Return to Homepage.
Michael Kadish
9/9/99
In regards to the essay on sexual harassment, the writer did not go on to really explain what harassment is. The two Ellens do give specific examples as to what is and what is not sexual harassment, a code is set out, with the underlying idea being that of intent, but throughout, there is no true straightforward statement as to what harassment is.
We, the general public, know that the "obvious cases of sexual harassment," are uncomfortable, to say the least, for the victim. The examples given in the beginning leave know question as to the concept that the women are being humiliated. However, sexual harassment has always been a rather vague term. The situations that are considered sexual harassment are a woman being inadvertently forced to feel a man's penis, a woman being fired for not going out with her boss, being lewd, making a "score" bet, being treated like a tramp, and the like. The general pattern is set that the sexual harassee is one who is made uncomfortable due to the harassers sexual demeanor. However, it is not made clear.
It actually says in the text, "Sexual Harassment is not complicated to define. To harass somebody is to bother him or her. Sexual harassment is to bother them in a sexual way." It goes on to say, that it "might or might not involve touching...spoken words, graphics, gestures, gestures, or even looks." That would appear to be a sound definition, but that definition is one that encompasses to much to be the sexual harassment that we hear screamed so frequently. If a man insults another man, both of whom are heterosexual, but one jokes that the other's genitalia is small, than, by this definition, it is sexual harassment. The Ellens clarify their term, saying an innocent mistake is not harassment. This is not an innocent mistake. It is intentional, and the guy means it. But, I don't think that it's considered harassment.
If a woman wears revealing clothes, then she could be disturbing the males. Is appearance alone harassment? It's quite the opposite. If a man comments on it in a rude fashion, he is obviously guilty of harassment, and rightly so. However, she is "bothering him, in a sexual way." She knows the shirt is tight. It's not accidental, and she likes the effect, which means that she is consciously doing it.
If a man is continuously "adjusting himself" it is enough to irritate most women. He is bothering them, in a sexual way. Again, he is consciously doing this. I was not under the impression, however, that jock itch lead to sexual harassment.
All of this is not to say that I do not feel that women deserve to be mistreated, or have to deal with an abusive co-worker. I feel that any time a woman or man feels mistreated, the case should be brought forward. However, Ellens' "not complicated to define" definition was to big a circle to describe a true social injustice.