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.