Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

What It’s Like To Be a Workplace Harassment Trainer in the #MeToo Era

Heightened vigilance about sexual harassment has ushered in overdue changes and overreactions.

Nyul/Dreamstime.comNyul/Dreamstime.comI have been a workplace consultant for over 30 years. I'm frequently called in to intervene in cases of harassment, discrimination, bullying. And I can tell you that the #MeToo movement has been good for business. These days, many of my clients are retaining my services voluntarily and pre-emptively, not just when the law or a negotiated settlement has forced them to offer training. Organizations that used to give their employees the minimal, cheapest training are now asking for face-to-face sessions with their staff—the most effective option, but also the most expensive.

Many of the changes brought by #MeToo are long overdue. More vulnerable people now know that they have the right to say "no" forcefully and have a reasonable expectation that they will be taken seriously when they report misconduct. Only now are there finally enough strong, capable women in positions of power—in politics and in the corporate world—to take complaints seriously and make changes stick. And the work is far from done. A recent survey conducted by the nonprofit CARE found that 1 in 4 men in the United States and seven other countries believe it is OK to expect sex from an employee.

Well before #MeToo, I was working a management training job when I noticed something odd. Jim, the vice president of a boutique semi-conductor company, asked everyone to work through him and never contact the CEO directly. This made me curious, so I observed him interacting with others and noticed that women seemed to avoid him. Taking a few aside, I learned that Jim had roaming hands. He considered himself a ladies' man and a few women feared that they would lose their jobs if they didn't accept his dinner invitations. I gathered evidence about his behavior to bring it to the attention of the CEO. To his credit, after confirming what I'd learned, the CEO fired Jim. Some time later, Jim's wife and I were at another event and she screamed across the room: "You had my husband fired!" I sure did. These days, more and more CEOs are able to see the signs themselves or take input when needed.

But with headway comes the potential for abuse. Without proper protections in place, a minor accusation can cause unnecessarily life-ruining fallout.

Bystanders increasingly recognize their personal, individual responsibility to speak up when they see bad behavior. But well-meaning third parties can create problems where there are none. Take Stanley, an employee at a Fortune 100 tech company. An employee had reported Stanley to HR after hearing him stage-whisper "How's your sex life?" to another female employee we'll call Ruth. The human resources staff confirmed that indeed Stanley had used those words, and they were ready to fire him when his manager intervened and asked that I be brought in.

I interviewed both Stanley and Ruth. Although they worked in different departments they were friends and occasionally lunched together. Both reported that the last time they had lunch, Ruth had cried on Stanley's shoulder that she and her boyfriend had broken up. The next time Stanley saw Ruth was that day in the cafeteria. He was inquiring about whether she'd gotten back together with her boyfriend, and Ruth understood that this was his intent.

Clearly, Stanley's choice of words could have been better—and whispering it across a room containing lots of other people was using poor judgment. But instead of losing his job, Stanley got some counseling and a reminder to be sensitive to his whole audience.

Most people can solve problems and resolve misunderstandings with calm conversation, if only they are given the space and opportunity to do so. Janelle, a petite woman, was walking down a long corridor when two of her co-workers entered the corridor. Seeing her they each took her by one elbow and walked/carried her to the end of the corridor, opened the door, and let her down. They thought they were being cute. She felt humiliated.

She reported the incident to HR. The men were about to be fired when I intervened. With the woman's permission, I talked with the men and explained how their attempt at friendly humor was received. I suggested that they apologize since their intent was not to harm her. I brought the three of them together, and the woman explained her position. The men apologized, and everyone went back to work.

When I arrive at a job, I am increasingly hearing from men who tell me they are afraid of making any contact with their female coworkers. No longer are mentors taking mentees to lunch. If they meet with them at all, it is with the door wide open. Some CEOs are also telling me that they are reluctant to continue hiring women, particularly in management positions. These are all parts of an inevitable backlash, as some men overcorrect their behavior out of fear.

Investigators, too, are retooling their behavior in the wake of #MeToo. But in their zeal to be responsive to the alleged victim, they may wind up condemning the accused without due process.

Joe, a senior executive, was fired because "he should have known" that there was a group of men in his employ that told dirty jokes when he wasn't around. I was asked to review the report condemning him and offer a second opinion. Because workplace investigations are often single-sided, the accused is frequently denied the right to challenge claims made about him—indeed, he's often prohibited from knowing the identity of his accuser at all. In Joe's case, the attorney who was doing the investigation exhibited bias from the start, asking loaded questions and systematically discarding information that showed Joe couldn't have known about the jokes.

Investigator bias is extremely common. In the past, investigations of harassment complaints almost exclusively favored the accused. As often happens, the pendulum is now swinging to the other side before finally—hopefully—finding a place in the middle. As we adjust to a new era, accusers and accused alike should see gains as we learn to listen to long-ignored people with important on-the-ground knowledge. But we must be careful that the bullied don't become the bullies.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • damikesc||

    Odd, the link doesn't actually show anything about the US specifically.

    And the countries?

    The new survey, conducted by Harris Poll, includes data from 9,408 adults in Australia, Ecuador, Egypt, India, South Africa, the U.S., U.K. and Vietnam.

    So, countries with VASTLY different values, beliefs, etc. This survey couldn't conceivably mean less than it does. "We wanted to cut across a wide swath" is not too dissimilar to "Well, we wanted certain numbers so we picked these countries at random"

    See, a listing of the results of the individual countries, including the actual verbatim question asked, would've been helpful. This is anything but.

    And the faults?

  • SQRLSY One||

    And can anyone tell me with a straight face that they think sexism in the USA can hold a candle to sexism in Egypt and in India?

  • John||

    Lots of people can do that. They are known as idiots or pathological liars.

  • Longtobefree||

    Or feminists.
    Or Democrats.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    But I repeat myself.

  • μ Aggressor||

    ...hold a candle...

    you cis-shitlords and your euphemisms

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

  • SQRLSY One||

    Have these candles been approved by the FDA?

  • Gordito||

    Putting in a "Not Safe For Work" tag would be nice. Not everyone wants to open a link to a candle shaped like a vagina on their work computer.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I just hovered over the link and that told me all I needed to know, but yeah, a little warning would be a good thing.

  • Agammamon||

    This is like crying about fucking trigger warnings.

    The post the link is in response to is referring to candles as phallic - *of course* you don't click on that link. This is the internet, every response like that will be an attempt to one-up the previous posts.

  • Agammamon||

    And, frankly, if you can't have NSFW stuff show up on your work computer - then maybe you should be working and not browsing non-work-related sites.

    Read Reason on your phone or something while your shit 'compiles' or whatever.

  • StackOfCoins||

    My God, this is worse than the time Reason posted nipples in a Hit & Run post.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    And can anyone tell me with a straight face that they think sexism in the USA can hold a candle to sexism in Egypt and in India?

    Something tells me that in all probability 80-90% of men in those countries think it's OK to expect their female underlings to let them fuck them. Which, assuming the number of men surveyed from the 8 countries is fairly equal, the other six countries could be at less than 10%, but we'll never know since they apparently lumped them all together.

  • Lester224||

    It's worse in Egypt and India. So what? Does that mean we shouldn't address it in the U.S.? Why bring it up?

  • Rossami||

    Why bring it up? Because the wording of the article above falsely implies that the survey found a 1 in 4 incidence in the US. That creates the impression that the problem is far worse than it really is and increases the likelihood of the very overreactions that the author warns about later in the article.

    If it's 1 in 10, it should still be fixed. If it's 1 in a thousand, it should still be fixed. But the way you fix it is very different when it's 1 in 4 vs 1 in 1000.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yeah man, agreed!

    My favorite analogies? 2 or 3 people out of 100 probably MIGHT not best be trusted with guns... Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to have one? I beg to differ!

    In another universe, where 99 out of 100 people shouldn't be trusted with guns, I guess I'll have to give mine up graciously, maybe...

    At the logical extreme, most mammals feel free to poop in public, creating health hazards, and humans are mammals, so we should ALL be required to wear diapers in public!!!

  • ipsquire||

    Because the article says "as some men OVERCORRECT their behavior out of fear". This implies that SOME correction is required (maybe even of all men). Without the cherry-picked demographic it might be clear that the "backlash" is the result of presuming likely innocent men as guilty.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    You are obviously a rape apologist cis-het shitlord misogynist. There are no innocent men.

  • John||

    I interviewed both Stanley and Ruth. Although they worked in different departments they were friends and occasionally lunched together. Both reported that the last time they had lunch, Ruth had cried on Stanley's shoulder that she and her boyfriend had broken up. The next time Stanley saw Ruth was that day in the cafeteria. He was inquiring about whether she'd gotten back together with her boyfriend, and Ruth understood that this was his intent.

    Clearly, Stanley's choice of words could have been better—and whispering it across a room containing lots of other people was using poor judgment. But instead of losing his job, Stanley got some counseling and a reminder to be sensitive to his whole audience.

    If a woman doesn't want guys asking them out or flirting with them, perhaps they should avoid crying on their shoulder about their romantic problems. This woman must have an enormous sense of entitlement and nerve to complain about this. What the hell is wrong with people?

  • Karen24||

    The article implies strongly that Ruth was not the reporting employee.

  • John||

    Then why did the guy end up being counseled? And why wasn't Ruth counseled to leave her personal life at home? These sorts of things end up being wildly sexist.

  • Brandybuck||

    Ruth did not reported. Some buttinski employee reported it. Stanley had to get counseled because buttinski.

  • John||

    I know but that is still screwed up. What is really screwed up is that it never occurs to her that a woman might have done something wrong. If the sexes were reversed and it was the man crying on the woman's shoulder about his girlfriend, I guarantee you the man would be counseled not to talk about his personal problems at work.

  • Number 2||

    Stanley should have reported Ruth for having raised the subject of her personal life in the first place.

    I say that somewhat sarcastically, but what do you think the chances are of Stanley, or any other man in that office, befriending or mentoring a female co-worker or colleague again? Who in his right mind is going to put his job in jeopardy because someone overheard what he was saying to someone else out of context and reported it? And why did it take an outsider to actually speak to Stanley and Ruth to learn the context and not merely confirm that the "words were used?" The first thing HR should have done was to speak to Ruth.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    And why did it take an outsider to actually speak to Stanley and Ruth to learn the context and not merely confirm that the "words were used?" The first thing HR should have done was to speak to Ruth.

    It's not HR's job to find the truth, their job is to protect the company. Apparently they felt that any potential wrongful termination lawsuit that Stanley might fire would be less expensive/ damaging than any potential lawsuit that Ruth might file over creating a "hostile work environment."

    And they were probably right. Even if Stanley had been fired and tried to sue, they would have had a paper trail showing that he had a sexual harassment complaint against him and he would have been SOL.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    ^ THIS!! ^ times a million.

  • Agammamon||

    Because, in the current day (and for the last two decades minimum), you can harass someone entirely unrelated, that you didn't even know was in the room, if you tell your girlfriend, with no one else around, that she looks good in that sweater and someone overhears.

    And the author thinks that because she's 'one of the good ones' that that is ok.

    #ProsecutoriualDiscretion

  • MaleMatters||

    You're correct about this: "why wasn't Ruth counseled to leave her personal life at home? These sorts of things end up being wildly sexist."

    But you misread the part about who contacted HR. No problem. We all do that at times.

    Please see:

    "In-depth: How We Waded Into The Sexual Harassment Quagmire -- Taking the Long, Hard Path Out: One Man's View" http://malemattersusa.wordpres.....-quagmire/

  • Longtobefree||

    It was not the woman he talked to who filed the complaint, it was a nearby busybody. (I mean concerned fellow woman).
    I try to read at least one article in five; this was one.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I try to read at least one article in five

    CUCK FAGGIT! /jk

  • MaleMatters||

    Re: "It was not the woman he talked to who filed the complaint, it was a nearby busybody."

    Yes. It was probably a feminist who behaves like many citizens did in Nazi Germany when such tattle-tales were rewarded.

    If so, she exhibited what I call toxic feminism. See:

    "In-depth: How We Waded Into The Sexual Harassment Quagmire -- Taking the Long, Hard Path Out: One Man's View" http://malemattersusa.wordpres.....-quagmire/

    Though you may view this commentary as rather shocking, it's probably the most thorough analysis you can find of what I think has for many decades been the sexes' most alienating and destructive behavioral difference.

    I believe this difference, supported by both sexes, results not only in most of the ordinary sexual harassment we hear of, but also in much of the sexual coercion of women.

    It also addresses the question no one has asked: Is there such a thing as toxic femininity, and if so, how does it play into sexual harassment?

    And what about toxic feminism?

  • Jerryskids||

    Huh, I expected a totally different article from the headline. I would have thought that calling somebody into your office and initiating a frank discussion of workplace harassment these days would itself be considered "triggering" and lead to the filing of a complaint of workplace harassment. The liability insurance for a workplace harassment counselor must be horrendous, if you don't address the problem to everyone's satisfaction - and keep in mind that in these situations at least one of the parties is either an ignorant asshole or a manipulative liar - you're liable to find yourself facing a lawsuit.

  • JohnTheRevelator||

    The author is a workplace sexual harassment consultant. The business case for such consultants is that they can save the company money by heading off lawsuits and bad publicity. One way to do that is by training employees to avoid harassing each other. Another is by defusing as many complaints as possible. A consultant who increased office discord and caused more lawsuits to be filed would quickly be out of work...

  • Juice||

    But in their zeal to be responsive to the alleged victim, they may wind up condemning the accused without due process.

    That makes me a sad panda.

  • Gordito||

    It's all sad. Why is it that people think you can't take such a complaint seriously and investigate it without offering both sides an honest chance to tell their sides of the story? Not to mention the cases where the alleged victim wasn't even the one that reported the incident.

    It seems so simple as to be self-evident, and yet it somehow eludes people who are actually trained professionals in the HR field.

  • RevengencerAlf||

    It's sad but here's the simple answer: Company benefit.

    At will employment is the standard in most states. A company can terminate you at any time for pretty much anything that isn't explicitly protected and they don't need to be fair or reasonable about it. A lawsuit for wrongful termination is excessively hard to prove, especially if the company has a complaint, no matter how unfounded the complaint is.

    In contrast, a lawsuit for sexual harassment is much harder to defend and puts the company in significantly more financial danger. In short attempting to be fair is more expensive and just generally disincentivized over kneejerk reactions. Trust me, these HR professionals know how to be fair. They know how to investigate properly and consult all sides if they wanted to. They just don't want to because HR's one and only goal is to protect the company and give the company the safest, least costly option for itself. They're not your friend, your ally, your protector, or anything of the sort.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    ^ THIS ^ times a trillion

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Is it wrong to have sex with the cleaning lady on your desk?

  • Longtobefree||

    Yes, the desk is company property. Go to your car in the parking lot.

  • Agammamon||

    Oh. Well, then, if I had *known* . . .

    I mean, if someone had told me, or it was in the employee handbook . . .

  • H. Farnham||

    It's important to remain objective in evaluating such circumstances. So, personally, I would need to know quantifiable traits (age, weight, measurements, etc.) of the cleaning lady in order to pass judgment.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If it is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Of course not. As long as you obtain affirmative consent and verify her immigration status.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Ah the 70s. Way more fun than the prudish 21st Century.

  • Tony||

    Only if you make her clean it up afterward.

  • Occam's Woodchipper||

    Did I just see a good Tony comment?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Is it wrong to have sex with the cleaning lady on your desk?

    ...'cause I've worked in a lot offices and I gotta tell you, people do that all the time.

  • damikesc||

    Dunno. I have to plead ignorance on that. If anybody told me it was, I assure you, I would not have done so.

  • LarryA||

    If the person cleaning your office is female, you're already guilty.

  • Juice||

    I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, because I've worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time.

  • Nardz||

    Damn Hennigins

  • John C. Randolph||

    That depends on whether you're a republican or a democrat, apparently.

    -jcr

  • Longtobefree||

    I am SO glad I have retired. I cannot imagine trying to accomplish any real work in such an atmosphere of antagonism, paranoia, and enforced thought.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Tweeters on the Twitters manage somehow.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Lots of people these days do all their real work at home, since the advent of the idiotic "open plan" office fad.

    -jcr

  • Crusty Juggler||

    When women do that thing where they preemptively close their sweaters to hide their cleavage as I try my best to make eye contact, I look at their cleavage. IT'S NOT MY FAULT!

  • Longtobefree||

    Too true; movement attracts the eye.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Plus, she could be hiding puppies.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Everyone loves puppies.

  • Occam's Woodchipper||

    +1 Dog of Wisdom

  • Occam's Woodchipper||

    +1 Dog of Wisdom

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Strong woman on the MeToo issue. Her take.

    "I didn't pay for these jammers for nothin'" *points to her chest*

  • DamnDirtyApe||

    She shouldn't be showing cleavage in the first place! Slut!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    That's when you just sarcastically point out that cleavage baring sweater just screams respect me as a person.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Only now are there finally enough strong, capable women in positions of power—in politics and in the corporate world—to take complaints seriously and make changes stick.

    This is a strange statement.

  • Longtobefree||

    Not strange to a SJW; only to a rational human being with a command of the English language.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    There's a lot to unpack there, built on a foundation of presumptions and is itself, laced with a certain amount of sexism. But ok, I'll run with it. Whatever. Take one for the team.

  • Rhywun||

    I had to check I didn't get misdirected to Salon.

  • Jerryskids||

    There are also now enough strong, capable women in positions of power - in politics and in the corporate world - to start abusing that power by sexually harassing the underlings. (But we're not supposed to notice that because we all know men secretly enjoy being sexually harassed.)

  • John||

    I had a cousin who was a no kidding male stripper for a while. He got out of it because he said the women were total animals. They pretty physically assaulted him every time he danced. Did things even the biggest pervert man would never dare to do to a female stripper. It is pretty laughable that society has convinced itself that woman are these innocent things who would never do anything improper.

  • The Last American Hero||

    I've worked in an office populated by 95% women before. Locker room humor is not exclusive to the male of the species. Oddly enough, these same women are horrified by Trump's pussy-grabbing comments.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    That's totes different because... reasons... SHUT UP YOU CIS-HETERO WHITE MALE SHITLORD!

  • damikesc||

    Like Hillary Clinton, who was a candidate for President and would never, EVER provide cover for a dude or woman who mistreated other women badly.

  • Eidde||

    Was Bill a dude or a woman? What did he identify as?

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    But instead of losing his job, Stanley got some counseling and a reminder to be sensitive to his whole audience.

    I'm not sure this sounds like a positive resolution when counseling the coworkers to not leap to evil intent was on the table.

    It's kind of a win? At least he wasn't fired, good on you for fixing that. I'm just not sure this was the solution to the root problem.
  • MichaeI Hihn||

    /

    Stupid MichaeI Hihn. Don't do that again, mister.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Red Tony would never fuck up his tags.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    I know. I'm so ashamed. I hope to be Red Tony when I grow up one day, maybe he didn't see it. Shhh.

  • gormadoc||

    Something tells me he's watching us even now.

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, it is not like she would take any other position because her job depends on infantile women being able to simultaneously claim full equality with men in the workplace, and complete and total helpless victim status after the fact if any word or phrase can be misconstrued to have a faintly sexual content.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Hopefully businesses will notice that workplaces free of backbiting, bullying, and basic boors and bitches, are more productive and therefore more profitable. At which point the bullshit should cease.

    Theoretically. Humans are weird fuckers.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Finished reading. Not bad at all. I like the emphasis on making productive improvements in multi-faceted areas rather than blindly "doing right" without finding out first what that is. That last line is really the clincher.

    But we must be careful that the bullied don't become the bullies.


    Damn straight.

    Overall: Nice job. Would read something by the author again.

  • Jerryskids||

    But we must be careful that the bullied don't become the bullies.

    Too late.

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    Bully!

    (snicker)

  • MichaeI Hihn||

    That was bad. I did a bad thing. But was it fated? Destiny? I ask you.

  • Rich||

    some men overcorrect their behavior out of fear.

    I think I see an opportunity for *more* training.

  • DamnDirtyApe||

    I do not buy the 1 in 4 employers think its okay to expect sex from an employee. Sounds like a bullshit survey.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Expect sex? No.

    Ask for it though? I don't see why that's a problem. I mean, as a rational social animal. Either you grow some balls and request the thing you want, or you just go through life hoping someone will read your mind. But I imagine even asking a co-worker for sex is, at this point, a total abuse of non-existent power (because the one asking for sex had male genitals).

  • MaleMatters||

    I recommend:

    "In-depth: How We Waded Into The Sexual Harassment Quagmire -- Taking the Long, Hard Path Out: One Man's View" http://malemattersusa.wordpres.....-quagmire/

  • Tony||

    Without workplace sexual harassment I would never know when I'm letting myself go. The mirror lies. Ass-grabs in accounting do not.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Anybody can get away with that with the mousy types in accounting.

    Real players can get away with it in marketing.

  • Tony||

    You do have a point.

  • JamesMay||

    So this is the actual question the study asked:


    "Nearly a quarter of men (23%) across eight countries think it's sometimes or always acceptable for an employer to ask or expect an employee to have intimate interactions such as sex with them, a family member or a friend"


    which was then reported as follows by the linked Fortune article the author cites:


    "Nearly a quarter of men across eight countries—an aggregate that includes the U.S.—think it's acceptable for an employer to expect an employee to have sex with them..."

  • StackOfCoins||

    I figured it was something like this. Why is it so unacceptable to ask for sex? It's either that, or be a lecherous turd.

    Ask, get rejected, swallow shame shit on Stacy's desk.

  • JamesMay||

    So this is the actual question the study asked:


    "Nearly a quarter of men (23%) across eight countries think it's sometimes or always acceptable for an employer to ask or expect an employee to have intimate interactions such as sex with them, a family member or a friend"


    which was then reported as follows by the linked Fortune article the author cites:


    "Nearly a quarter of men across eight countries—an aggregate that includes the U.S.—think it's acceptable for an employer to expect an employee to have sex with them..."

  • MaleMatters||

    Good work and good call.

  • ||

    The survey stinks of the 1 in 5 rapes on campuses methodology.

  • ||

    "..Clearly, Stanley's choice of words could have been better—and whispering it across a room containing lots of other people was using poor judgment. But instead of losing his job, Stanley got some counseling and a reminder to be sensitive to his whole audience."

    Jesus. Choice of words? 'How's your sex life?'

    I'm so fricken happy I don't work in a corporate environment anymore. Bunch of kooks looking for trouble or sensitive morons ready to snitch on each other.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Bunch of kooks looking for trouble or sensitive morons ready to snitch on each other.

    Many of whom make up for it by being overly litigious assholes looking for a big payday.

  • Tony||

    The worst are the ones who seem to enjoy coming in to work. Are they sociopaths, or do they actually like it? Don't turn your back on those ones.

  • StackOfCoins||

    I interviewed both Stanley and Ruth. Although they worked in different departments they were friends and occasionally lunched together. Both reported that the last time they had lunch, Ruth had cried on Stanley's shoulder that she and her boyfriend had broken up.
    Stanley sounds like a cuck.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Yep. Stanley is the girl friend with a penis / emotional tampon.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Yep. Stanley is the girl friend with a penis / emotional tampon.

  • SIV||

    Some CEOs are also telling me that they are reluctant to continue hiring women, particularly in management positions.

    Good choice. I bet Yeti wishes they had thought of that.

  • Eidde||

    I know that there for a looong time there have been people in positions of authority misusing that authority for sexual reasons. Modern people didn't invent it.

    Perhaps this era is more enlightened as far as dealing with the perps is concerned, but I would like some evidence.

    On the one hand you have a bigger feminist movement today, but on the other hand there's been a lot of mockery and attack at the norms of chivalry which used to obtain.

    There may not have been an EEOC in the old unenlightened days, but there were still risks for being an exploitative boss.

    10 out of 12 Victorian-era jurors agree: If messing with a female employee gets you shot, you got what was coming to you.

  • gormadoc||

    I like these comments on that site:

    WHAMMO!
    You really believe we couldn't find Bin Laden? Lulz

    Bob
    You really believe we found him and/or killed him?

  • Eidde||

    I think we know who was making those posts in Joy Reid's name.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    When the first, last and only instinct of those "investigating" these issues is to fire all male employees whenever a female complains about anything how is limiting interaction with the opposite sex at work in any and all ways possible an overreaction?

    It's not like the situations listed are terrible (inappropriate sure) enough to require summary termination but that's what appears to be going on every time.

  • Oscarson44.||

    I agree it is not in anyway an overreaction and am amazed that the limiting of interactions comes as a surprise to anyone.

    And the effects are not trivial, there has been a noticeable drop off in the education of female medical students and residents because male physicians do not want something they say in high pressure situations (such resuscitating patients) to be taken as harassment. So now, none of the female students and residents feel uncomfortable, but they are missing out on important learning opportunities as well.

  • Marshal||

    "These are all parts of an inevitable backlash, as some men overcorrect their behavior out of fear."

    This is wrong as it implies only men who were acting inappropriately before are changing their behavior. All men are targets and therefore all rational men react to that risk.

  • Empress Trudy||

    Maybe it's time for some of these companies to simply offload all men and continue on with only female employees, only female vendors only female customers.

  • MaleMatters||

    Yes. After all, if employers can get away with paying women less, why not hire only women to increase profits and beat the competition?

    But I recommend:

    "In-depth: How We Waded Into The Sexual Harassment Quagmire -- Taking the Long, Hard Path Out: One Man's View" http://malemattersusa.wordpres.....-quagmire/

  • Nardz||

    So... nobody's going to comment on the author's obvious stripper name?

    Well, I'll not be the first to do so

  • John C. Randolph||

    Well, there's always the Saudi solution of simply banning women from the workplace.

    -jcr

  • MaleMatters||

    ArLyne, you may never view sexual harassment the same way again after reading:

    "In-depth: How We Waded Into The Sexual Harassment Quagmire -- Taking the Long, Hard Path Out: One Man's View" http://malemattersusa.wordpres.....-quagmire/

    Though you may view this commentary as rather shocking, it's probably the most thorough analysis you can find of what I think has for many decades been the sexes' most alienating and destructive behavioral difference.

    I believe this difference, supported by both sexes, results not only in most of the ordinary sexual harassment we hear of, but also in much of the sexual coercion of women.

    It also addresses the question no one has asked: Is there such a thing as toxic femininity, and if so, how does it play into sexual harassment?

    And what about toxic feminism?

  • Berserkerscientist||

    That CARE survey (1 in 4 men expect sex) seems pretty suspect. It is an online poll of 2000 people in the US.

    "This survey was conducted online by Harris Poll on behalf of CARE between January 19-31, 2018 among 9,408 global adults ages 18+ in Australia (n=1,004), Ecuador (n=1,034), Egypt (n=1,116), India (n=1,029), South Africa (n=1,165), the United Kingdom (1,004), the United States (n=2,035) and Vietnam (n=1,021). This online survey is not based on a probability sample and therefore ***no estimate of theoretical sampling error can be calculated***."

  • Cloudbuster||

    A recent survey conducted by the nonprofit CARE found that 1 in 4 men in the United States and seven other countries believe it is OK to expect sex from an employee.

    Oh, come on. This just blatantly doesn't pass the sniff test.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online