig, as I wrote earlier the barrister for Mr Mcinnes has stated "some of the conduct which is alleged is not contested". Do you understand what that statement from the barrister means? I would hope you do, but maybe not. Runner certainly doesn't.

Also the case involves SIXTEEN women, not just Kristy Fraser-Kirk.

Also she has stated the damages will go to CHARITY.

Other people have also come forward regarding alleged incidents involving Mr McInnes at a former place of employment. It's also alleged he was reprimanded about 10 times "concerning his inappropriate behaviour, language and approach towards women" while working for Black and Decker from 1989 to 1991.

Taking all this pertinent information into consideration it's a bit ripe for anyone to attack Kristy Fraser-Kirk. But that's our society - - - - some people get offended when women complain that they've been sexually harassed (apparently they're supposed to shut up and cop it). It's a bit like the old "rape" mentality that some people had especially in olden days gone by, when a woman who complained she was raped was often called a sl*t and treated as if SHE was the one who committed a crime.

I'm a man, but I'm ashamed to say that it's usually men who have a bad attitude towards women who have been sexually harassed and complain about it. You see, those women are supposed to take it as a joke and just shut up about it. Well boys, these days women have the right to speak out. And good on them!

As should be expected Runner has put forward the standard christian church attitude of its all the woman's fault, just like all those abused children are to blame for the church's problems runner.
Sexual harassment is not just a work place problem, This issue infiltrates all social areas and we have tried all sorts of things over the ages to resolve this problem like segregated schooling, no women in pubs, the burqa. In the end my experience is that it happens in both directions with the same attitude by the perpetrator that "they love it really".
Harassment is intolerable in the work place but how do we control it. Except in large cases where there are multipole complainants it comes down to a "he said, she said" and these are always harmfull and destructive creating undertoe in the work environment.
Some how this must come down to the way we bring our children up, they must understand the unacceptability of this type of behaviour.( Oh and runner i don't mean the double standard of the church.) As with all things of a social nature it seems to take a generation to effect change.

Jockey, welcome to OLO.

<< “some of the conduct which is alleged is not contested". Do you understand what that statement from the barrister means? >>

Does this mean that some conduct that falls in the nebulous area and which is essentially of little consequence and is actually more complimentary to the alleged victim than harmful, has been admitted to?

Or does it refer to some conduct that is clearly and unambiguously in violation of sexual harassment law?

I don’t know. Do you?

So.. no I don’t understand what that statement means

<< Also the case involves SIXTEEN women, not just Kristy Fraser-Kirk. >>

Now, isn’t this interesting!

I wonder how many of these women lodged their own complaints or even let Mr McInnes know in any way, or let anyone else know, that they were finding his behaviour inappropriate?

Again, if there was only behaviour towards these women that falls within the nebulous zone and nothing more serious, then Mr McInnes should NOT be convicted.

And if there was any behaviour of a more serious nature, then you would have expected complaints to have been made by the women involved, at the time, and for the matter to have been dealt with shortly after.

The very fact that other women are now coming out of the woodwork suggests strongly that any alleged harassment was not really of a serious nature.

continued

<< It's also alleged he was reprimanded about 10 times "concerning his inappropriate behaviour, language and approach towards women" while working for Black and Decker from 1989 to 1991. >>

So you would think that McInnes would have learnt from that and worked out what was likely to get him into trouble and what was essentially harmless fun.

After the Black and Decker experience, his actions would be most unlikely to fall within the unambiguous-bad-infringement-of-the-law category and almost certainly to be within the nebulous area, unless this guy is a real blockhead!

I don’t know what the situation is Jockey. I’m just expressing a view that we need to be very careful about things like this and not just automatically think the worst of the complainee and think that the complainants are purely victims that have been seriously abused.

I’m certainly all in favour of preventing sexual harassment of the sort that is damaging to anyone, female or male, in the workplace or anywhere else.

Maybe Mark McInnes IS a serial harasser with a bad sexual hangup. But maybe he is nothing of the sort and is just a bit more playful with young women than most men are. Or maybe the sort of things that he has done are just totally commonplace and part of the culture of big companies or of Australian life and that he has been singled out because he is a big knob or because one young woman has seen an opportunity for a sting, with fame and maybe fortune coming out of it.

Just a few points;

* IMO there is no personal injury worth $37 Million;

* The amount a person sues for, does make a statement about them;

* Curious how 6 others suddenly found the fortitude to "come forward" once $37M was mentioned. Apparently, justice alone was never a motivator for them previously.

The guy may be guilty as sin, I don't know. I just don't like the amount involved, and believe it to be obscene itself, or the way that 6 others suddenly jump onboard when it's that amount of money. It smells of some opportunism, which detracts from any sense of legitimacy. Like I said, the claim(s) might be legitimate, but I don't believe the amount of money is.

There has been commentary to the effect that the figure was to make a statement about the existence of SH and I believe the complainant is going to donate most of it to a worthy cause.

The reason women don't come forward when experiencing SH is fear and most importantly fear of not being believed as the comments on this thread so far would seem to substantiate.

Sure there is a big grey area on what constitutes SH but where does the onus lie? Should those who sexually harrass others not be responsible for their own behaviour and read the very obvious cues at times that clearly demonstrate their behaviour is not wanted nor is it appropriate in the workplace.

Most women I know have been SH at some time at work (to varying degrees) and usually choose to ignore it or they leave without making a complaint. It is very brave for a woman to come forward and face the doubting public who seem more predisposed to disbelieve. The same applies to whistleblowers and those who make IR complaints via a union or other government body.

Complainants are often made to feel like they are the one at fault and face the bully crowd mentality.

There are grey areas in SH but there are some pretty obvious NO-GO areas that any rational human being would know to be inappropriate.

The best thing people can use is their commonsense and most of us do, it is unfortunate that some bosses who hold all the power may feel they are exempt from the usual rules that apply to the rest of us.

We don't yet know the outcome of this case but it would be unwise to assume that SH does not exist in the workplace albeit it has reduced over the past 50 years thanks to changes in workplace law. The only way to reduce SH is for people to complain

@Pelican, what you say is all fair and reasonable. For me personally, I would believe them more if there wasn’t the national debt of Haiti involved. Slight exaggeration, but you get my point. I’m not implying there should be no penalty, but you have to admit, people will do anything to latch onto large sums of money. People have been known to kill for far less, so lying or exaggerating isn’t too much of a stretch, to win your share of Lotto, sorry, legal litigation. I’m told there’s a difference, but it’s subtle.

If there was a news item stating precisely the same event, and no money involved, like any other ordinary case, I would probably believe the accusation BECAUSE he is wealthy, for the person would be creating the impression of seeking justice only. Then if a judge awarded damages, I would be fine with that. But with $37M involved , and THEN 6 others came out of the woodwork….sorry, but I respect the seeking of justice, but not the seeking of financial reward, because this is reward, not damages.

I mean, point me to a rich woman, so I can accuse her of invading my space and sexually harassing me! For that amount of money, I could find 6 cohorts before you even finish reading this sentence! Do you see what I mean?

Drop the money out of the equation. If he’s found guilty, there will be financial costs and penalties, he’ll most likely lose his job, career and reputation, which also means further financial losses, how much more penalty must he pay for “harassment” in a workplace? We haven’t even got to lewd conduct or rape yet…what would the claim be then?!? And leave it to a judge to award damages within reasonable amounts, not lawyers picking fanciful figures out of the air to fund their retirement and excesses from their hefty percentage.

Finally, people cannot get awarded sufficient and appropriate funding for losing limbs and mobility from their jobs, let alone the medical costs incurred and loss of incomes, and some bimbo wants $37M for words?!?

Everyone has come up with fair and valid
points regarding this particular case,
and as Pelly pointed out - it can be looked
at from so many different angles. Eventually,
the jury will decide in this court case, and
by then, I imagine even more facts will be known.

I have to admit that I too was blown away initially
by the amount of money that's involved here.
Watching the "Insight" program however, lawyers did
warn that had she asked for a smaller amount the case
would not have received all this attention. So
perhaps we shouldn't be put off by the amount (which
is going to charity anyway), perhaps her motive was
to not have the issue swept under the rug - and force
Corporate Australia re-examine their sexual harassment
policies. She did by the way, report the instances to
her immediate boss at David Jones several times, as
did the other women involved - but nothing was done.

There are so many questions that need answers - but one
thing's for sure - the case has gotten our attention.
And hopefully something positive will be the result out
of it all. I don't think that realistically anyone
expects her to get a $37 million dollar settlement -
but as I said - it achieved what she wanted - it can't be
swept under the rug.

I have seen a number of young ladies, who were just being warm & friendly, to everyone in the work place, have this taken as an offer of much more than just friendliness.

However it does not take much knowledge of body language to see that the lady involved in this high profile case has a love affair with herself, & the camera. Perhaps she projected an offer that was not intended, or perhaps she had a boss who had trouble knowing where he wasn't welcome.

What ever the reason, I'm sure the lady has got what she wanted, lots of attention, & her face on TV.

I have seen a couple of cases where ladies attracted a lot of attention at work. One, a late 20s very slim, & attractive recently separated single mother. Over a few months her heals got higher, as her skirts got tighter & shorter. It brought to mind that Twiggy era ditty, ["If skirts get any shorter, said the fairy to the gnome, there'll be two more cheeks to powder, & a lot more hair to comb"].

I don't think she was being provocative, & she did have great legs, but I had to suggest we should see a little less of them. It was better that she could bend over without flashing.

Then there was the very buxom young lady who wore low cut, loose tops, with not much under them. She liked to lean forward & gauge the amount of a stir she was causing. It started to become a problem when a couple of the men started to imagine there was an invitation being made.

Have you ever noticed how effective the office ladies are at getting rid of someone they don't want in the place. This girl was given the bums rush, & was gone, as soon as the chance of a problem appeared.

We need to remember that the workplace is a prime sight for romance, & has fostered thousands of marriages. A friendly approach should not be made impossible with sexual harassment seen under every desk.

Sheesh, I can't believe that post from hasbeen.

Why do a minority of people have this need to blame the victim instead of the perpetrator, when it comes to sexual matters?

Apparently there's 16 women in the court action, not just 1.

I would think if there's 16 different people making the complaints that says something. Someone wrote that not all the charges will be contested. So there we have it, an admission by the defence that some of the charges are truthful.

Yet we STILL have people casting innuendo against a victim, in order to give credence to a perpetrator. I say again, some of the charges will not be contested.

Dear Hasbeen,

Interesting post.

In fact, this view of yours is quite prevalent in the workplace,
where the sexual harassment of women is a common and very
serious problem. In the office or factory, as elsewhere
in society, men have a virtual monopoly of power and
influence. Frequently they take advantage of this superior
status to indulge in uninvited and unwanted sexual advances,
ranging from ogling, leering, squeezing, pinching,
bottom-patting, texting, and the like to outright
propositions accompanied by the implied or explicit
threat of dismissal.

The norms for this kind of interaction require
comparatively little self-control by the men;
instead, it is the women who are expected to manage the
situation. As you point out, after all, "it's the way they
dress," "They're asking for it?"

Many men, it seems,are convinced that any normal woman will
be flattered by sexual attention in any form: women on the
other hand for their part, have been socialized to receive
these advances as gracefully as possible, regardless of their
private response.

The myth has it that they enjoy the attention, that they
find it easy to deal with, and that the behaviour is
trivial in any case.

But, surveys show the reverse to be true; almost unanimously,
women declare that sexual advances in the workplace make them
feel powerless, trapped, defeated, intimidated, or demeaned.

This reaction is understandable, for these norms of
sexual harassment have a wider social significance.

In all cases, the male's message is the same:
Your responsibility is to satisy me, you are not my equal,
don't compete, your real value is your body.

Well, sexual harassment in the workplace is now illegal,
and since corporate and other employer's may be now held
responsible for their employees' conduct - may
well be curtailed in the future. The outcome
of Kristy Fraser-Kirk's
court case will be interesting.
Watched closely by corporate Australia.

@Foxy, wow! You buy lawyer BS easily. How does her plight make any other person’s plight less important? The price tag gets the attention for the LAWYERS from prospective clients, who will no doubt have a similar case and similar expectancy of financial outcome.

Everyone knows SH exists but shouldn’t., so what makes her case so special? How many calls do you think they’ve received now from prospective clients, since making this claim public with such an obscene amount? The lawyers have their own careers, reputations and bank accounts to feed from this case, they don’t care about her plight they care about the percentage and free publicity. They saw a big name with money behind it, and that’s what they care about, not sexual harassment in the workforce. Sheesh! They just want facts tey can use and the law books for precedents. They are detached and driven by income potential, all in the name of the client, but motivated by the percentage stake in that client. They’re not a lot of Erin Brokovich’s, though they’d like us to think that.

Dear MC,

I actually wasn't buying into the "lawyer
BS," as you put it - but the various opinions
that were being expressed on the "Insight" program.
Which to me made sense. They came from a wide spectrum
of the community, and included both men and women.
However, I'm sure that she's got excellent legal advice,
as she should in a court case. She had no other
alternative if she's going to go up against a
corporate giant as David Jones - who would be
lawyered up to the hilt as would Mark McInnes.
So, I don't see your point. Lawyers do make money -
we all know that - but you try to go to court without
one - not a very wise move.

As for BS - well as I learned early in life -
we all know what BS is. An MS - is more of the same.
And a PHD - is piled higher and deeper - but some
jobs require those qualifications, otherwise you
don't get a look in.

Transki, it will be a very long day before that little lady is a victim. I have no opinion of the gentleman, but on the surface it does appear as if he is a through slob.

Foxy I have not seen any of the harassment you talk of. Perhaps this is because I only ran smaller, [30/40 staff] companies in the last 30 years. Perhaps it was my brilliant management, or perhaps size does matter when it comes to these things. When I was younger, in large industries, I probably wouldn't have seen anything, if it hit me over the head.

I was involved with a number of resorts, with staff into the hundreds, & there you saw a great deal of sexual activity, among equals, & up & down the hierarchical scale, but there it was as much the management lady & the hansom young bloke as anything else. In fact, most of the male managers had wives on sight, which probably cramped their style, if harassment was on their minds.

There was also a great deal of activity between the staff & the guests, but I don't suppose that ranks as harassment. One Island manager was a regular lover boy, but only with guests from what I saw. I had to admire his stamina.

It would also be naive to forget that the story of the lady working her way to the top, by lying on her back, be that on the casting couch, or in the office. I am sure that some, who have chosen this path, have been inclined to cry foul, if the results were not as expected. Would this situation be considered harassment?

Dear Hasbeen,

Let's get things clear - what we're talking
about is sexual harassment in the workplace.
That is any form of unwelcome sexual attention
that is found to be offensive, humiliating,
or intimidating that occurs anywhere you carry
out any task for your employment. We're not
talking about consensual sex between adults
here.

If you've not seen any of it in your places of
work, than consider yourself fortunate. Because
this sort of harassment can be devastating for
the victim, involving both physical and emotional
damage and the disruption of personal, social,
familial and sexual life. If the victim reports
the harassment, it often is not taken seriously
or worse, many lawyers try to shift the burden
of guilt from the accused to the victim. They may
try to show that the woman is "loose," implying
that if she has consented to any man before, she
must have been willing on this occasion also.
Or, utilizing the myth that women somehow enjoy
being sexually harassed, they may claim that the
victim consciously or subconsciously encouraged
the sexual harassment. They may even argue that
she was provocatively dressed and was therefore
at fault - another prime example of the way in which
responsibility for the control of male advances is
shifted to the female.

Such a line of defence is unique to sexual harassment
a well-dressed man stepping from an expensive limo
would never be accused of thereby tempting someone
to mug him.

Even this aspect of the act and its aftermath can be fully
understood only in terms of overall patterns of sexual
interaction in the society.

Anyway, do a bit of research, google, "Sexual harassment
in the workplace," and see what websites come up.
It may just be an eye-opener.

FOXY good post thank you, i agree.

Hasbeen, With the attitude you display i am not surprised you have never seen sexual harassment, you would have been the manager at the bar betting $20 that he won't get the girl. Your position is so typical of men from past generations who seem to think women are a play toy and they just love your attention.
It might be a surprise to you but sexual harassment is often unnoticed and mostly unreported for the same reasons many people don't proceed with child sexual assault cases. The trauma is enormous and the system will try anything to discredit the victim. It is a weak system with weak people running it.
Good luck to this girl. If the evidence is there, she wins not just for herself but for what is looking more and more like a trail of destruction left by this man. Funny that no one else saw what was happening, must have all been alright hey hasbeen, just like old times.

I would have to stick with the boys here and you know dam well, a female will use their rack to claim what ever their hearts willing and their attractiveness as human nature will give, and both sides know what and how, their doings for what ever reasons.

A male, as the female knows, will pay, not only for employment and fun, but the natural step for that run on the ladder, so foxy! stop bullsh@ting all that you think is true, in the world of the human-beings.

Males will be males, and you know it.

Its know wonder why some men cover their females.

TT

The reason women don't come forward when experiencing SH is fear and most importantly fear of not being believed as the comments on this thread so far would seem to substantiate.

Sure there is a big grey area on what constitutes SH but where does the onus lie? Should those who sexually harrass others not be responsible for their own behaviour and read the very obvious cues at times that clearly demonstrate their behaviour is not wanted nor is it appropriate in the workplace.

Most women I know have been SH at some time at work (to varying degrees) and usually choose to ignore it or they leave without making a complaint. It is very brave for a woman to come forward and face the doubting public who seem more predisposed to disbelieve. The same applies to whistleblowers and those who make IR complaints via a union or other government body.

Complainants are often made to feel like they are the one at fault and face the bully crowd mentality. 'Pelican'

Spot on Pelican.

Kindest wishes.

My post earlier was not considered by some as sexual harassment.
It very much was and is.
The young lady,her male work mates, patrol a park, property of the people of this state.
It is an every day event to find sexual activity's taking place in daylight and in public.
She is a wreck, years of reporting only to be warned she is homophobic and threated with transfer has her in real trouble.
In fact she is much more a victim than some one who has had a hand placed on their knee.
My view is those in charge, those taking the reports and not acting, are as guilty as the offender, in fact more so.
We have a culture of saying get over it, that must change but those who wrongly charge others must be dealt with too.

Foxy, in my view every single hurdle that is placed in front of employers results in a possible change to their running of a business.

Now the easiest way to avoid sexual harrasment in the workplace is to stop employing women.

Also, there are some women who play the game when it suits, then change their stance if and when they are having a bad day.

Now I am not suggesting that what happens is right, however, often the easiest option is to aviod the situation.

The old 'Prevention is better than cure'.

Belly, I’m not sure why this woman would be a wreck from seeing a couple of poofs going at it in the shrubbery!

I mean, this was completely non-threatening to her and she evidently knew exactly what was going on in this area and what she might see occasionally.

She is more likely to be deeply affected by the lack of action from her reports of these incidents, rather than from seeing sexual activity. So I can’t see that this example has much to do with sexual harassment.

I know of many people, including myself to an enormous extent, who have become very disillusioned with poor management and lack of results from one’s enthusiastic efforts to do the right thing and the engendering of a bad reputation for your efforts.

I used to be a national parks resource ranger for many years.

BTW the way, I use the term ‘poofs’ in a colourful manner. I have no problem with homosexuality per se.

<< BTW the way >> ??

Oh phoowey! |>(

Thank you WAU.

Some of the language being used in some posts "this little lady" really highlights the existing prejudice against women who make these sorts of claims.

I really do hope that some of you provide support to your daughters, wives, mothers or sisters should they come to you having experienced this sort of unpleasant harassment in the workplace.

So what are we to do? For the doubting thomases, how do you police SH issues in the workplace?

I get the impression that most of you think women just make this stuff up or exaggerate the impact. The natural consequence of this is that perpetrators and would-be perpetrators now have a free pass.

The workplace is where productivity takes place it should be a safe place for men and women (men get SH too) free from groping hands or continual sexual text messages from one's boss (or whatever the case might be).

We are getting too hung up on the money so that the wood cannot be seen for the trees, particularly as the money was to highlight the problem and most of it will be donated to charity.

It is a stark juxtaposition that in defending some behaviour by men previously on OLO using the 'male biology' defence suddenly disappears when it comes to accusations of SH. Suddenly that 'biology' is nowhere to be seen.

PS: BTW I don't buy into the male biology argument as I think men are more than capable of using their commonsense, sense of fair play and knowing right from wrong.

But it is interesting that the advocates of men being at the mercy of their biology are strangely silent when it comes to issues of SH.

what about the victims who suffered all the abuse in the children institutional children homes that the goverment of australia still cover up about

where and why have we victims not been given any justice , just a sorry from a former prime minister kevin rudd , we victims were subject to so much sexual harrassment and that of rape and abuse , yet no one seems to care about us forgotten australians , what a weak and slack goverment australia has not to care about us victims

huffnpuff, most Australians care strongly about the Forgotten Australians and the former PM Kevin Rudd made an apology to that effect. The horrors that were dished out to innocent children should not be forgotten and not only to provide support to those victims but to ensure that the events are never repeated.

A quote from a SMH article: "If successful she will donate the money to a charity that helps victims of sexual harassment and bullying, the statement of claim said."

thanks for that pelican , yes i read that a few weeks back that , that is what she intends to do ,

so how is your reaction to the Aslyum Seekers been given a hundred thousand dollars each in the last 2 years and we victims are getting nothing from the goverment i will place the article here so you can read it it is on yahoo news on saturday.

Yahoo7 NEWS

Official figures obtained by News Ltd reveal that more than 50 immigration detainees have pocketed an average of $100,000 each over the past two years.

News Ltd says the federal government has refused to detail the reasons for the... multi-million-dollar payouts to detainees, saying only they were related to wrongful detention or injuries suffered in detention.

A Department of Immigration spokesman said compensation payouts and disease outbreaks are "inevitable" given the large number of asylum-seekers in detention.

"This is a department that deals with 26 million interactions with human beings every year - border crossings, visas, compliance," spokesman Sandi Logan said.

"It's the law of averages - some may well choose to litigate against us or, in some rare cases, we may be at fault and have to pay out under Comcare and Comcover."

' Should those who sexually harrass others not be responsible for their own behaviour and read the very obvious cues at times that clearly demonstrate their behaviour is not wanted nor is it appropriate in the workplace.'

The problem is what is 'obvious' to some is not to others.

The definition of being sexually harassed often relies on how attracted the 'harassed' is to their 'harasser'. When so many people meet their partners at work, and people spend the majority of their time there, it really is unrealistic to expect there wont be unwelcome advances and socially awkward/naive propositions. Given all this, are we expecting men to be socially superior to women, or maybe criminalising socially inept men?

What is the 'line' of what is genuine harassment vs what is a situation most assertive and responsible adults should be expected to navigate?

In a world where men are still often expected to make the first move, even to 'chase', I feel it's sometimes a bit unreasonable to expect men to be perfect and expect no woman should be ever expected to give an assertive and unambiguous No (Maybe even more than once, though definitely not more than twice).

Men are expected to 'read the signals', but women are never expected to make their response assertive and unambiguous. Men are judged on the quality and appropriateness of their advance, but women are not judged on the assertiveness or clarity of their response. 'I feel harassed, so you are guilty of harassment.' seems to me a bit one sided. It assumes and allows all women to be passive little scared rabbits incapable of rejecting or dealing with socially awkward and inept men.

The men in this social ritual, when they make mistakes, are assumed bully, aggressor and given full responsibility for the flirting rituals, and for the feelings of women who may feel harassed. When they get it wrong, they are punished.

If a woman gets her rejection wrong, she is not held responsible. She is definitely not responsible for the feelings of the man:-)

Dear Houellie,

We're not talking about socially inept men here.
Or office romances between single adults. We're talking
about men who use their positions of power (bosses),
to make unwanted sexual advances on their staff.
Most women are
capable of dealing with these situations - and most
men will back off when told to do so. However, its
the ones that don't take "No!" for an answer that are
the problem. And their "feelings" for behaving wrongly
are not the issue when sexual harassment charges are
laid against them. Passing the buck onto the victim
simply doesn't wash. And we need to be clear on that.

If only it were so simple Foxy.

I'm sure in this case a boss was abusing his power. How many more other cases is it just misread signals and clumsy propositions.

Are you saying that any boss must therefore not be allowed to ask a woman out, because he's a boss? Too bad if you're the head honcho, your pool of women is zero. No fraternising at work is a terrible reward for reaching the top.

It's a bit hard to regulate workplace romance must be between people on exactly the same level. My friend married his secretary. They've shagged in the office before too.

Maybe this is the new dating ritual at work. The person in the junior position must make all the advances. Pity the world doesn't work like that. Can you imagine a woman drunk on the sex appeal of a powerful man wanting to be the one to offer him back rubs.

Even if she does, if he turns around and gives her one, in Foxy's world he's the boss, the power relationship is thus that at any time he can lose his career.

You just cant expect no hanky panky to ever go on at work. Where are people supposed to meet someone in the current 60 hour a week or you're just not trying environment.

'We're not talking about socially inept men here.'
I think that's exactly what we're talking about.

Blaming The victim:
Translation: Giving women responsibility for their feelings and their part in social interaction.

I'd like to see a new law. If a guy asks a woman out at work, and she isn't very nice in rejecting him, or tells her female work mates and laughs, she is then guilty of sexual harassment. Further, if a woman tries to let a guy down too gently, and doesn't adequately get her message across, she is guilty of teasing and sexual harassment. Or, if a female boss wears clothing that makes her junior uncomfortable, that's sexual harassment.

Lets see responsibility for the mating rituals at work go both ways.

Many people do meet at work Houlley and there is to be expected some natural flirtation between two people who are mutually attracted. Some may even become committed couples. There are grey areas, but I am not talking about those - I can see there is room for movement and perhaps intervention from a supervisor should a person not read the cues.

Women are also in a no-win situation at times. While we may want to let a man down kindly to not cause offence or hurt his feelings, there may at times be a too tentative rejection. That is also human. We are either P*ck teasers or a cold heartless b*tch as well.

There are problems on both sides. I reckon anyone with half a brain though knows where the line is drawn and if unsure opt for leaving sex for out of workplace opportunities.

While I don't always agree with the American Dr Phil he once said to a man who was know for his inappropriate behaviour at work (and to the chagrin of his wife) would you do 'X' if your wife was in the room. He replied a firm NO. Dr Phil then said well that is your marker for appropriate behaviour (or words to that effect).

It really is pretty simple, but I can understand the grey areas but I think most reasonable people can easily navigate them.

huffnpuff
I agree that the money given to asylum seekers for injury in detention is gross mismanagement and when compared to yours and others experience, quite inconceivable.

'We are either P*ck teasers or a cold heartless b*tch as well.'

But there's no laws criminalising being a prick tease or heatless bitch. There are only laws against being a lech.

My point is the criminalising of men getting it wrong. If a man just so much as 'feels' a woman is cold to him, it doesn't make her a bitch according to the law. But, if a woman 'feels' harassed, she is harassed, and the man is breaking the law.

Cant you understand the broader point I am making about the regulation of mens behaviour by law for the purpose of saving women's feelings that only goes one way?

There is no responsibility for women to ever regulate their behaviour. There is a woman at work who wears see through linen dresses with black lingerie. SO see through you can see all her tatoos. If a guy said that made him feel uncomfortable, she wouldn't be facing the sack or a law suit no matter whether she was his superior or not. The law discriminates against the historical dating etiquette of men making the first move and women sending signals. It's a game stacked against the men in the workplace.

You no doubt think it's stacked against the women based on this power differential. But the only way to eradicate it is for the women to BE assertive, to say NO, loudly, to take responsibility for teasing and being a bitch as men have to for being a lech. Otherwise we are enshrining in law the passivity of women, and sentencing them to be victims under paternalistic protection.

Hmmm, well men have been harassing women over sex since time began.
It is a case of balance, and it can be difficult to read the signals.

It can be a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.
It does seem in this politically correct era that some women are over
sensitive. Perhaps they should get some advice from their grandmothers.

As have women been harassing men...

http://flimmr.passagen.se/movie/beavis_and_butthead_sexual_harassment.action

Houellebecq, you are factually wrong!

You wrote "But, if a woman 'feels' harassed, she is harassed, and the man is breaking the law".

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Under law, she is ONLY harassed if she IS harassed.

If a person 'feels' robbed, but isn't, then nobody has broken any law. If a person 'feels' they were shot, but weren't, then nobody has broken any law. If a person 'feels' a taxi arrived late, but it didn't, then the taxi driver did no wrong as he arrived on time.

Therefore, your claim that "if a woman 'feels' harassed, she is harassed, and the man is breaking the law" is pure SPIN SPIN SPIN. Nice 'agenda' there Houelly. Chuckle, chuckle!

Dear Houellie,

I think that most people know what's appropriate
behaviour at work, and what isn't, and where to
draw the line. What is being discussed here is
the behaviour of those people who are
indulging in uninvited and unwanted sexual advances,
ranging from bottom-patting, squeezing, pinching,
inappropriate attempts at touching, to outright
propositions accompanied by the implied or
explicit threat of dismissal.
This kind of harassment is a common and serious
problem for some at work.

Yet, you're suggesting, as I understand it, that
this kind of interaction requires comparatively
little self-control by the men, instead, it is
the women who are expected to manage the situation,
even though they did not instigate it.

Women have said "NO!" emphatically, they've complained
to Department Heads, and sexual harassment in the
workplace is now illegal - and since corporate and
other employers may now be held responsible for their
employees' conduct - may well be curtailed in the
future. That appears to be what the Fraser-Kirk
case is trying to achieve - with David Jones.

What is the matter with outright propositioning, You are allowed to ask.
The thing to do is to take the reply as yes or no and nothing in between. Maybe such answers could be worn around your neck, on a lanyard, then again positioning could be a problem.
How can so many women be wrong, this bloke has surely got a problem, playing with himself in front of woman without asking. Didn't he ever learn that was to be done in privacy.
If 15 or so people come forward, there will be another 500 oe more who won't. I hope this bloke gets what he deserves and the DJ company have to pay the full 35 mill. Maybe it will clean the system up, and women can have a job without being harassed for sexual favours with out permission.

Foxy,

'What is being discussed here is
the behaviour of those people who are
indulging in uninvited and unwanted sexual advances,
ranging from bottom-patting, squeezing, pinching,
inappropriate attempts at touching, to outright
propositions accompanied by the implied or
explicit threat of dismissal.'

That's what you're discussing. I'm discussing the general prevalence of sexual harassment including the whole range of situations that bring about complaints, not just the obvious cases.

If it were just the obvious cases, nobody would object to people filing law suits for groping.

I think the 'implied' threat of dismissal isn't often implied, it is read by the woman that way. ie I feel threatened because you are a superior. Then it is turned into law because any 'boss', who asks a woman out, is now taken as threatening such. This is the kind of thing I'm arguing about.

Notice also the laws are there only to protect women. The historical dating rituals are for women to look nice and for men to ask them out. We have laws for 'bosses', but only male bosses.

There is no corresponding law for female bosses participating in a historically female flirting activity. If we are to regulate male and female behaviour the same when either has a senior position, then we have to very strictly regulate female bosses clothing. It's only fair.

If I'm a young intern, and I walk into my female CEO's office, and she plays with her hair and laughs at my jokes, she should be convicted of sexual harassment. As with a male boss, the only possible explanation is she is abusing her power whilst participating in flirting. The implied threat that if I don't ask her out I'll be sacked is obvious, just as it is when a male boss does it.

The Insight program was arguably one of the worst ever presented. Dull as ditch water. For Jenny Brockie, finding a 'controversial' opinion was like extracting molars and she soon gave up on that.

The audience appeared a monoculture with only one little old lady to put a foot wrong. A waste of the heavy hitters, but they demolished her just the same. Later, they were desperate enough to pick her bones. It seemed to be a show conceived especially for the Sex Discrimination Commissioner et al to have free kicks, but it was damned boring with only one team on the field.

The ABC was lauded for its superior work culture, free of sexual harassment. Nods of agreement were apparent. Jolly good, that killed some minutes in a room where all moved as one. There were exchanges of significant looks, no enemies or doubters there. -Apart from that little old lady, a relic from a previous age where women, like their pet Labrador bitches, knew to either growl or sit down to reject an unwelcome advance.

Perhaps in the haste to capitalise on the David Jones case, the ABC was unable through time restraints to get business along to comment. In passing it was mentioned that 'management' could be responsible for the acts of its staff off-site and at social functions that could be construed as being having the support of 'management', even if that 'support' was unwitting. However no-one thought any of that questionable or unreasonable at all. Similarly, grey areas were fine, apparently. Extension of the same conditions to minors? Yes, no problems there.

Then again, maybe most people are aware there are trip wires and land mines and like business have resolved to 'up' their risk management and tread very cautiously. In murky waters proactivity is the key - risk management that reduces the likelihood of problems arising in the first place. If that means taking extra care with recruitment and preferring casual and temporary employment, or dispensing with social functions so be it.

Houelly, I just LOVE your last post. HA HA HA. You really are a relic from the Victorian era. It's truly hilarious to read your posts. I don't think it's possible to get more old fashioned than our Houelly.

Dear Cornflower,

There's something that you should be aware of -
"Insight" is an SBS program - not the ABC (my typo).
And if you found the program dull - well then
fair enough. It's all subjective isn't it?
I actually respect Jenny Brockie very much - and
find her extremely insightful (sorry) in both the topics
she brings to air - and the questions she asks of
the audience. But as I said, it is subjective.
To each his/her own.

Dear Houellie,

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. You're
talking about behaviour that probably would not qualify as
"sexual harassment." So I don't quite frankly see the
point that you're trying to make on this thread.
Unless of course you see the real problem of
sexual harassment as being behaviour that you consider
trivial in any case. Surveys have found the reverse to
be true. Almost unanimously people declare that
sexual advances in the workplace make them feel
powerless, trapped, defeated, intimated, or demeaned.
As one woman on the "Insight" program told the audience,
her boss kept insisting that she perform oral sex on him,
and she kept refusing, but she feared for her job.
She was a single parent, the salary was a good one,
and she needed the job. She was unsure how long she
could keep rejecting her boss, and still keep her job.
No one should have to work in a situation like that.

Jockey,

I'm happy to entertain. As always. I think you make the mistake of taking my posts as a reflection of my values but really I just look for an argument,. Besides I use the word historical to specifically denote this comes from the past, as in old fashioned, and is not necessarily the case now. You read 'The historical dating rituals are for women to look nice and for men to ask them out.', and take out the word historical and get a laugh. So be it.

Foxy,

'Almost unanimously people declare that
sexual advances in the workplace make them feel
powerless, trapped, defeated, intimated, or demeaned.'

See, if someone feels like that because of a simple invitation to dinner, who really has the problem?

'but she feared for her job.'
But until the job is specifically threatened, we are basing a law on someone's imagination. I bet the guy was joking. I really think it's far fetched. If a woman boss asked me to go down on her I would think she was joking. If a male boss asked me to do the same I'd know he was joking.

I don't think you can reasonably interpret that as a serious request.

Foxy,

Mea culpa, SBS indeed, but still publicly funded and yes, the ABC was lauded as stated.

However there are serious issues I have raised and others might wish to address them.

Houellebecq,

If you had watched Insight on SBS at all closely you would realise that you need to be trained. Everyone does, including school children when the legislation is changed as promised (well, Labor and the Greens rule, so they should make it happen).

Business should be quivering at the threat of mega claims.

Yay, a whole industry is renewed!

Now do you get it or not?

Dear Houellie,

I'm beginning to finally get it.
You're again, simply stirring.

Because, you're fully aware that sexual
harassment is not sexual interaction,
flirtation, attraction, or friendship which
is invited, mutual, consensual or reciprocated.
Sexual harassment has nothing to do with
mutual attraction of consensual behaviour.

And, you are also aware that a person who sexually
harasses someone else is responsible for their
behaviour.

Anyway, Thanks for your inputs - as always
they are appreciated.

OK, under the supposed sexual harassment laws, and your idea of sexual harassment, I have been sexually harassed.

When I was doing school sponsored work experience, I got a job in a financial services office full of 40yo accounts clerks. They spent the whole time teasing me about my ass being cute, and the whole time making sexual comments. I was a shy 15 year old, the only male, and I felt intimidated.

But, really, it is up to me in that situation to get over it. All part of learning to get along with the opposite gender, and no doubt those women meant no harm. The only harm really done was spending a week with a crimson face and being self conscious about how I dressed with my wonderfully pert ass.

I don't think we should have harassment laws that assume any workplace banter includes such a power imbalance. Once women and men are adult, we have to base laws on explicit threats not the imagination of threats. We should all be open minded enough to handle some sexual banter in an office without feeling threatened and making it other peoples problem. Nobody can intimidate you (without violence) unless you give them permission.

cont'd ...

Dear Houellie,

When a boss unzips his trousers and asks
for oral sex from you - in the privacy of his office,
you might think he's joking - but most
people's reactions would be different to
yours. Or when he puts his hands on your
breasts and nuzzles the back of your neck -
telling you explicitly what he'd like
to do to you - it's rather difficult to
laugh it off, especially if you're a
young person without much experience in
dealing with these sort of situations.

Ludwig yes she is a parks worker.
But she works in an area, there are many of them, that even gets web pages as a gay beat.
By the way this beach is very close to homes and thousands of kids.
What to say to rangers is just part of this web page .
Not once but tens of times she and her workmates have seen this openly.
Every time they complain they are threatened with transfer.
Every complaint to police, hard pressed honest blokes, they are restrained by claims they too are homophobic.
More importantly to me Foxys true description of some work places no joke we need constant improvement in this area.
Such men are not in my view men but idiots.

Foxy

"Surveys have found the reverse to
be true. Almost unanimously people declare that
sexual advances in the workplace make them feel
powerless, trapped, defeated, intimated, or demeaned."

So any sexual advance is unacceptable? If this isn't what you believe, clearly articulate the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

Pelican

"Should those who sexually harrass others not be responsible for their own behaviour and read the very obvious cues at times that clearly demonstrate their behaviour is not wanted nor is it appropriate in the workplace."

So what do you believe is the clear distinction between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour? Is it just a matter of reading "cues" that behaviour is "not wanted"?

As is so often the case, what women claim they want is for men to be more like them. It's funny how that claim goes out the window when it comes time to choose a sexual partner. Then the whinges start...

On the subject of Ms Fraser-Golddigger, I checked the curent rates of workcover payments for permanent impairment, such as loss of a limb and it seems that is worth $200,000, with that amount reduced if the impairment is not total - for example just a couple of fingers instead of a whole arm.

I would be willing to bet that 99.9% of all claims for such injuries have been made by men, given that men are inevitably the ones doing the hard, dangerous, dirty jobs, while women like Ms Fashion-Victim sit in airconditioned comfort wondering why the boss hasn't been propositioning her lately.

Which limb has Ms Fraser-Coquette lost? What permanent impairment has she suffered? Pay her wages out and tell her to find another job. Perhaps next time she'll simply get on with her work instead of trying to make a name for herself?

On the subject of sexual harassment generally, I can see how persistent unwanted advances could intimidate someone in a very junior position, especially in a private firm, where there may be no one to complain to. On the other hand, there are many examples of successful marriages that have started as workplace chat-ups. My mother was my Dad's secretary, for example; I have had a couple of relationships with women I worked with; my ex has had 2 such relationships since we split. My mum's standard line when talking about her relationship with Dad was "I chased him till he caught me", which I suspect is very accurate for many such situations.

If the advance is unwanted, make it clear - don't play the flirt in the hope of getting an advantage and then pretend it was all his fault. Grow up.

Do men with small bank accounts ever get sued for sexual harassment ?

So women who are sexually harassed are responsible for the harassment. And by Antiseptic's view of the world all women are flirts anyway who deserve what they get. It seems we cannot generalise about male behaviour but it is okay to generalise about women.

I have worked in the public sector and the private sector and only encountered real flirts a handful of times. Most women and men worked professionally together with no incident, but the incidents I am aware of did not involve a flirtatious women who by your view of the world is "asking for it'.

I hate to break it to the men on OLO but sometimes even when a women makes it very clear to a man his advances are not wanted they are ignored.

Bottom line is every man and woman has a right to go to work without being SH on a daily basis or asked to have sex and face potential consequences if he/she does not concede.

I once recruited a young woman who had left her previous job in a rural motel because her boss had an expectation that she would eventually provide sex to the local truckers as part of her role (with a small cut of course). She was visibily upset re-telling of this experience and left straight after without any references. I advised her to leave that job well off her CV - better to explain a short break in work than to go through the explanation of why she left. Further investigation revealed the claims to be true.

No-one should have to put up with that. How would you feel if your wife was to experience constant and unwelcome approaches by a male co-worker especially her boss where he has a power advantage. Would you just say ignore it dear and get on with your work.

It seems that we have to now have SH lectures in the workplace so corporations can 'prove' their obligations in this regard. One might ask why has it come to that - the answer is we let it get to that point.

The argument that women want men to be like them is a furphy. Women and men are different but at work they are equals and should behave to the highest standard of behaviour not the lowest. It is not about wanting men to be 'like' women. Surely your opinion of men is higher than that.

Most men don't sexually harass their co-workers, so I don't really know what the problem is with some posters always defending the minority of men's rights to be barbarians even in the workplace.

Pelican:"So women who are sexually harassed are responsible for the harassment. "

If you say so - I didn't...

I simply pointed out that women are well able to make their views known without having to be able to claim umpty millions in "injury" compensation. The whole thing is overblown and ridiculous. By all means tell someone if the manager is coming on to you and won't take no for an answer, but it's hardly in the same class of injury as an amputation or paraplegia, is it?

I also pointed out that some women seem well-satisfied with having work colleagues become bed colleagues and sometimes even more. As someone else pointed out, the "harassment" claims only come if she doesn't like him. He may well engage in the same behaviour with someone else and all concerned would be thrilled to bits.

Pelican:"It seems we cannot generalise about male behaviour but it is okay to generalise about women."

Oh dear - "Poor me, I'm a victim". I'm not generalising at all, I'm pointing out that some women don't share your view in all cases.

The behaviour of the boss in the motel example is criminal in several ways, the least of which is sexual harasment.

Dear benk,

You ask me to articulate what constitutes
sexual harassment. I thought I'd already
done that, but here goes once again.
And by the way this is not my definition -
its according to the law as it currently
stands in Australia.

Sexual harassment is any unwanted or
unwelcome sexual behaviour in the workplace
...it has nothing
to do with mutual attraction or
consensual behaviour. Sexual harassment is not
sexual interaction, flirtation, attraction or
friendship, which is invited, mutual, consensual
or reciprocated.

Also according to the law - a person who sexually
harasses someone else in the workplace is
responsible for their behaviour.

To make things even clearer the list for what's
considered as sexual harassment covers things
like:

1) Unwelcome touching.
2) Requests for sex.
3) Sending sexually explicit emails or text messages.
4) Indecent exposure.
5) sexual assault.
6) Insults or taunts of a sexual nature.
7) Intrusive questions about somebody's body.
8) Unnecessary familiarity - such as deliberately
brushing up against someone.

And so on.

Both males and females can be victims of sexual harassment.

I hope that clarifys things for you.

Dear Antiseptic,

No one seriously expects Kristy Fraser-Kirk to receive
$37 million from David Jones. However, the amount of
money is not the issue here. Had she asked for anything
less - her case may not have made it to Court. The truth
hopefully will come out in the court-case which is
scheduled to be heard at the end of this month. More women
are making claims against David Jones and its former
Chief Executive Mark McInnes. Sexual harassment should
not be trivialised. We should be concerned about morality
and community standards - and everyone should feel safe in
their place of work and not be forced to put up with
offensive, humiliating or intimidating behviour - males
and females equally. The fact that laws now exist
regarding this matter indicates that this is a serious
problem in the workplace.

Foxy

Thank-you for having the courage to articulate the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

To clarify further, you listed a range of unacceptable behaviour, some of which (1,2,3,4,7 &8) may not be judged negatively in all situations. If rules are going to work, they need to be clear and unambiguous. You also said;

"Sexual harassment is any unwanted or
unwelcome sexual behaviour in the workplace
...it has nothing
to do with mutual attraction"

Is "unwanted" the key word in that phrase?

If so, how can one know which actions are unwanted, before one does them?

Some women disguise their true feelings about this behaviour, for a variety of reasons. Is it relevant whether or not the harasser was given cues about whether or not the other person enjoyed the attention? told to stop?

I dislike the Mark McGuinesses of this world as much as you. Lets make the rules very clear and workable and stop these pricks.

Dear benk,

Yes, "unwanted" is the key.
And I think that if people tell the harasser
to stop their behaviour, and that they're
not interested - is should be enough.
Most people know deep down which line is not
to be crossed - it's only a small minority
that doesn't. That's why workplaces nowadays
are looking into having policies that clearly
set out the guide- lines for what's inappropriate
behaviour in the workplace. Educating and training
the staff also goes a long way towards trying to get rid
of this problem.

There's nothing in that list about sniffing chairs.

Also, what about inappropriate dress? Why aren't plunging necklines and tea towels worn as skirts considered sexual harassment?

3) Sending sexually explicit emails or text messages.
6) Insults or taunts of a sexual nature.

Man, There's so many women I know guilty of sexual harassment it's not funny.

*Also, what about inappropriate dress? Why aren't plunging necklines and tea towels worn as skirts considered sexual harassment?*

4) Indecent exposure.

It is up to the employee to ask their colleague or senior to dress appropriately, or the boss to establish the dress code. The breech in the request is considered to be a form of sexual harassment.
Unfortunately for some people, the simplest notion of appropriate behavior needs to be spelled out and drawn diagrammatically in crayon.

pelican, "I have worked in the public sector and the private sector and only encountered real flirts a handful of times."

How would you define a 'real flirt'? Is this 'real' flirting?

http://www.ehow.com/how_2314551_flirt-manager.html

This is what Eric Berne had to say about flirting,

http://www.ericberne.com/games/games_people_play_rapo.htm

Flirting at work is not professional behaviour. It is tolerated to an extent at junior levels, but that is not saying it is encouraged. It is widespread and a common complaint of women regarding their women colleagues in particular, but men also complain and not only when an unexpected complaint is made about them.

When it comes down to the wire, why should a company be expected to pay compensation and damages for behaviour that is not approved? Why should I have to provide special instructions to say that I do not approve of sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace when there is already a statement warning employees not to bring the business into disrepute through their behaviour?

Employees have the same access to public information and laws as I do and probably better in some cases. It is ridiculously unfair that I could be obliged to provide specific directions in these cases and special training.

My response and that of many business people is to:

first, be proactive in reducing possible risks; and

secondly, comply with the requirements of government in this area (instructions, training, monitoring), but it is resented as an area where I am forced to be my brother's (and sister's) keeper and the extra administrative overheads, including increased insurance premiums, are reluctantly passed on in full to consumers.

Houellebecq mentioned dress and yes, most businesses try to encourage a standard of dress and presentation that is appropriate to the work and work area. Who wants employees to bare flesh when the product/service is what is being sold. Again it is about an employee being professional and not bringing the company into disrespect.

Dear Cornflower,

I fully agree with what you say.
And, most companies do have guidelines
for their employees - as to dress-codes
and behaviour while at work. They also
have Human Resources Departments where
complaints can be lodged. (Whether they're
acted upon is a different matter).

What's interesting about the Fraser-Kirk
case and David Jones - is that complaints
were lodged (both verbal and written) to
Senior Management - by not only Kristy
Fraser Kirk - but other staff members
as well - however, they were ignored.

It will be interesting to see how all this pans out.

You are all missing the point. Where there is real intimidation and sexual harassment - where one's career or job is on the line - that is verging on tyrannical management practices.

Some posters are great at playing the victim card unless it pertains to the opposite sex, then it is suddenly invalid.

Most of us have had unwanted sexual advances, and are capable of handling it, but what if those advances continue and become more aggressive.

The problem is in the past it is often the perpetrator that remains and the victims that have to leave (or feel they have to) ie. that they are the problem not the creep.

The same goes for whistleblowers and complaints about bullying - it is rife in the APS and we can either put up and shut up or do something about it.

I don't know pelican, I reckon life is too short. If I find a work environment disagreeable, I just leave. For whatever reason.

Who's winning here. The person still in the ridiculous company fighting against d1ck heads, or the person who has risen above it and found a better company.

Also, surely you must know of employees who are just looking for any excuse to not work and make a drama out of everything. You may say it's blaming the victim, but how far should the world pander to troublemakers. Not saying a chick who's had her boobs groped is a troublemaker (before anyone twists this around), just that there are some that look to take offence at an email the whole office thought was pretty funny.

In the end, as I said before, nobody can really intimidate you unless you allow it. Sexual assault is one thing, but there are so many more cases that are a storm in a tea cup. There's a certain type of person who is always claiming this or that.

I'm sure a lot of these 'implied' sackings if you don't shag the boss is all in the head of the employee. I think you really have to work on explicit threats of the sack, not implicit ones.

Personally Houlley, I would choose to leave and I have done so recently - not in relation to SH I should add but quite a different experience.

Thankfully these situations don't happen on a regular basis but it can be quite life-changing and emotionally upsetting. But we all get over it.

Shite happens and you can either get on with your life or you can fester. I am not advocating the festering but neither do I believe the worst offenders should always get a free pass.

SH is a difficult situation because you can also go too far and become too highly-attuned as a business because of fear of litigation, meaning that sometimes those grey areas might be blown out of proportion.

I am really only talking about the big stuff but I understand the overall complexities.

Dear Pelly,

Well said!

Personally, I too would choose to leave.
But as you stated - it doesn't mean
that offenders should get a "free pass."

And yes, we are talking about the "big stuff"
here - and it is a serious problem for all
concerned.

Foxy,

With only the media reports and lawyer posturing to go by I don't know what to think.

Dear Cornflower,

That's fair enough.

Let's wait and see, and hopefully all the facts
will come out once the case gets to court
later in this month.

Who knows, we might all be surprised?

That is your view "H" and I would hazard a guess, not a view many people share, particularly young people who have been a victim of S.H.

There are varying degrees of S.H, yourself included in one type when younger Houllebecq. A courageous step to admit and share with people.

However, your encounter, and every individual's encounter with S.H differs greatly.

No one case is ever the same; many cases far worse than yours described and prolonged for various reasons, one of which, a young victim may well think or hope, that the perpetrator will be seen/observed and action taken by another Manager or staff.

Some people suffer silently from S.H in their jobs/careers, out of necessity, to pay for food on the table, their rent, mortgage, and raising their children, after being qualified in a set field with little scope to move.

There are not always 'personal or life choices' in every situation.

Not all people are as confident and gregarious as you appear to be Houllebecq, particularly young people starting out in their chosen professions, coming out of high school, TAFE or University.

Several girls were victims of S.H in government departments I worked in ten years ago, by the same perpetrator. He was warned quietly by his executive staff. He continued to abuse his power via his low self esteem and mysoginistic ways [a mental disease].

In the meantime those girls were left without a referee for their first jobs, one girl needed ongoing psychological assistance the following year, the next victim a year later was hired and left the department altogether, the last stood up to him, and she was informed that it was a 'story' and asked to move elsewhere.

After the perpetrator had retired early, most of the victims spoke out and action taken.

Most perpetrators of S.H and paedophilia will be found out and action taken, it is only a matter of time.

Houllie

I'm not sure that working with women who display a bit too much cleavage puts you in the same category as the poor girl in Pelican's motel story.

Foxy

There are cases of harassment that are clearly wrong and there are cases where women choose to complain about behaviour that could well have been judged as acceptable, even wanted.

You couldn't say how people can know which actions are unwanted, before one does them? It isn't always possible to tell which attention was wanted after people see the reaction they get. Pelican cannot provide a neat distinction between acceptable and unacceptable either.

Only nice, clear rules will work. Never flirt with co-workers is clear if everone agrees to it. Never flirt after a knockback is unambiguous. The current policy means that some behaviour is unacceptable in certain circumstances but acceptable in others. These rules are doomed to failure.

"Pelican cannot provide a neat distinction between acceptable and unacceptable either."

No-one can benk, because the definition itself is subjective.

Sexual harassment is based on the feelings and perceptions of the person being harassed. What might constitute harassment to one may not to another.

Obvious sexual harassment (groping, asking for sex, aggressive sexual behaviour etc) is not hard to distinguish from those grey areas where the bounds of flirting might be different among a group of people.

As for the case before the courts, as Foxy said, we don't know the outcome yet nor do we know the full extent of the allegations nor the number of people affected.

My encounters [one last winter] has always been to say firmly "I do not mix business with pleasure in any situation. That has been motto working with thousands of people throughout my career. Do not take it personally".

This is the truth along with my own personal morals and values, in terms of knowing that any workplace relationship or involvement, would affect and spoil my different working colleagues environments in the many different work settings I am required to work daily.

It is the working colleague's problem if they harrass or become revengeful, threatening or vindictive after being informed of a firm 'no' and the reason.

I cannot report or label a person a known perpetrator when the request could have been a one off singling myself out ie Non-perpetrator of S.H.

Yet, it is a positive for someone else in higher authority or an HR Manager, to be made aware of that person's advances 'In-confidence'.

For a reason: the primary being that the requesting person may be a perpetrator of S.H towards the most vulnerable in the future, ie a male or female with limited or no qualifications totally relying upon her position/job [ie may find it difficult to secure another similar position], and/or a person who has no idea on how to handle the bullying and S.H.

To me, a working colleague sends warning bells that he/she has a screw loose, to directly request sex or physically make advancements in the work place environment without asking for a date/coffee/dinner first.

This indicates to me that the person is desperate and indicates predatory behaviour

Pelican:"No-one can benk, because the definition itself is subjective.

Sexual harassment is based on the feelings and perceptions of the person being harassed. What might constitute harassment to one may not to another."

How can a law that punishes me be based on your reaction to my actions? If I steal your car there is a definable act that can be legislated against. Ditto if I punch you. If I ask you out, is that in itself punishable? I don't think so, yet apparently it is under definitions put foeward here. As I said, I'd not exist if it wasn't for workplace relationships and my kids only exist because I had a relationship with their mother who was my housemate/landlady.

What is happening more and more is that women expect to be able to behave as they like without impunity, while men are being constrained by punitive laws.

Can anyone tell me why the feelings of a woman who has been "harassed" by an unwanted chat-up are more important than the feelings of a man who may have to stop himself from chatting up the woman he thinks is a pretty good sort? What if she really wants him to do so, but he won't, because of the chance of being punished? How is this in either of their interests?

The nature of human sexuality is the famous "man proposes, woman disposes". Women have usually relied on extended family to back up their "disposals", but now, thanks to feminism, they don't have to do anything at all, leaving the man possibly fighting the State for doing no more than what comes entirely naturally, while she gets to "shake her thing" as she feels like.

It's distorted, disturbed thinking.

We are unique:"It is the working colleague's problem if they harrass or become revengeful, threatening or vindictive after being informed of a firm 'no' and the reason."

Well said. I'd go further and suggest that a firm "no" doesn't require a reason. The only thing wrong with the scenario is that there is a strong tradition in romantic love that "no" doesn't mean "no", just "not now". the hero pursuing and winning the beautiful maiden, who demands greater and greater demonstrations of his love before finally accepting him has been with us since Sheherezade and probably earlier. I suspect it may actually be hard-wired; many species have ways of sexually selecting for the "fittest" male to breed with.

By eliminating the p[ossibility of beimng asked more than once, we are interfering with the natural sexual by-play that is part of humanity. Can anyone tell me why they think that is a good thing? Will it increase happiness for the majority, or does it only pander to the wants of the dysfunctional?

We are unique

"I do not mix business with pleasure in any situation. That has been motto working with thousands of people throughout my career. Do not take it personally".

That is what I mean, when I talk about a workable policy.

Pelican

"Sexual harassment is based on the feelings and perceptions of the person being harassed. What might constitute harassment to one may not to another."

That is what I mean, when I talk about an unworkable policy. Behaviour may either be grounds for sacking or the first step towards marriage. Furthermore, it isn't possible to tell until after the action.

Anti

Why it is not possible to move away from an expectation that he pursues. Our society has made all sorts of changes for various reasons. What many women want is for this guy to chase them but not him or him. That can never work.

Benk:"That is what I mean, when I talk about a workable policy."

It's workable, but only on an individual level. Trying to legislate for such a policy must fail, since some people evidently DO mix business and pleasure.

Benk:"Why it is not possible to move away from an expectation that he pursues. Our society has made all sorts of changes for various reasons."

I assume you're asking that as a question. I say it's not possible because we, as Homo Sapiens Sapiens are at the mercy, to a large degree, of our in-built drives. A male dog has sex with something that smells like a female dog on heat and she accepts his advances because he smells like a male dog and acts interested, or is simply the only candidate: a male peacock has sex with a peahen that responds with approval to his display of fine plumage and demonstrates it through body language and vocalisations. These sexual behaviours cannot be easily changed and they define, to a very great degree, what makes a species. Small changes can have great effects: think of the famous Darwinian finches of the Galapagos, which share very similar genomes and arise from common stock, but in which little things like beak length are critical to sexual selection.

I think that the "male as initiator" model is as hardwired as the dog's way of doing things is for them. yes, there is lots of variation, but that is the norm. I'm sure that an analysis of all human sexual encounters would reveal a normal curve centred on that model. It is so engrained that the "bull dyke" is a pseudo-male archetype that functions on the same level.

I say it is not significantly changeable, no matter how much "social constructionalism" is applied.

Ah, here we go. It's biology.

Deteriorating fast. I don't want an argument about it anti, it's just this has been argued over to death.

I'm with benk,

'"Sexual harassment is based on the feelings and perceptions of the person being harassed. What might constitute harassment to one may not to another."

That is what I mean, when I talk about an unworkable policy. Behaviour may either be grounds for sacking or the first step towards marriage. Furthermore, it isn't possible to tell until after the action.'

This is my problem with it all. I can handle anti-groping, and anti threats (explicit) as they are cut and dried. (Though other laws already exist for this). The rest comes under, 'I feel X, so you must change'. Two people interact, and one person's feelings about it all criminalises another? Bizarre.

anti,

'Can anyone tell me why the feelings of a woman who has been "harassed" by an unwanted chat-up are more important than the feelings of a man who may have to stop himself from chatting up the woman he thinks is a pretty good sort? '

I'd say more that if a guy chats a girl up at work and upsets her, then it's sexual harassment. If a guy chats up a girl, and she's really rude about rejecting him and laughs at him and tells all her friends and they all laugh behind his back and upsets him, well, that's just bad luck for the guy.

'What is happening more and more is that women expect to be able to behave as they like without[sic] impunity, while men are being constrained by punitive laws. '

Yep.

Dear Houellie,

What most people expect is a safe working
environment!

Perhaps you should google "sexual harassment
in Australia," and find out what the laws
clearly state and why.

You'd get a better understanding of what
people are actually talking about.

We're talking about the theory of the idea, on an abstract or philosophical level Foxy. Nobody is arguing about clear cut cases you keep mentioning.

Like the anti-terrorism laws and how they can easily be covered by existing laws, and are really an excuse to curb civil liberties; The same goes for sexual harassment.

Now obviously for some men are seen as terrorists and needing special laws to regulate how they are supposed to ask women out, but some of us don't think there is a need.

There's sexual assault and blackmail laws to cover groping and threats of the sack for sexual favours.

Anti

If you want women to acknowledge that some current expectations are unreasonable on blokes, you need to meet them half way. You seem too willing to use biology as a cop-out. Some of us have evolved quite a way from dogs.

Foxy

To repeat Houllie, "nobody is arguing about clear cut cases you keep mentioning." The behaviour that we are discussing is judged differently, depending on the particular woman, her mood at the time and how good looking the bloke is. The cases that you discuss are unacceptable, no matter how cute the guy is.

Dear Houellie,

You can discuss the "philosophical" aspects of
sexual harassment as much as you want, however,
it won't change the fact that sexual harassment
is illegal in Australia,
(under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984), and all
employers are obliged to provide a harassment-free
workplace where everyone is free to get on with
their job. If they don't they can be held
legally responsible for acts of sexual harassment
committed by their employees.

You said that you're not discussing the "clear-cut,"
areas that I keep mentioning. So, what exactly are you
discussing? Unwanted, uninvited, sexual attention at
work seems to me to be pretty straight forward, especially
if it persists and the person doing it has been asked
to stop. I'm not talking about flirtatious, mutually
consensual, reciprocative behaviour here. I'm talking
about sexual harassment - which is unwanted, uninvited
sexual behaviour - and most organisations do have
written policies and procedures on that topic. There are
also Human Resources Managers, Supervisors, Department
Heads, and other Senior Management who can help clarify
problems.

If you're concerned about what constitutes sexual harassment
in your workplace - and why - all you need do is ask
the appropriate people. Most of us however, know where
to draw the line, we have a conscience for a reason.

Anybody with even half a brain would know precisely what constitutes sexual harassment. A LOT of people believe they have the right to harass others sexually, and will come up with a million grey areas that offer them convenient excuses to repeatedly force their sexual behaviour on their targets. You know the type of harasser, "she asked for it" or "look at the way she's dressed" or "she didn't stand up to me stare me in the face and headbutt me, therefore she consented" or "everyone does it" or "I didn't do it, I'M the victim" or "she hates men". Yes, they have every excuse under the sun.

Transki

If defining sexual harassment is so easy, you have a crack. Foxy and Pelican failed, but you are obviously smarter then the rest of us. Your definition needs to specify behaviour that is never alright under any circumstances and not dependent on subjective judgements by the 'victim'.

Foxy

Plenty of blokes
have gotten in
trouble for
behaviour that
they reasonably
could have
hoped would have
been seen as
"flirtatious,
mutually
consensual,
reciprocative
behaviour
here."

I think some posters are totally missing the point here.
Let's look at the Australian Government's definition of sexual harassment, and the fact that this behaviour is UNLAWFUL.

"Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature which makes a person feel offended, humiliated and/or intimidated where that reaction is reasonable in the circumstances. Sexual harassment in employment is unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (Sex Discrimination Act)."
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/sexualharassment/quickguide/index.html

So it doesn't really matter what people think should or shouldn't constitute sexual harassment in the workplace, the fact remains that if you make unwelcome advances, inappropriately touch or hug someone uninvited or make suggestive sexual comments or jokes, and many other behaviours suggested on the official website above, then you CAN be reported for sexual harassment.

The fact that one person may not have a problem with an unwelcome hug, while another may take great offence at this action, probably means that you should know for sure BEFORE you try this with anyone at work if you don't want to get into trouble!

Exactly!

Bingo!

Suzeonline nailed it 100%.

Sexual harassment is NOT "sexual behaviour". Sexual harassment is "unwanted and unwelcome" sexual behaviour, and while it can be a one off it is usually "repeated".

It is up to the person making the sexual advance to fully know BEFOREHAND whether or not sexual behaviour would be welcome by the other person in the workplace. If you don't know for sure, DON'T DO IT!

Not hard to understand! Unless one has an "agenda". Or unless one is terribly thick.

Suzeonline:""Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature which makes a person feel offended, humiliated and/or intimidated where that reaction is reasonable in the circumstances."

Thanks for that Suzie, we already know there's a law. Nice of you to drop in though.

What we're discussing is whether the law is adequate. Perhaps you could ask your hubby what he thinks.

Transki:"Sexual harassment is NOT "sexual behaviour". Sexual harassment is "unwanted and unwelcome" sexual behaviour, "

Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious. How do you define "unwanted and unwelcome" objectively? I may think you're a fat old cow not worth the trouble of chatting up, while the bloke at the next desk may have a "thing" for fat old cows and think your moustache is really hot stuff. It's all subjective.

By all means mandate "no touching" rules, or similar objective constraints, leave the subjective victimhood out of it, that's the point.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Anti

Biology tells me that it would be fun to have sex with every hot young thing that I see. Yet I never act on those thoughts and have never cheated on my wife. Making every effort to act in a moral way while acknowledging biology is different to making no effort and using biology as an excuse.

Suze and Transki

Some actions are clearly "unwanted and unwelcome" and should be punishable. Some actions are defined as sexual harassment at some times, but not at others. That this situation is reflected in the law makes it no less unworkable or immoral.

Benk:"Making every effort to act in a moral way while acknowledging biology is different to making no effort and using biology as an excuse."

I agree, I'm simply suggesting that interfering with the biology is going to cause problems. If legislation prohibits all sexual interaction it's doomed to fail.

The real problem is that it doesn't allow for men to even explore the possibilities of becoming intimate with their female colleagues - even the unmarried ones - without taking the risk that he'll not just get a knockback, but may get sacked and end up in court.

People generally have relationships with people they know well. Work colleagues are in close contact for long periods, possibly seeing more of each other than spouses. It is a natural environment for relationships to occur, thanks to biology.

Perhaps Foxy et al could explain how a man might approach this problem and avoid the potential repercussions if she gets offended?

'Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature which makes a person feel offended'

So everyone does has a right not to be offended. What is the world coming to. If I find something offensive, then what has happened IS offensive. I feel, so you must change. Love it. Screw objective and definitive, we should just go on feelings.

'probably means that you should know for sure BEFORE you try this with anyone at work if you don't want to get into trouble!'

How can anyone know for sure? 100%. Basically what you're saying is that nobody can flirt at work. The essence of flirting is the excitement of the unknown. That's the point of it, to gauge attraction, to find out, to titillate, to be cheeky and funny. These things are subjective.

The point I'm making, is men who get it wrong are criminalised. Man asks woman out, she's offended, he's a criminal. Man asks woman out, she rejects the proposal offensively, he's offended, but that's just life.ie We look to criminalise the man when he gets it wrong, but the woman has open slather to get it wrong.

'By all means mandate "no touching" rules, or similar objective constraints, leave the subjective victimhood out of it, that's the point. '

Exactly! And there are laws already in place for these objective things.

'If a gay man tries to chat me up at work and I'm offended, can I claim sexual harassment?'

Of course not, that'd mean you're homophobic! Women should be protected from unwanted advances, but if a man receives one he should deal with it maturely taking into account the feelings of the person he's rejecting. If he's offended, there's something wrong with him. If she's offended, the offender is a criminal.

'Sexual harassment is NOT "sexual behaviour". Sexual harassment is "unwanted and unwelcome" sexual behaviour, and while it can be a one off it is usually "repeated".'

Equally, it's not hard to understand that one can never really know 100% for sure what will be unwelcome. So what you're saying is there is a zero tolerance for workplace flirting.

Not hard to understand! Unless one has an "agenda". Or unless one is terribly thick

Houlley
It is easy to know what is unwanted - by reaction. Even if the harassed does not make it clear, a warning from a supervisor should be a clear indication of where the line is for that person.

I have a habit of touching people (not sexually) on the arm and am naturally affectionate, but obviously if someone said to me please don't touch me, I would know that for that person it is not appropriate.

People seem to think that SH in the workplace is overly difficult when really it is pretty simple. For example if those women who acknowledged your behind were told their behaviour was not appropriate and that behaviour did not cease, one could make a case for SH, but generally those situations do not involve the serious stuff of SH cases and are easily dealt, because many times people are unaware that their behaviour is causing angst, and when they are told they respect those wishes.

Anti
There have been complaints raised by men about unwanted attention from another male.

We have to use some commonsense here. If the attention is persistent and unwanted and the person continues despite warnings from supervisors or the HR Manager then some sort of action is warranted. The harassed, male or female, should be able to feel safe at work without being constantly pressured in a sexual way.

Now it is difficult if the boss is the owner and it is a small business, then sometimes the only course of action is to leave but that is difficult if one is dependent on the income and if employment is not readily available. It isn't fair but life sometimes isn't fair. One might argue that the boss might find it difficult to retain staff or to find staff (once reputations are known) and that will be punishment enough. This would be a natural justice but we all know that if jobs are scarce, the choice to leave is removed.

'It is easy to know what is unwanted - by reaction.'

Ah, but it's too late then pelican!

'It is up to the person making the sexual advance to fully know BEFOREHAND whether or not sexual behaviour would be welcome by the other person in the workplace. If you don't know for sure, DON'T DO IT!
'

'I have a habit of touching people (not sexually) on the arm and am naturally affectionate, but obviously if someone said to me please don't touch me, I would know that for that person it is not appropriate. '

But as other posters said, you're blaming the victim! You cant expect the meek and the shy to tell you that your advance is not welcome. People should be able to enjoy a 'safe working environment'.

You - are - guilty!

BTW pelican. I'm in no doubt that your touches on the arm are extremely sensual. What is to say a young bloke doesn't misinterpret these touches for sexual contact. As most of the posters seem to agree, the law says...

'Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature which makes a person feel offended, humiliated and/or intimidated where that reaction is reasonable in the circumstances.'

Now leaving out the ridiculously subjective 'reasonable' that others seem perfectly happy with, you may have 'made' a person feel offended or intimidated (I was going for humiliated too, but decided not to guild the lily).

Therefore, you - are - guilty!

Based purely on the feelings (however irrational) of this young man. How do you 'feel' about that?

PS: Please, don't blame the victim will you.

Houlley
That is a bit of a stretch.

We all seem agreed there are grey areas but there are also some pretty obvious areas where most reasonable (I stress the word reasonable) people mutually accept certain behaviours as grossly inappropriate at work eg. groping, grabbing breasts etc.

If a person does not know their behaviour is unwanted eg. me touching your arm, and I am told that this is not wanted and I don't stop then I am just being obtuse.

It is not necessary to know beforehand what behaviour is unwanted. How does one know it is unwanted (barring the obvious behaviour mentioned above)? There is room for commonsense in this debate.

PS: my touching an arm is usually done as an unthinking way of reassurance, I am not doing it in a sexual way, but if someone mentioned it was not wanted I would stop. In fact I tend not to do it unless I know the person well enough and there is already an established rapport - thankfully where I work part-time now we are a huggy sort of bunch so it is not an issue.

'There is room for commonsense in this debate.'

That would spoil all the fun.

I prefer quotes like

'It is up to the person making the sexual advance to fully know BEFOREHAND whether or not sexual behaviour would be welcome by the other person in the workplace. If you don't know for sure, DON'T DO IT!

Not hard to understand! Unless one has an "agenda". Or unless one is terribly thick.'

Dear Pelly and Suze,

Thanks for your rationality.
I feel that you've both covered the topic
rather well in your last posts.
There's nothing much more to be said,
except to watch and see what happens
in the Fraser-Kirk case at the end of this
month.

Dear antispetic and benk,

Thanks for your rationality.
I feel that you've both covered the topic
rather well in your last posts.

It's always noice when people look past
the status quo and question the assumptions
our laws are made on, the societal constraints
they make and the unintended consequences of
regulating inter-personal interactions, and
the pitfalls of making laws based on subjective
terms and feelings.

Not every topic should be constrained to the
specifics of the case that prompted the
discussion with such a narrow focus on the
most obvious and worse case
scenario, which would be unlikely
to even be in contention, thus
making the topic redundant in the
first place as an opportunity to explore
more deeply our society's laws and assumptions.

Dear Houellie,

Thank You for expressing your opinion.
But I don't know whether
to take you seriously, or whether you're
merely having "fun" again.

If you genuinely feel that this
thread is too narrow,
and you feel constrained by it, -
feel free to start one of your own.

Or alternatively, keep on posting here.
Now that we are aware of your feelings,
we shall try to pay more attention.

We would hate to be rude and dismissive.

Pelican

I don't pretend that one advance is likely to get someone in trouble with the law (unlike Anti). However, I suggest that acceptable behaviour in this area is policed largely by social pressure. I have seen quite a few over-reactions to single, polite approaches that could well have been received favourably. Our society is all too willing to rescue damsels in distress.

The Fraser-Kirk/McGuiness case may well prove to be quite different. If reports such as him slipping his hand up her blouse are accurate, there should be some sort of sexual assault law that he should be charged with.

Dear benk,

I agree with you - most unwanted sexual advances at work
are handled quickly and quietly without any fuss.
It's only for a small minority that the law is involved,
due to the fact that all other options have failed.
Of course there has to be concrete evidence provided.
Otherwise they won't have a case.

The reason that the laws exist however is
to oblige employers to
provide a harassment-free workplace - and to hold them
legally responsible for acts of Sexual Harassment
committed by their employees. The aim of this is to
promote equality between men and women - especially
for those staffers who are to shy or intimidated to
deal with the situation themselves. The laws are
there to protect them.

The laws may not be ideal - and could do with improvement,
but at least they do exist and without them - the problems
could be even more serious than they currently are.

The atiseptic bloke is now even getting his posts deleted for abuse. He asks "how do I define unwanted and unwelcome, objectively". Well that's easy to do , but I guess if someone's a bit dense, no names mentioned,it might be hard. It's defined this way: If any sexual advance is unwanted or unwelcome by a person, regardless of what that sexual advance is, then it is "unwanted and unwelcome". See antiseptic,it's not too hard to understand.

Benk wrote, "some actions are defined as sexual harassment at some times, but not at others". Exactly! That's the whole point of what people like me, foxy and pelican have been saying. Therefore it's not the sexual activity or advance that's the issue, the issue is whether or not it's wanted.

Now, in the workplace, if a worker wants to get sexual with another worker, then it's necessary to be absolutely 100% certain that the sexual advance is welcomed. If the worker is not certain about that, DON'T DO IT. It really is sooooo obvious, except maybe to those who are rather dense. If the sexual activity is welcomed by the recipient then there's no sexual harassment taking place, regardless of what that sexual activity is. If the person making a sexual advance makes a mistake and realises the sexual feelings are not reciprocated, that person should then immediately stop and never do it again with that person; under those circumstances there's no real problem. But the "real" trouble with some harassers is they DON'T STOP. They keep at it, again and again and again and again.

It's NOT hard to know what sexual harassment in the workplace is and isn't.

What is it about basic commonsense and reality that some of you people don't get?

Do you maybe feel your human rights are trampled on because you don't have the right to sexually harass without consequence?

Maybe you feel YOU are the real victims, because it's harder to sexually harass these days? Is that it?

Or are you just dense?

Or philosophically opposed to not being allowed to sexually harass without consequence?

Dear Transki,

I'm beginning to suspect that some posters
may just be stirring things up for their
own amusement to get a reaction out of people.
I guess that's to be expected on a public Forum
such as OLO. It's often difficult to tell the
difference between those who genuinely are
expressing an opinion and want a discussion
and those who are simply
stirring. There's also the people who want to
de-rail threads, and others who believe that
your biological sex plays a big part in being
seen as either a victim and/or an aggressor.

To each his own

Transki

"Now, in the workplace, if a worker wants to get sexual with another worker, then it's necessary to be absolutely 100% certain that the sexual advance is welcomed. If the worker is not certain about that, DON'T DO IT."
What if we really liked the woman, thought that we should be principled and leave her alone and watched as some other bloke broke all the rules and got the girl?

We have all seen plenty of blokes who were flirting with women who looked really, really disinterested. We've all thought to ourselves "leave the poor girl alone" and the next thing we know they are together. Blokes watch that and think maybe I should be more like that.

Far too many women reward certain behaviour with sex and cannot understand why other men copy those tactics.

Its a wonder so many of us don't sexually harass.

If you want a simple rule, try "if how cute he is matters, then it isn't sexual harassment." Behaviour is either acceptable for everyone or for no-one.

Benk

>>> What if we really liked the woman, thought that we should be principled and leave her alone and watched as some other bloke broke all the rules and got the girl? <<<

"got the girl"? ? ? Could you please elaborate just what you mean by this?

I generally choose if I am interested in someone - no-one has ever "gotten" me - at least not without using force.

What has escaped your notice, Benk, is that women can think for themselves - women (or men) may make bad choices or good ones, but they are OUR choices.

Benk

"If you want a simple rule, try "if how cute he is matters, then it isn't sexual harassment." Behaviour is either acceptable for everyone or for no-one."

Looks are irrelevant.

If a man or woman is having sex with a co-worker that does not imply she/he should have sex with everyone in the office, nor is it an invitation to do so.

Women and men have the right to refuse approaches from anyone they are not attracted to. If a woman or man accepts a particular behaviour from one person but not from another that is their right. It works both ways.

Safest bet is to keep overt sexual behaviour out of the office - afterall we are paid to work not to use it as a pick up joint.

Bottom line is it comes down to manners and showing respect and those rules can be applied even if someone is interested in getting to know a co-worker more than just a friend.

What I am complaining about is the way that some women choose to say things like "safest bet is to keep overt sexual behaviour out of the office," as though they have a moral objections to any men who flirt with co-workers. In reality, they just aren’t attracted to the particular bloke. His behaviour is getting criticised, but it would be fine if he was cuter. Don’t criticise the morality of people when you are really judging other qualities. It is immoral and undermines the credibility of this cause.

I also dislike women who choose to have relationships with blokes after they have acted disinterested. It encourages the belief that men are expected to be persistent and ignore her efforts to get him to stop. Severin may well “generally choose if I am interested in someone." However, her choice partly reflects their behaviour. Don't be surprised if less cute blokes copy their behaviour, which may or may not include persistence.

While “women (or men) may make bad choices or good ones, but they are OUR choices”, lets not be so non-judgemental about women's choices that we won't discuss consequences of the choices. Some choices make the world a worse place for women and cannot be defended by freedom of choice type arguments. Feminism isn’t simply a general purpose excuse for Severin or any other women to do whatever they want. There should be an expectation on all people that their choices make the world a better place for others.

Of course "women and men have the right to refuse approaches from anyone they are not attracted to." However, no-one has a right to complain about a problem that they have helped to create. Lets all do everything that we can to fix this problem.

Benk, I am still genuinely puzzled as to where you are coming from.
Are you talking about men and women attracting each other in the wider community, or in the workforce, as the thread highlights?

From what you are saying, our workplaces are veritable cesspools of sexual chemistry and angst!
Saying that women shouldn't flirt with 'cute' men and then turn down supposedly plain men who also try to flirt with them is really a bit much.

One woman's 'cute' is another woman's puke you know.
If this were not the case, then surely the more plain men among us would never have girlfriends would they?

There are far more attractive aspects of men than just a handsome face or well-built body. Most women are far too bright, on the whole, to be swayed by a 'cute' male in the long run.

You are selling yourself and other men short if you don't believe this.

Suze

"Are you talking about men and women attracting each other in the wider community, or in the workforce, as the thread highlights?"

I was thinking about the workforce, but there are rules and conventions that regulate the sexual behaviour of men in other contexts and they all have the problem of being inconsistently applied.

"Saying that women shouldn't flirt with 'cute' men and then turn down supposedly plain men who also try to flirt with them is really a bit much."

I agree, that is why I didn't say that. I did say that people shouldn't choose to judge certain behaviour as out of line sometimes, but not at other times.

"One woman's 'cute' is another woman's puke you know.
If this were not the case, then surely the more plain men among us would never have girlfriends would they?"

Are you really that arrogant? All of us need to make compromises to keep our standards realistic.

Benk <"Are you really that arrogant? All of us need to make compromises to keep our standards realistic."

No not arrogant Benk, just a little more open-minded than you seem to be.

By compromises, I assume you mean that 'plain' guys and girls just have to 'settle' for the less cute among us. What a very sad view you have of romance Benk!

I am sure we have all seen supposedly cute people living with and loving those more regular people?
How would you categorize those people then Benk?

How about those people who divorce or break up with supposedly cute people and then take up with someone less than perfect in your eyes?

The answer is LOVE Benk!

Open your eyes and check out some more couples in the community around you. You can't place everyone in your 'compromise' box can you?

While I am sure some people get together initially because of physical attraction to so-called 'cute' people, luckily many people are not that shallow, and are attracted to others for various reasons.

benk
With respect you are not making any sense.

You are getting hung up on looks. The nature of sexual harassment is "unwanted sexual attention". If a man continues to behave inappropriately towards a woman after repeated warnings and counsellings don't you think that is "a bit rich". So what if the man is plain or handsome. If the attention is unwanted it is unwanted. If the same woman accepts similar behaviour from a man she is attracted to the it is wanted. See the difference.

Same goes for women, if a man is not attracted to you then they are not attracted to you - no more need be said.

Suze,

'While I am sure some people get together initially because of physical attraction to so-called 'cute' people, luckily many people are not that shallow, and are attracted to others for various reasons.'

Would you say someone was shallow if they were only attracted to intelligent people?

pelican,

'The nature of sexual harassment is "unwanted sexual attention". If a man continues to behave inappropriately towards a woman after repeated warnings and counsellings don't you think that is "a bit rich". '

Ah, but as Transki says, 'it is up to the person making the sexual advance to fully know BEFOREHAND whether or not sexual behaviour would be welcome by the other person in the workplace'

No warnings come into it. I actually don't know what benks on about. He's been like this before about women having different standards for attractive men. I don't see any problem with that, but I suppose he is saying how can you base a law on that. Which goes back to my point about BEFOREHAND!

PS: What do you think about a law regulating how women are to reject advances. Men get it wrong asking a girl out, and they are breaking the law. If a woman is rude or makes fun forever and a day when a guy at work asks her out, and there is no law. We must have equality before the law. Mens and womens behaviour must be regulated equally, and since it is still more likely for the man to do the asking, we are criminalising men for getting it wrong, but not women as we don't regulate rejections of propositions.

We regulate unwanted propositions, but we don't regulate nasty rejections. And with the rejections, we could base the law on the mans feelings about how he was rejected as we base the law on the womans feelings on how she was propositioned. Sound fair?

Houellebecq,<"What do you think about a law regulating how women are to reject advances. Men get it wrong asking a girl out, and they are breaking the law. If a woman is rude or makes fun forever and a day when a guy at work asks her out, and there is no law."

Are you suggesting that a man asking a woman out and being rejected, is quite the same as a woman being sexually harassed by a man?
That is taking the topic to an extreme level of silliness I think.

The sexual harassment law covers men being sexually harassed in the workplace as well. I have personally seen it happen in my workplace Houllebecq. The woman lost her job as a result, and rightly so.

These laws are not a gender war. They are merely a result of the 'good-old-days' when people got away with sexual harassment in the workplace much more easily, often leading to multiple job losses and mental illnesses as a result of a nasty form of bullying.

We don't want to go back to the days when conversations like the following were more prevalent:
"Hey, if you sleep with me I will make sure you have that promotion", or
"Stay late at the office tonight and I will personally show you my... appreciation".

I would suggest you all watch the 1960's based SBS program 'Mad Men' on Sunday nights to get a feel for why we had to have these laws.
An excellent program, I might add! :)

I cannot see what is confusing about my position. There are rules regulating the behaviour of men that are applied very inconsistently which is immoral and undermines the credibility of these social conventions.

For example, one bloke might flirt with a co-worker. She isn't attracted to him and tells him so (as is her right), but she then criticises him for flirting with co-workers. This implies that she has a moral objection to the concept of co-workers flirting. A bit later, another bloke flirts with her. She is attracted to him and they have a relationship. The sagging credibility of these rules has just taken another kicking.
If she genuinely had a moral objection to the concept of co-workers flirting, she should follow a policy of never screw the crew, under any circumstances, on principle. If she has no objection to co-workers flirting with her, as long as they are attractive, she still has the right to knock back other men, just as long as she doesn't pretend that it is because she sees any flirting amongst co-workers as sexual harassment.

Of course people will always find some other people more attractive than others. We don't even need to explain why. Obviously, people need to accept knockbacks, we just shouldn't accept the morality of our actions being criticised when other people act in exactly the same way and don't get criticised. If people want rules to govern the behaviour of society, they need to be fair and consistent.

'Are you suggesting that a man asking a woman out and being rejected, is quite the same as a woman being sexually harassed by a man?'

It can be, it depends on how he is rejected. Especially when, as Transki says, ANY approach to a woman is sexual harassment if it is unwelcome and that he should know BEFORE he asks.

So, imagine this situation...

A guy is sniggered at by every girl at the office after politely asking a girl out. He is guilty of sexual harassment, as he has asked, she has rejected, so he has made an unwelcome advance. He is the sexual harasser. Even though he is the one being harassed and being made uncomfortable in the workplace by all the girls with rumours and ridicule and even if he asked politely but was very rudely rejected.

That's a one-sided law. The mating rituals generally go along the lines of men asking women out. It's changing slowly but that's the historical scenario. Men when they ask a woman out, if she feels harassed, he is guilty. If she gets the etiquette wrong, and he feels harassed, well that's just bad luck. Her feelings are important, his are not. His behaviour is regulated by law, hers is not.

You mention sleeping your way to the top. Well, if a woman seduces or deliberately uses sexual favours in return for a promotion, nobody cares. There is no law against that. If this behaviour is wrong, a woman perusing this dynamic with her boss should be as guilty as a boss pursuing it with his employee. Of course he could just sack her if he's not interested, but then she'd probably accuse him of sexual harassment. Who do you think would be believed?

Dear Suze,

The sexual harrassment law applies equally to both
males and females it doesn't favour any particular
biological sex. If anyone is in doubt about any part
of the law
they can easily find out what is considered sexual
harassment and what isn't, and what they can or can't
do about it.

The law is not one-sided, it's simply the law.
And the reason it exists is because it is a serious
problem for many in the workforce.

Rubbish Foxy. I think you're being intellectually dishonest.

Few women ask men out, even these days, let alone when the laws were introduced. So the law was made, at the time, in order to regulate men's behaviour and protect women, even if it supposedly applies to all these days.

We regulate unwanted propositions, but we don't regulate nasty rejections. The law is based on womans feelings on how they are propositioned. Would you support a new law based on mens feelings about how they are rejected in response to a proposition?

Can you imagine ANY law being introduced that is motivated by the desire to protect mens feelings?

Houlley you are being disingenuous. Lets first agree that there is some obvious behaviour that would be rationally perceived as sexual harassment such as groping, grabbing breasts that blind freddy would deem as inappropriate.

The approach is not the problem even under the law - it is continual unwanted attention. Don't be naive. We all know why the law came about and we have to have some faith and an expectation that the enforcement of the law will be carried out on rational grounds. Gosh, you can't even get a burglary case to trial sometimes unless all the boxes are ticked.

Do you really think a lawyer is going to argue a case on one attempted approach to a woman in the worforce that was 'unwanted'. Of course they aren't. It is continued attention of a sexual nature after there have been protestations and a continuation of the activity.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this legislation. Men are equally protected and there have been cases involving male complainants.

It is all very well to play devil's advocate but sometimes you have to take the commonsense approach and not put forward a 'worst possible' scenario as the norm (legally speaking).

pelican,

'Lets first agree that there is some obvious behaviour that would be rationally perceived as sexual harassment such as groping, grabbing breasts that blind freddy would deem as inappropriate. '

Never been in dispute, no matter how much Foxy tries to misrepresent my argument.

'we have to have some faith and an expectation that the enforcement of the law will be carried out on rational grounds.'

You have to have a hell of a lot of faith when the law is based on 'feelings'.

'Do you really think a lawyer is going to argue a case on one attempted approach to a woman in the worforce that was 'unwanted'.'

I relay that request to Transki. She says, 'it is up to the person making the sexual advance to fully know BEFOREHAND whether or not sexual behaviour would be welcome by the other person in the workplace'

Nobody has refuted this assertion, and nobody has touched my question about regulating female rejections in the workplace. Would you support a new law based on mens feelings about how they are rejected in response to a proposition in the workplace?

'You are making a mountain out of a molehill on this legislation. Men are equally protected and there have been cases involving male complainants.'

I know it's not common for mens feelings to be considered, but 'a mountain out of a molehill'? Yes, men are equally protected under laws that have little relevance to most men. I envisage women would be equally protected by my proposed laws against rude, humiliating, degrading and deliberately indiscreet rejections.

Under my laws, if a woman flirted with a guy, and the guy yelled 'In your dreams you ugly mole', and then laughed about it to his co-workers, he would be just as liable as if a woman had done it.

Dear Houellie,

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

But it's understandable in your case. The law
can be complex, confusing, unfair or just not
known. It's constantly changing, sometimes in
major ways that you may read about but more
often in numerous minor ways that may come as
a surprise if you find you need to deal with it.

If you're really interested in the law, be it
criminal, civil, or the wide range of the areas
of the law as it applies to men in Australia -
may I suggest that you spend some time at your
local library. Each Reference Department has a
major work called, "The Law Handbook," which you'll
be able to peruse at your leisure. Most libraries
will have the latest edition and the book is a practical
guide to the law of the state. The book is published
every year in order to provide an up-to-date summary
of law of most interest to the general public.

I'm sure that you'll be able to find specific laws
that have been enacted to protect men.

The following website may also be of some interest to
you:

http://www.gaylawsnet.com/laws/au_fed.htm

cont'd ...

My apologies, I typed the website incorrectly,
here it is again:

http://www.gaylawnet.com/laws/au_fed.htm

Sorry Foxy, your link doesn't work. I am not sure how gay laws would apply. I suppose I mean laws that are there to protect men... from women.

The sexual harassment laws were designed to protect women from being intimidated, or having their feelings hurt by men. Are there any was protecting men from being intimidated by women or having their feelings hurt?

I note that you, like pelican, look to trivialise men who may have been bullied by women in the workplace. I would never look to trivialise a woman who was bullied by men in the workplace.

One day your son or nephew or young man you care about may be the subject of a heartless and cruel campaign by a group of female employees who decide to ridicule and humiliate him based on the revelation of his heart felt attraction. I wouldn't be surprised, given his arguments about looks, if benk hasn't been victim of such a degrading experience.

Do men not have feelings? Are they worth nothing? Strong men also cry. Strong men... also cry.

Houllie

No-one is going to get into legal trouble after one approach. However, sexual harassment is largely governed by social pressure. I've seen plenty of women act as though one approach has caused them a great deal of pain. Before you know it, she has a support crew ganging up on this terrible man. Now you want the right for him to play the victim as well. There is enough manufactured drama at workplaces already. Lets keep these rules for more major offences.

Pelican

"The approach is not the problem even under the law - it is continual unwanted attention."

The word "continual" is a problem. As Houllie said, men are still expected to make an effort, over a period of time. Unwanted is also a problem, as we (like women) are never exactly sure what the other person is thinking.

Houllie

>>> Under my laws, if a woman flirted with a guy, and the guy yelled 'In your dreams you ugly mole', and then laughed about it to his co-workers, he would be just as liable as if a woman had done it. <<<

There are men who do this. And there are laws, inadequate for victims of either sex, but there exist laws against this type of bullying, provided the victim can prove it.

Tell me is this isn't an example of male judgement of females' appearance, courtesy of your adored Antiseptic:

>>> I may think you're a fat old cow not worth the trouble of chatting up, while the bloke at the next desk may have a "thing" for fat old cows and think your moustache is really hot stuff. It's all subjective.<<<

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3976&page=0#98766

I can easily imagine Antiseptic laughing to his mates about a woman who had the temerity to ask him out.

And women DO ask men out, I have and do. I agree it takes courage. But I don't see a refusal as an excuse to then harass someone.

The only truth in Anti's statement was: "It's all subjective".

Propositioning becomes harassment when the rejected person cannot take no for an answer and persists despite being asked to desist.

Dear Houellie,

My link does work - try again.
I've given it twice - the first
was a typo, the second one's the
correct one.

Your concern for people's feelings
has me somewhat confused as you've
stated in the past that empathy
wasn't your "thing." And also if
you're so concerned about how someone
feels - you have a funny way of showing
it. Like accusing me of "intellectual
dishonesty," and calling my opinion
"rubbish." Or is it only the feelings
of men that concerns you?

All this makes me think that again, you're
simply stirring for your own "entertainment,"
which is after all what you've said the Forum
is to you. You almost had me at "stong men do
cry," until you repeated it for emphasis.

Good one Houellie!
Keep it up!

You're right Foxy, Houllie is being a total...stirrer!
Any of us bright people know what you (we) are alluding to Foxy :)

At the end of the day, the law agrees with us, and that's all we need to know!
See you on another thread.

Cheers,
Suze.

How is the form of Kristy Fraser-Kirk? She wanted to make a statement regarding sexual harassment (FAIR ENOUGH). She claimed the money if awarded would be given to charity!

Oh Dear.....today she has said the $850,000 awarded out of court will NOT go to charity but WILL stay with her..... Does 'GOLD DIGGER' ring a bell?

Disgraceful.................

Ballina, you've got it all wrong. She deserves it because women in Bangladesh exist.

Or something like that.

The wife of Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) Sergeant Andrew Russell, killed when his vehicle hit a landmine while he was serving in Afghanistan, was offered the choice of a lump sum of $187,000 or a tax-free pension of $13,000 per year for life. Not enough to pay off the family mortgage or for Mrs Russell to raise their daughter as a single parent.

Not commenting on the rights and wrongs of anything, just a comparison.